Two and a half margaritas past enough sense to know better…
- I miss Katherine. Even Josh Marshall was unable to raise that thrill I had at seeing a new post by Katherine R. Knowing she’d have researched the piece impeccably and still come out to support the values I’ve cherished my whole adult life, each time I saw a piece with her byline, I was warmly reassured that reason would prevail…that a haven, if not a nation, of sense and sensitivity was still possible within the madness.
- I stubbornly refused to acknowledge Gary Farber’s point about F911, even though if pressed to save my soul I would have agreed with him. Arguing for a context within to judge the movie doesn’t lessen his point that the left deserves a better argument.
- I wish someone other than Kerry were the Democratic nominee. Edwards, Dean, even Kucinich…actually Kucinich would be perfect. To scare the living bejesus out of the hard right by nominating someone so far left would have been worth it if there wasn’t a sliver of a chance the Dems could win back the White House.
- The idea of a holy war against Islam is retarded. I know folks think they can boil down the current mess of world events into a nice little package of Us Vs. Them, but only by ignoring the role the US and the rest of the western world has played in dividing up the Middle East and screwing the people there out of the best deal they could have had for the resources we’re smuggling out of there. The average Muslim is a lovely Mother or Father or Son or Daughter or Cousin or Brother or Sister or whatever, with no more ability to conquer the Christian world or plunge the world into darkness than a B-Movie super villian with a lisp and hairless arm pet. Really, folks…suck it up and stop looking for a scapegoat. It’s more complicated than that, regardless of how comforting you find it to reduce it to that.
- Gay people want equal treatment under the law. This shocks some people. How dare they? But to understand how simple and primal this is, all they need to do is imagine the reverse. You, as straight, are the minority, and the gay majority wants you to accept second-class citizenship. You’d be throwing up barricades and bombing police headquarters within a week. Give your gay fellow citizens a break. They really just want to buy a house, start a family, and retire with a nest egg that allows them to travel a bit and complete their collection of fine china replicas of Judy Garland and Shirley Temple. Your fear is unfounded. If you were as busy as you wish you were having straight sex, by the way, you’d have precious little time to give any thought at all to what your gay neighbors were doing. Sort that out before you pass an amendment chiseling descrimination into our most precious document.
I have more, but I”ll save it for the next time I’m way past sober enough that I should be posting here.
Apologies for any typos or overtly offensive sentiments.
In margaritas, veritas.
Fine post.
I don’t really see why any of those statements could possibly be seen as unreasonable in any light. It’s possible to disagree with some of them (Kucinich’s Left Wing? Please!) but the tenor of your post was not offensive in the least.
Gary Farber had a point: so did you. Gary was as stubbornly refusing to acknowledge your point as you were stubbornly refusing to acknowledge Gary’s – and Gary was (IMO) pursuing it well past the point at which two reasonable people ought to throw up their hands and agree to disagree.
I am heartsick over losing Katherine, and wish the rest of the ObWing collective could have kidnapped her and made her continue. But I guess that wouldn’t have been very moderate.
One doesn’t have to be very far into one’s cups to miss Katherine. Hell, I’m still shedding sober tears and this is the third time she’s left. But one has to be dipping from well into the barrel to prefer Kucinich. Nothing against the man or his politics, but I think Kerry-Edwards is one of the strongest tickets imaginable. The best way to scare the hard right is to run a winner and we are in the process of doing just that.
You’re fourth point is kind of touchy-feely and might drive the conversation in a nuanced direction. Since I’m not there to drink a toast to lovely average Muslim mothers I’ll have to discourage you from persuing this line of discussion since we’d lose our conservative friends.
My current defense of gays against the militant anti-gay (who happen to belong to all races and political persuasions) is to begin by insisting that I don’t want special rights for gays – I just expect that they have the same rights as the rest of us. It’s not a winning argument but it does tend to confuse them for a minute.
Huh. Everyone’s the same and basically decent.
You’d think New Yorkers, of all people, would know better.
I dip into this blog every now and then. Being British I can’t claim to understand much about American politics but it does seem that all the issues are very polarised and militant. You are either anti-this or pro-that.
This side of the pond, you get a fairly militant pro-gay lobby who seem to push their own agenda but I am always left wondering whether it is truly representative of gays, some of whom like me, just like to be left alone and can’t get terribly excited about it all. The homophobic crowd is quiet and manifests itself in the more evangelical wings of the Church of England. For the majority of the population of the UK, one feels gays are post-controversy. Legislation going through the UK parliament concerning same-sex relationships has the support of all the politcal parties – you get the odd voice of discontent but there is little fuss.
You Americans have your much heralded Constitution proclaiming equality under the law but it seems just to polarise your politics even further away from consensus. Perhaps it is too proscriptive? Here in the UK the principles of equality and freedom from discrimination have been enshrined in our law for decades without argument. Discrimination of the grounds of sexual orientation has been banned in the United Kingdom. It is not perfect, some of it goes too far and has become too politcally correct but it seems to serve us well.
As to the specifics of gay marriage and rights, I would make the following points:
[i] Why should it matter that gays want to make ‘married’ commitments to one another?
[ii] Why should they be prevented from doing so in the US while all other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?
[iii] What has done more to weaken the institution of marriage and social cohesion? Is it gays wanting to make a commitment to each other or heterosexual infidelity, divorce, single-parent families? Or is it the alcoholism, drugs, domestic violence, arguments about money that take place within marriages that destroy love and the cohesion of society?
[iv] Some argue that marriage is about children. Absolutely and children should be brought up by a father and a mother. But marriage is not always about children and permitting gay ‘marriage’ does not alter that.
[v] For those that argue that marriage is a religious act, here Mr Bush and I agree, you are still able to ask whether it is the duty of the state to impose a religious choice? I don’t think it is.
As I said before, I can’t get terribly excited about it but here in Britain I do not feel like a second-class citizen.
Authors and commentators: There are more important things in this world to worry about.
Retarded, Edward?
Tequila can do that to you, I know. Sometimes it strips off that urbane exterior and…makes you dance on the tables, if only verbally.
Now, to steer the thread off course, a bit:
The best margarita I’ve ever had was at: El Patio, in Las Cruces, NM. Probably it could have been made anywhere, but when you’ve spent the last couple of days on four hours sleep, sweating over a hot computer, the utter necessity of a good margarita or three pushes the El Patio concoction head and shoulders above the rest.
Huh. Everyone’s the same and basically decent.
You’d think New Yorkers, of all people, would know better.
Given how many New Yorkers protested the Iraq invasion, I’d say New Yorkers know well enough that even though we’re facing a serious enemy, a convenient dividing device like religion serves only the spin doctors and propagandists. I know you really really really want the US to adopt the stance that “Islam is the new Communism” Tac, because, well, we know how to fight a war like that, and so we could move the whole effort forward with pithy slogans and symbolic iconography and we can reach back centuries to dredge up justifications for killing untold numbers of innocents. The branding and marketing possibilities are breathtakingly endless.
Sure would be easier if Bush would just come out and say “La-a-a-a-adies and Gentlemen!!! It’s the Christians vs. the Muslims in a Fight to the Death!!!” Wouldn’t have to handicap ourselves by playing nicey nice with the Saud’s or even pretend we give a rat’s ass about the Palestinians (not that I’m accusing you of giving a rat’s ass about the Palestinians, mind you). We could simply bomb the hell of the Middle East and then, when all the people are dead, send in Halliburton to put out the burning oil wells, and divide the spoils among Exxon, BP, and Shell.
I know I’ve fast forwarded through all the parts where we’re giving adorable big-eyed children candy and spreading democracy via CIA-backed puppets, but I’m just a teensy bit hung over, so…
“Everybody’s the same and basically decent.”
I would except some sociopaths and pyschopaths from this characterization but after them, well, yes.
Oops. The good margarita place is La Posta, not El Patio. Both of them are in Mesilla, not Las Cruces.
Retarded, Edward?
Yeah, that was the bit I was apologizing for in the last line. Tequila has a way of making you feel younger…like you’re in the third-grade, apparently.
Which is one of its charms. Despite the occasional downside, and the even more occasional OD.
Edward, I can agree with your sentiments, apart from 3. The more I read about two-party politics the happier I am with our multiparty system. There seem to be *so many people* who would rather vote for someone els but feel forced by the two party system to support someone they do not hold in high regard. On both sides of the spectrum.
Brian: Isn’t it nice to be in the EU so that equal rights for gay military can be enforced ;^)?
Dutchmarbel,
#3 was not the best explained of the items, I agree.
I believe the Dems have a shot at reclaiming the White House, so I would not really prefer Kucinich. Even a multi-party system requires that a candidate be able to appeal to independent and undecided voters, so Kerry is a fine choice. It’s just that Edwards was my choice in the primaries because of the optimism he instills. The fact that some of that seems to be rubbing off on Kerry is heartening, though.
My point about Kucinich was really based on the idea that the GOP is trying to paint Kerry as that most awful of political creatures…the dreaded East-coast liberal. As if that means he’ll tax little old ladies into extreme poverty so he can realize his secret goal of funding more anti-American art or something.
If folks think Kerry is a Liberal (in the most scary sense of that term), I’d ask them to focus on Kucinich for just a while. Kerry looks positively hard right in comparison.
Here in the UK the principles of equality and freedom from discrimination have been enshrined in our law for decades without argument.
Well, not without argument, as I recall.
Discrimination of the grounds of sexual orientation has been banned in the United Kingdom.
Not for decades, though, Brian. Is it months, or does it add up to a year by now?
And how long is it since the UK Parliament repealed the infamous Section 28?
Given how many New Yorkers protested the Iraq invasion….
To say nothing of the New Yorkers who protested the Afghan invasion. (And let’s not pretend there weren’t significant numbers of those — I was there, and I know many of the culprits.) I’ll say this for NYC folks: you can slaughter ’em by the thousands, and they won’t give up their lethal idee fixes in the face of it. I guess we Southerners have more in common with them than we’d like to admit.
….a convenient dividing device like religion serves only the spin doctors and propagandists.
Religion is a “convenient dividing device”? Come now, Edward. As if religion and its attendant ideas and ideologies mean nothing. As if they don’t directly affect actions and attitudes. As if they don’t directly shape culture. As if religion means nothing. As if it’s a mere tool, value-neutral in itself.
Risible. False.
I know you really really really want the US to adopt the stance that “Islam is the new Communism” Tac, because, well, we know how to fight a war like that….
Funny you mention that. We have long experience confronting and defeating totalitarian ideologies. Noted that you fail to address whether or not Islam promotes or at the least abets such ideologies. But then, I wouldn’t in your shoes.
….we can reach back centuries to dredge up justifications for killing untold numbers of innocents.
Ah yes. Because “killing untold numbers of innocents” is what I want. Of course.
Anyway, no need to “reach back centuries” for casus belli against aggressive Islam, Edward. One only need reach back a few months. A few weeks. A few days.
Sure would be easier if Bush would just come out and say “La-a-a-a-adies and Gentlemen!!! It’s the Christians vs. the Muslims in a Fight to the Death!!!”
No need. Legions of Islamic leaders and their followers have done so already.
….not that I’m accusing you of giving a rat’s ass about the Palestinians, mind you….
Certainly not. You wouldn’t have the decency to do so.
We could simply bomb the hell of the Middle East and then, when all the people are dead, send in Halliburton to put out the burning oil wells, and divide the spoils among Exxon, BP, and Shell.
A pity, Edward. Between this incoherent hard-left raving and your moronic post on Reagan killing more gays than anyone in recorded history, you’ve apparently gone off the deep end.
….but I’m just a teensy bit hung over, so…
A wonderful excuse indeed.
A pity, Edward. Between this incoherent hard-left raving and your moronic post on Reagan killing more gays than anyone in recorded history, you’ve apparently gone off the deep end.
Ah, well, so it must seem to some. You, on the other hand, went for an easy out with this, and I don’t mind calling you on it.
In between all the ranting, as you well know, is a point. I’d appreciate your comments on it.
Is it necessary to rally the nation to the propagandist position that we’re in the final days of some ancient fight to the death, in order to defeat this new wave of terrorism. Defeating radical Islam and terrorism are certainly worthy of our efforts, but is the polarizing rhetoric the only option here? Are there not, at this point in history, more sophisticated tools at our disposal? Or are we really just the sort of binary fools this simplification of the overarching picture works so well on, let the collateral damage be damned?
In between all the ranting, as you well know, is a point. I’d appreciate your comments on it.
If you sincerely want a person’s constructive comments on something, accusing them of support for outright murder and genocide is a hell of a way to elicit that.
Is it necessary to rally the nation to the propagandist position that we’re in the final days of some ancient fight to the death….
First of all, I do not endorse any “final days” nonsense. Partly because I don’t know; partly because it utterly precludes a reconciliation between the liberal West and Islam (which, thought I think it’s almost certainly impossible, I don’t want to absolutely preclude); partly because that sort of rhetoric leads the pragmatic-minded directly to the obvious, efficient solution to the trouble — namely, genocide. That which you accuse me of endorsing.
Second, yeah, we are in an “ancient fight to the death.” The violence you see in Islam today is not some new development. It’s an intrinsic expression of the faith, and has been such since the time of the Prophet. It waxes and wanes according to historical moment, but it’s always there.
….is the polarizing rhetoric the only option here?
Try focusing less on whether the rhetoric is “polarizing,” and more on whether it’s accurate.
All RIGHT, then. I’ve had to pop into a Kinkos on my lunch hour to address how this thread is going, and if you think that I’m happy about that, think again. We are skirting the edge of “reasonably civil” here, and I’m frankly surprised at both Tac and fabius for it. Folks cool down, please; I know it’s Monday and people are grouchy, but let’s all practice our deep breathing, ‘kay?
Moe
but is the polarizing rhetoric the only option here?
Edward? Is that really you, decrying polarizing rhetoric?
Try focusing less on whether the rhetoric is “polarizing,” and more on whether it’s accurate.
You know I can’t allow the rhetoric to become polarizing. Even if I could, I would work for ways to avoid it, because it’s logical conclusion is the same genocide you and I both want to avoid, only you seem to refuse to see is it’s the unavoidable consequence of such rhetoric.
Focus on the possibility that Muslims and Christian can reach a compromise like the Reform Church and Catholic Church reached in the Swiss valleys of the Graubunden in the early 16th century. Sure, plenty of bloodshed was yet to be spilled in the name of religion, but when, finally, the two realized coexistence was possible, a precedent was set. Bush is right to insist that we can let the precedent be set here in the US. Muslims and Christians side by side, coexisting peacefully, with no need to declare Islam as the new Communism.
Edward? Is that really you, decrying polarizing rhetoric?
There’s history here Slarti. Polarizing rhetoric that logically leads to genocide is much more dangerous than any leading to this or that politician losing an election.
Tacitus recognizes the danger here, but feels we must proceed with this course anyway. I feel we have better options. Not easier ones, but certainly less dangerous ones.
I’ll accept some of the responsibility for Moe’s need to pop into Kinko’s though, and drop it for civility’s sake. It’s just that I’ve seen alarming calls for a holy war in darker corners of the blogosphere lately and the rhetoric needs knocked down a few pegs. I’m not talking about Tacitus’s site either, but he came to their defense, so he’s the one I’m arguing with.
Tacitus recognizes the danger here, but feels we must proceed with this course anyway.
Caution flag up for mind-reading. And I don’t think many Christians are calling for Holy War. Just sayin’…the Holy War cries mostly seem to be emanating from the ME.
Caution flag up for mind-reading.
No mind reading. Just reading.
The violence you see in Islam today is not some new development. It’s an intrinsic expression of the faith, and has been such since the time of the Prophet. It waxes and wanes according to historical moment, but it’s always there.
Conclusion? The violence won’t end, so the religion must. If you see any other conclusions, please let me know.
I see no conclusion, Edward. There are choices other than the one you claim is the only one possible. Surely you don’t need me to point them out to you.
Surely you don’t need me to point them out to you.
It might help me sleep better if you do, Slarti.
What are they?
You know I can’t allow the rhetoric to become polarizing.
If your significant other doesn’t himself endorse the traditional notions of jihad and dhimmi, what’s the problem? And if he does, well….that’s your personal decision, but it’s not something you of all people should be defending. You’d be up against the wall long before I would in an Islamic world. And not just because of my nice, full beard.
….it’s logical conclusion is the same genocide….
This is entirely false. Recognizing that the only acceptable option from your foe is unconditional surrender and massive social/ideological change didn’t doom American Southerners, Germans or Japanese to extinction. It need not for Muslims, either.
Focus on the possibility that Muslims and Christian can reach a compromise like the Reform Church and Catholic Church reached in the Swiss valleys of the Graubunden in the early 16th century.
That would be nice. Let me know when and if it seems even slightly foreseeable that Christians may enjoy the same freedoms in Muslim nations as Muslims do in Christian (or secular) nations.
I don’t mean to be flippant. It really would be nice. But you have to admit that the barrier to this outcome is neither Christianity nor the West nor people like me.
Bush is right to insist that we can let the precedent be set here in the US.
When Sheikh Yassin memorials in Brooklyn stop filling up, I’ll believe.
It’s just that I’ve seen alarming calls for a holy war in darker corners of the blogosphere lately….
After, apparently, ignoring it from most of the Islamic world for the past several years, eh? Come now.
If your significant other doesn’t himself endorse the traditional notions of jihad and dhimmi, what’s the problem?
The problem is people lumping him in with others who do. The problem is people insisting he can’t interpret jihad peacefully and still call himself Muslim just because others who call themselves Muslim don’t interpret it peacefully.
You’d be up against the wall long before I would in an Islamic world.
We were very warmly received in Turkey, even at a Turkish wedding, so I hold out hope for the rest of the Muslim world.
Recognizing that the only acceptable option from your foe is unconditional surrender and massive social/ideological change didn’t doom American Southerners, Germans or Japanese to extinction.
Bad examples. Choose a religious one.
Let me know when and if it seems even slightly foreseeable that Christians may enjoy the same freedoms in Muslim nations as Muslims do in Christian (or secular) nations.
Help Turkey enter the EU and your wish will come true.
After, apparently, ignoring it from most of the Islamic world for the past several years, eh? Come now.
Nonsense. I condemn it there as well.
The problem is people insisting he can’t interpret jihad peacefully and still call himself Muslim just because others who call themselves Muslim don’t interpret it peacefully.
My guess is that there are a lot more Muslims who insist that than non-Muslims. Unfortunately, he is, judging from your description, in a decided minority amongst his co-religionists worldwide.
We were very warmly received in Turkey, even at a Turkish wedding, so I hold out hope for the rest of the Muslim world.
Hope is a good thing, but it shouldn’t blind us to reality.
Bad examples. Choose a religious one.
I did: Japan. See the explicitly religious, Shinto-derived aspects of pre-1945 Japanese fanaticism. Here’s another: the Boers, who conceived of themselves as, literally, the latter-day Israelites (Calvinist Israelites, natch) forging a new Canaan amongst the Bantu. The British didn’t push their victory home, else we’d not have had apartheid, but they did secure a nice victory indeed in ’02.
Help Turkey enter the EU and your wish will come true.
Ha. Seriously, this is absurd. Are you really contending that the EU’s spurning of Turkey is preventing the Turks from eliminating the laws and practices of dhimmitude? (Which are very extant, mind you — my father has been there in his capacity as a Christian Orthodox priest and experienced it firsthand.) I suppose the problems in Palestine are what’s preventing free elections in Syria, too.
Really, the Turks can put their house in order any time they choose to. Blaming the Europeans is utterly inappropriate.
Nonsense. I condemn it there as well.
Equal vigor, equal time? No.
Not that they’re equal threats. The Islamic half is massively more dangerous.
Are you really contending that the EU’s spurning of Turkey is preventing the Turks from eliminating the laws and practices of dhimmitude?
Not at all. I’m contending a bit of motivation goes a long way. Turkey is systematically battling all sorts of nonacceptable behavior across the country to try and entice the other EU countries to accept them. It will take years. But it offers real hope.
When was your father last there? It’s changing radically even as we speak.
Really, the Turks can put their house in order any time they choose to.
And they are. My suggestion was simply one in which Americans could focus on something positive, not an accusation that blames the West for the lingering hman rights abuses in that ancient culture. Again, Bush does this very well (focus on the positive). I don’t understand why his example doesn’t do more to counter the fear in the US.
Equal vigor, equal time? No.
I’d be a mere echo of you then…what would be the point…you’ve clearly got that covered.
;p
I did: Japan. See the explicitly religious, Shinto-derived aspects of pre-1945 Japanese fanaticism.
Which Muslim state has declared war on the US then?
Tacitus: Huh. Everyone’s the same and basically decent.
You’d think New Yorkers, of all people, would know better.
As long as we are talking about folks in the aggregate, I’d agree with at least the first half of the original proposition. Prior to September 11, 2001, the worst act of terrorism carried out on U.S. soil had been perpetrated by radical Christians. Followers of Christ blew up a day care center as an expression of their hatred, Tacitus. To suggest that radical clerics and the likes of those 19 hijackers speak for Islam is as ridiculous as suggesting that someone like Timothy McVeigh speaks for Christianity. Until you are prepared to make war on religion itself (something I hope to avoid, personally), you’ve got no righteous ground on which to stand. For the moment, I might suggest contemplating the differences between “Islam” and “religious extremism”.
Oh, and Edward would be persona non grata in plenty of extremist Christian communities, or have you forgotten the realities of life in the south? Your apparent failure to recognize the pattern here is really disheartening. The road down which you are walking leads straight to another kind of religious extremism.
Turkey is systematically battling all sorts of nonacceptable behavior across the country to try and entice the other EU countries to accept them. It will take years.
I think you’re way too complimentary to the Turks in your rhetorical formulations. But let’s hope for the best and wait for it to happen before urging the EU to admit the nation that is, after all, a historic nemesis of Christian Europe. And yeah, that matters.
When was your father last there?
Last year.
Again, Bush does this very well (focus on the positive). I don’t understand why his example doesn’t do more to counter the fear in the US.
If you are mystified, I suggest lifting your eyes from the isolated positive examples and gazing upon the overwhelming field of mayhem, woe, and oppression that is the norm.
Which Muslim state has declared war on the US then?
Irrelevant on two counts: that wasn’t the example you were contesting, and it’s certainly enough that huge segments of Muslim society have indeed done so.
Irrelevant on two counts: that wasn’t the example you were contesting, and it’s certainly enough that huge segments of Muslim society have indeed done so.
Let me clarify then. You’re arguing that Muslims (assumedly all Muslims in all states because you haven’t clarified otherwise) must submit to “unconditional surrender and massive social/ideological change.” Because Muslims transcend states, your examples of the American South (which had formed the Confederacy at that point) and Japan and Germany are not good parallels. As individual states it was easier to define geopolitical boundaries and implement measures within them.
What would such an attempt look like stretched across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia? Really, other than apocalyptic chaos, what would that look like?
I’m asking for an example that accounts for the scope of the task you demand.
Gromit:
Followers of Christ blew up a day care center as an expression of their hatred, Tacitus.
I seem to recall that McVeigh was an atheist, but as I can’t find any cite for that now, let’s accept what you say at face value. (Although characterizing the entirely of the Murrah Federal Building as a “day care center” is really stretching things.) My response: so what? Were McVeigh’s actions considered just by many orthodox Christians? Were they specifically motivated by an understanding of Christian orthodoxy? Were they demonstrably derived from the commandments or doctrines of orthodox Christianity? Were they lauded by substantial numbers of Christians worldwide? Was he part of a movement with pan-Christian appeal around the world? Did Christian clerics in large numbers assert that there are instances in which terroristic truck-bombings are justified by God? Did he proclaim his belief in a divine reward for his actions? Did numbers of young Christians around the globe rush to follow in his footsteps?
The answer to all these questions is no.
To suggest that radical clerics and the likes of those 19 hijackers speak for Islam is as ridiculous as suggesting that someone like Timothy McVeigh speaks for Christianity.
Wrong. Substitute “Islam” for “Christianity” and “9/11 hijackers” for “McVeigh” in the questions above, and the answers are all yes.
For the moment, I might suggest contemplating the differences between “Islam” and “religious extremism”.
I might suggest a better understanding of Islam, and the place of the doctrines of jihad and dhimmi within it.
Oh, and Edward would be persona non grata in plenty of extremist Christian communities….
Quite true. Operative word there? Extremist. Contrast with Edward’s persona non grata status in, well, pretty much most Muslim communities on the planet. Especially if he was born Muslim himself. These aren’t extremists: they’re the Muslim mainstream.
The road down which you are walking leads straight to another kind of religious extremism.
Please. It’s appalling how evil is so ably abetted by those determined not to recognize it.
Edward, think about this: you’re not arguing that a thing is right or wrong any more. You’re just arguing that it’s too big to be done. Defeatist.
What would such an attempt look like stretched across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia? Really, other than apocalyptic chaos, what would that look like?
It would look like a sustained, uncompromising, generational effort. It would look like the Cold War. Why the quailing at the thought?
Monotheists are by definition not very tolerant IMHO, because they all claim that their variety is the one and only really worthy kind and they have the moral highground. In all religions you have fanatics and people who like the authority and structure of more fundamentalistic groups. Which religion they “defend’ depends on the whole on where they grow up; the person ranting against Islam now would be ranting just as much against christianity/western values if (s)he was born in the ME.
I grew up in Europe, which means that my attitude towards quite a number of things is different from the attitude of the average American. Communism was never perceived as such an overwhelming threat as in the US and socialism (aka ‘labour’) is just another political direction. Terrorism has been associated with politics, nationalism and christianity in the past decades and 9/11 does not suddenly change that for us. Adding nuance is considered a good thing, done by wise people, and speaking foreign languages is actually considered an asset 😉
We have learned that with violence everybody loses so it really should be a last choice – not an easy way out. And painting a specific group of people black, assigning negative attributes to them, is a wrong and dangerous thing to do.
Hitler was not elected on a campaignpromiss to exterminate the Jews: there was a gradual proces of painting people who were different as dangerous, as a big contrast to all the fine qualities of the group the majority belonged to. He did not just send Jews to death camps: he sent handicapped people, communists, homosexuals and gypsies too, after years of ‘dehumanisation’ of those groups. Be very very wary of the ‘they are all bad/worthless’ attitude.
Edward: at about the time I got banned from Tacitus’s blog, Tacitus was (with apparent seriousness) arguing that Muslims and Christians don’t worship the same God, because Allah is an idol. I doubt if you’re going to get anywhere, though I sincerely applaud the attempt.
It would look like a sustained, uncompromising, generational effort. It would look like the Cold War. Why the quailing at the thought?
The Cold War spelled the end of a relatively shortlived political system, not a centuries old religion. The comparison doesn’t work for me, sorry.
I don’t believe Islam needs to go the way of the USSR to resolve the threat of terrorism. I do believe political pressure/incentives on Muslim states to democratize their governments is needed. I do believe a resolution to the Israeli Palestinian problem is needed.
There were plenty of people living in the Soviet Union and its satelites who could remember a time before communism. There are no Muslims living who remember a time before Islam. Citizens of the USSR were happy to lose a relatively new system imposed on them. Muslims won’t let go of their religion with anything like the same ambivalence.
The parallel is not as strong as you suggest.
I believe you got banned for violating the posting rules, Jesurgislac. Violating them here, serially, would almost certainly get you banned as well. I can’t speak for Moe, but he’s been quite emphatic of late in this matter.
“It would look like a sustained, uncompromising, generational effort. It would look like the Cold War. Why the quailing at the thought?”
Are you suggesting that mass conversion away from Islam & its ceasing to exist as a religion should be the ultimate goal in the same way that the end of Communism was the ultimate goal of the Cold War? That’s what it sounds like, but perhaps you are only talking about more limited Islamic concepts like jihad and dhimmi.
If you are suggesting the goal is the end of Islam itself, I don’t think it’s a legitimate end AND even if I thought it was, I don’t think you could accomplish it except through heinous means AND even if I were willing to use those means I don’t think they would work. Edward and I can make all three of those arguments at the same time.
If that is your goal, what, specifically, do you have in mind? “Like the Cold War” doesn’t tell me much, as far as specific policies we would pursue.
How would it look like the Cold War? We’re not dealing with one superpower; to a large degree, we’re not dealing with states at all. You’re not going to have a mutual nuclear deterrent. They don’t have nuclear weapons yet; if and when suicidal non-state terrorists get them they will not be deterrable. I think it’s fair to say that Communism has to be imposed from above by an extremely repressive government, and people reject it given the choice. I don’t see Muslims rejecting their religion given the choice. Etc. etc.
Finally: I don’t think many people, or any in power in the West, have advocated genocide. The day may come, but it hasn’t yet. Bin Laden has; he has called for the murders of 4 million Americans including 1 million children, and there is far too much support for this goal in the Islamic world. The threats are not comparable; there’s no need to pretend they are.
But polarizing, dehumanizing rhetoric that falls far, far short of calls for genocide can be a bad idea. It can also contribute to real dangers to innocents like Edward’s partner. And I don’t see what it does to lessen the danger from terrorists.
It would look like a sustained, uncompromising, generational effort. It would look like the Cold War.
Tacitus, my question is, assuming we won this new war, what in your view would the end result look like? Would there be no more Muslims (i.e. all either dead or converted), or would there be no more militant, anti-West Muslims?
I believe you got banned for violating the posting rules, Jesurgislac.
You’ll never dent the sense of victimization. But, moving on….
The Cold War spelled the end of a relatively shortlived political system, not a centuries old religion.
Now hang on, here. Given that I have consistently maintained that it is specifically the doctrines of jihad and dhimmi that we need to smash, rather than Islam per se, one of two things is happening with you, here:
You’re misunderstanding me, or….
….you do not think the pernicious, violent and orthodox manifestations of those two doctrines are at all separable from Islam itself.
Now, that latter bit may well be true — that’s for Muslims to decide — but let’s not act as if it is quite yet, yes?
I don’t believe Islam needs to go the way of the USSR to resolve the threat of terrorism.
Islam as generally constituted absolutely does. And let’s not hide behind calling it “the threat of terrorism.” That’s a mere method — as if defeating Nazi Germany ended the threat of mechanized divisions, eh? It’s the threat of jihad that concerns us here.
Muslims won’t let go of their religion with anything like the same ambivalence.
Again, you retreat to the complaint that it’s so very difficult; ergo, we shouldn’t try.
There is no accomodation with those who want you and yours exterminated or reduced to helotry, Edward.
Jes,
As much as I appreciate your posting here (and I do, believe me, you were the topic of conversation at dinner the other night and all the feedback was good) I know the history of your banning at Tacitus, and it did seem to have more to do with a reluctance on your part to avoid calling him a bigot. At a certain point, such labels get in the way of understanding.
I support Tac’s right to believe Allah is an Idol, although I disagree. His religion teaches that, I suppose. Fine.
I know what you’re saying with regard to my not being able to get anywhere (it’s like Ground Hog’s Day, I swear), but I really didn’t expect Tacitus to pick up on this line in this thread…it was a challenge to someone else (someone I’m still waiting for) from another site.
Sparring with Tac, though, is a good warm up.
That’s not meant to be dismissive either. Really. Tac knows his stuff, it’s just he didn’t inspire this rant of mine.
Katherine, see my prior post above for an answer to your query.
As for Edward’s partner, the fact is that most effective thing he can do to safeguard him is to work for reform within the Muslim community itself. Social perceptions do not always arise in a vacuum.
I support Tac’s right to believe Allah is an Idol, although I disagree. His religion teaches that, I suppose. Fine.
My religion doesn’t teach that. 99% of the folks at my church would assert that Allah and the Christian God are one and the same.
‘Course, if they don’t, their kinfolk back in the old country get their throats cut. But we can credit them as sincere for the sake of argument.
I just don’t see the historical justification for asserting that Allah is anything but a pre-Islamic tribal deity grafted onto an appropriated notion of the Judeo-Christian god.
Edward, apologies for stirring the pot (in any case, Wilfred seems to have shifted the stir to the pot, I mean thread, about The Onion, I mean The Red State). I’d be happy to discuss the situation about Tacitus’s blog on my livejournal, which is why I posted the link to it.
It’s kind of disconcerting, though, to find that people are talking about me over dinner. Really. I feel like I should offer a recipe or buy a drink or something.
There is no accomodation with those who want you and yours exterminated or reduced to helotry, Edward.
You know, at first I thought you were talking about my partner here and I was pleasantly surprised. After re-reading though, I think you’re talking about you and yours, not me and mine.
There’s always that unstated conclusion hanging over your view on this Tacitus.
Muslims MUST abandon the doctrines of jihad and dhimmi. They are free to choose not to, but if they do not…
what?
Communism was never perceived as such an overwhelming threat as in the US . . .
Um. You did want our missiles and bases there to prevent the Red Army from ever sweeping back through the Eastern Bloc into your countries, no? I mean, my family lived in Germany for three years on just that premise.
Hitler was not elected on a campaignpromiss to exterminate the Jews:
As if he never wrote Mein Kampf.
I just don’t see the historical justification for asserting that Allah is anything but a pre-Islamic tribal deity grafted onto an appropriated notion of the Judeo-Christian god.
Wow.
You ever consider becoming a Rabbi?
Given that I have consistently maintained that it is specifically the doctrines of jihad and dhimmi that we need to smash, rather than Islam per se, one of two things is happening with you, here:
You’re misunderstanding me, or….
….you do not think the pernicious, violent and orthodox manifestations of those two doctrines are at all separable from Islam itself.
Hmm — the third option is that he read your earlier comment, where you said:
The violence you see in Islam today is not some new development. It’s an intrinsic expression of the faith
Maybe you and I have different definitions of the word “intrinsic”, but that statement (and many similar ones you’ve made at your site) leaves the impression you see Islam as inherently, irrevocably violent, and indeed you’ve admitted that you think that might be the case. If you think Islam is inherently broken in that way, then the natural conclusion is that you want to see Islam gone.
Oh, I’m aware that there are Jews who feel the Christian God is a similar false appropriation. That’s perfectly fine. They’re free to do so.
You know, at first I thought you were talking about my partner here and I was pleasantly surprised. After re-reading though, I think you’re talking about you and yours, not me and mine. There’s always that unstated conclusion hanging over your view on this Tacitus.
I am forced to admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Muslims MUST abandon the doctrines of jihad and dhimmi. They are free to choose not to, but if they do not…what?
War or containment.
Edward:
I don’t believe Islam needs to go the way of the USSR to resolve the threat of terrorism. I do believe political pressure/incentives on Muslim states to democratize their governments is needed. I do believe a resolution to the Israeli Palestinian problem is needed.
I sincerely hope you are right but I don’t honestly believe that it’s our (meaning the U. S. or the West’s) call. I believe that this is a call that belongs to Muslims. I’m not very optimistic right now. It looks to me from this great distance that it’s two steps backward for each step forward right now.
Katherine:
Finally: I don’t think many people, or any in power in the West, have advocated genocide. The day may come, but it hasn’t yet.
I for one believe we should be trying to avoid genocide as the tactic of choice. And I think that one of strongest arguments for decisive action now by the West is to avoid genocide later. What do you believe would be the appropriate response to the murder of a million Americans—as has been suggested is planned by al Qaeda in news reports today? It’s a question that must be confronted squarely and confronted now.
Slarti, I have to say that I’m usually not in favor of mixes, but Williams Sonoma makes a dang good one*. Its especially good after ballgames while the steaks grill (my apologies to the herbivores).
*Although the recipe seems to have reversed the proportions for mix and tequila. But then, don’t they all?
What do you believe would be the appropriate response to the murder of a million Americans—as has been suggested is planned by al Qaeda in news reports today?
Track down and kill Al Qaeda.
Stop projecting the valid reasons for such action onto pre-existing desires to invade other, unrelated countries.
Come down hard on Saudi Arabia’s monarchy (that might not be anywhere near as unpopluar as CW wisdom suggests it would, so long as it didn’t include US troops on holy ground). Come down harder on Pakistan.
These two countries help al Qaeda so much more than Iraq ever did…why the hell we’re pretending they’re our friends is a mystery.
The irony in the approach being advocated is folks are perfectly happy to declare war on a religion and by extension the mostly poor devout followers of that religion, but stop shy of aggrevating the two governments most in bed with the terrorist organization we are most directly threatened by.
Edward:
I like all of those suggestions. How?
Tacitus pointed out that he just don’t see the historical justification for asserting that Allah is anything but a pre-Islamic tribal deity grafted onto an appropriated notion of the Judeo-Christian god.
….no comment necessary.
Tacitus: I seem to recall that McVeigh was an atheist, but as I can’t find any cite for that now, let’s accept what you say at face value.
It has always been my understanding that he was strongly associated with the Christian Identity movement, who believe that a bloody battle must be waged (against non-whites and, presumably, the American government) to establish a Christian theocracy as preparation for the Second Coming, or something along those lines. Whether this was an important motivation to McVeigh, I don’t know for sure, but this would not have been a novel concept to him, and I have always assumed it played a role.
(Although characterizing the entirely of the Murrah Federal Building as a “day care center” is really stretching things.)
It sure would be if anyone made such a characterization. I’ll assume you quibble because you think I didn’t adequately encapsulate the horror of the act. You are right; I don’t think any words can adequately describe it.
Were they lauded by substantial numbers of Christians worldwide? Was he part of a movement with pan-Christian appeal around the world?
You can be sure that Christians were disproportionately represented among those who supported the attack, but these are fringe groups precisely because we have a highly secular government and a culture that is becoming increasingly tolerant as the years go on. Were North America a block of Christian theocracies, I suspect the situation would be quite different. Was there not widespread support for the atrocities committed by the church in years past, including the destruction of native cultures, the deaths of “heretics”, and the holy wars waged against Islamic nations? You’re a student of history: did the vast majority of mainstream Christians stand up against the inquisition or the crusades, or did they keep their mouths shut or even voice their support to avoid falling prey themselves? Was this behavior intrinsic to the Christian faith (which also calls on its followers to be “soldiers”)? Or was it a more generic sort of wickedness that found an outlet through the church?
Humans have a remarkable faculty for organizing themselves into the same patterns regardless of the ideologies they profess to serve. Islam is no different from any other major religion in this regard. Getting caught up too much in which religion is inferior only gets you mired down in the same muck as those you oppose.
Gromit: Oh, and Edward would be persona non grata in plenty of extremist Christian communities….
Tacitus: Quite true. Operative word there? Extremist. Contrast with Edward’s persona non grata status in, well, pretty much most Muslim communities on the planet. Especially if he was born Muslim himself. These aren’t extremists: they’re the Muslim mainstream.
This is, I’m afraid, a game of definitions. Does supporting the FMA make one an extremist? Does hounding gay teachers out of the public schools make one an extremist? Because many “mainstream” Christians do both. And many mainstream Christians don’t. Hmm, if even mainstream Christendom isn’t ideologically monolithic, what might that suggest about other religions?
Please. It’s appalling how evil is so ably abetted by those determined not to recognize it.
I’m also determined not to recognize the Harry Potter series as evil. I suppose I’m a lost cause.
Track down and kill Al Qaeda.
And when the attacks and jihad don’t stop when al Qaeda is stopped — what then? Because they won’t.
Come down hard on Saudi Arabia’s monarchy (that might not be anywhere near as unpopluar as CW wisdom suggests it would, so long as it didn’t include US troops on holy ground).
Good luck with that. By the way, you familiar with whole concept of dar al-Islam? Namely, the notion that all Muslim lands are sanctified ground?
The irony in the approach being advocated is folks are perfectly happy to declare war on a religion and by extension the mostly poor devout followers of that religion, but stop shy of aggrevating the two governments most in bed with the terrorist organization we are most directly threatened by.
I certainly am not.
Communism was never perceived as such an overwhelming threat as in the US . . .
I remember the demonstrations against those. This picture is 1981, Amsterdam; 400.000 people protesting against nuc.missiles. Of course there were heated debates, but quite a number of people appearantly did not perceive the threat as being so overwhelming. Hence my statement.
Hitler was not elected on a campaignpromiss to exterminate the Jews:
A perfect example. Have you ever read it? It does not say that all jews should be killed, it mainly focusses on the grandness of the white men and the dangers of racial degradation. Only real white germans should be citizens, only the healthy ones should get permission to procreate. Women exist mainly to breed more white men and can only become full citizens upon marriage. Jews should be “foreigners” and as such prevented from holding positions of power and if the economy demands it they should be thrown out of the country. Loads and loads of ‘us versus them’ and ‘we are the best’.
You can be sure that Christians were disproportionately represented among those who supported the attack
Who, exactly?
Gromit:
Whether [Christian Identity] was an important motivation to McVeigh, I don’t know for sure, but this would not have been a novel concept to him, and I have always assumed it played a role.
Okay. That’s fine. I’m not quite sure what your point here is, considering CI and its ilk are pretty clearly fringes, whereas the advocates of jihad and dhimmi are, within their religious milieu, not.
It sure would be if anyone made such a characterization.
Deeply, deeply disingenuous of you, Gromit.
….but these are fringe groups precisely because we have a highly secular government and a culture that is becoming increasingly tolerant as the years go on.
They’re also fringe groups because nothing intrinsic to orthodox Christianity supports such views. Can’t exactly dismiss that as irrelevant.
Were North America a block of Christian theocracies, I suspect the situation would be quite different.
Funny you mention that. On the whole, explicitly Christian political organizations these days are fairly humane, fairly tolerant, fairly socially conscious groups. The Christian Democrats of Europe being the prime example. The Christian leftists of the US (think Dorothy Day) being another. The Christian pro-democrats of east Asia (think Korean dissidents seeking refuge at Myongdong Cathedral; think Chinese Christians agitating for political liberalization) being another. The Christian social activists of Latin America (think Oscar Romero, think liberation theologists, think the Varela Project) being another. And yes, the Christian right of the American South being another. That last may surprise those more accustomed to knee-jerk demonization of that group; but the reality is that there’s a lot of charitable work, and a lot of social involvement going on in its various organizations.
So, I think your suspicion about imaginary Christian theocracies is hardly a reasonable or informed one. The general pattern is a positive one.
Was there not widespread support for the atrocities committed by the church in years past, including the destruction of native cultures, the deaths of “heretics”, and the holy wars waged against Islamic nations?
Look, please, to the role that Spanish clerics and the Roman Church played in protecting the Indians of Latin America (free clue: the Pope had to intervene to declare them fully human, so the Spaniards would not slaughter them all). Look to the role that Christian religious societies in Britain and the United States played in their respective abolition movements (clue no.2 — they drove that train). Look, in short, to examples that don’t conform to your prejudices, and you’ll find that a different picture emerges.
Oh, by the way: the “the holy wars waged against Islamic nations?” Defensive counterattacks. Lasting a few centuries. Mostly failures. Not manifestations of basic Christian doctrine in any sense. Contrast, please, with the Islamic assaults from the seventh century through today upon Poitiers, Constantinople, Vienna, New York.
Was this behavior intrinsic to the Christian faith (which also calls on its followers to be “soldiers”)?
Again, disingenuous. You assuredly know better. Christianity has a just war theory derived from Greek and modern thought on the subject. It has no holy war doctrine emanating from and sanctified by the very founder of the faith.
Again, contrast with the bellicosity of The Prophet.
Islam is no different from any other major religion in this regard.
False. It takes a willful foolishness indeed to refuse to recognize the essential differences in thought and culture between Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, et al. They are not simply the same creed with different proper nouns appended. Each represents a unique approach to life and afterlife, with differeing prescriptions, concepts, and commandments. Is there overlap? Sure. It does not follow that they are the same.
This is, I’m afraid, a game of definitions.
No, it’s a “game” of plain numbers.
I’m also determined not to recognize the Harry Potter series as evil.
Yeah, remember that Harry Potter book that slaughtered 3,000 in NYC that one morning? Remember those Harry Potter books that got together and beheaded some screaming innocent? Remember the Harry Potter book that poured gasoline over his sister and set her alight?
Fatuous.
Good luck with that. By the way, you familiar with whole concept of dar al-Islam? Namely, the notion that all Muslim lands are sanctified ground?
Um. I would suggest that this is not a universally-accepted definition of dar al-Islam.
ME
Communism was never perceived as such an overwhelming threat as in the US . . .
PHIL
Um. You did want our missiles and bases there to prevent the Red Army from ever sweeping back through the Eastern Bloc into your countries, no? I mean, my family lived in Germany for three years on just that premise.
ME NOW
I remember the demonstrations against those. This picture is 1981, Amsterdam; 400.000 people protesting against nuc.missiles. Of course there were heated debates, but quite a number of people appearantly did not perceive the threat as being so overwhelming. Hence my statement.
ME
Hitler was not elected on a campaignpromiss to exterminate the Jews:
PHIL
As if he never wrote Mein Kampf.
ME NOW
A perfect example. Have you ever read it? It does not say that all jews should be killed, it mainly focusses on the grandness of the white men and the dangers of racial degradation. Only real white germans should be citizens, only the healthy ones should get permission to procreate. Women exist mainly to breed more white men and can only become full citizens upon marriage. Jews should be “foreigners” and as such prevented from holding positions of power and if the economy demands it they should be thrown out of the country. Loads and loads of ‘us versus them’ and ‘we are the best’.
Some disjointed thoughts:
many of the commenters are guilty of parsing with a fine-tooth comb prior posts, in order to respond to single sentences instead of overarching themes. this may be a good debating strategy, but it’s lousy at persuading us lurkers.
Even though I’m a card-carrying member of the anti-invasion group, I’m still trying to understand both the substance (what are you trying to achieve) and the procedure (how are you trying to achieve it) of the pro-war group.
The substance is becoming more clear: that the Middle East become more tolerant of the West and Israel, and that Middle East governments be more representative.
But here’s my first question: how do the pro-war folks resolve the tension inherent in those goals? Except for the Iranian youth movement, which has been chafing under strict Islamic rule for long enough to want a revolution, virtually the rest of the ME is virulently anti-American. Overthrow the totalitarian governments of Syria, Egypt or especially Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic fundamentalists will step in.
Example 1: Turkey. It stepped close to the edge of civil war, and appears to be stepping back. Both the religious political groups and the military have moderated their messages.
Example 2: Algeria. Democratic elections were held recently. But the country paid a terrible price in a bloody, ruthless civil war.
What are the lessons to be drawn? Can the US assist ME countries in achieving velvet revolutions at all? There are two powerful factions to overcome: the governments in power, and the forces of radical Islam. Is there any role for US meddling in the affairs of these governments?
Process: It is possible for pro-West democracies to emerge from US occupation. (Japan/Germany/Italy/Confederate US). Other countries have not fared so well. (Lebanon, Viet Nam, Somalia, Haiti etc.)
2nd major question: what are the characteristics of US successes, both at home and in the occupied country?
3rd question: what are the characteristics of US failures?
It seems to me that the US saw Saddam as a cancer, that could be excised from the body politic leaving a healthy community behind. In retrospect, that view was naive; Saddam appears to have created a strong enough national identity that Iraqis see the war as one of occupation, not liberation.
So now that we are seen, fairly or not, as aggressors and occupiers, it seems that we’re hosed. Put it this way: if the US were invaded by the Chinese in 20 years from now to put an end to US meddling in the rest of the world, how long would each of you resist? I may loathe the current government, but I would never greet an occupier with flowers.
Remember that line from Star Wars? It went something like this: The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
As far as I can tell, successful occupations generally require mass slaughter (in japan, the slaughter took place before the occupation) and/or ethnic cleansing. Is this what we want to become?
The run-up to next January’s elections should be fascinating. Will the anti-US parties be allowed to run? Will the elections even be held? Will the various factions be able to form a coherent government?
Interesting times. Very interesting times.
cheers
Francis
fdl:
I’d love to answer your questions but since I’m not pro-war (best described as a skeptic) I’m not qualified.
Process: It is possible for pro-West democracies to emerge from US occupation. (Japan/Germany/Italy/Confederate US). Other countries have not fared so well. (Lebanon, Viet Nam, Somalia, Haiti etc.)
You should add the Phillipines and S. Korea to your list of US occupied-successes and remove the Confederacy. The Confederacy was part of the United States.
Also remove Lebanon and Somalia from the list of US occupied failures. We had troops stationed there but never by any stretch of the imagination occupied them.
The only time we occupied Haiti was after World War I and it could reasonably be termed a success.
My reaction is that success or failure had more to do with how dysfunctional the individual societies were when we went in than any other factors. Perhaps not propitious for Iraq.
Edward:
I like all of those suggestions. How?
That one seems straight forward enough, and I assume, as well as the resources allotted for it allow, we’re doing that. I am suspicious/annoyed about the reports that Bush is putting a bit of extra pressure on Pakistan to find some “high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November” though. This story didn’t get much traction though, so I suspect it’s mostly hearsay.
Tacitus argues that some other organization will spring up in its place and I suspect he’s right, but the longer AQ lasts, the bigger their myth becomes. What are we waiting for?
Given the current climate, I doubt even the Bush Adminstration would attempt to do this one again. Folks who feel they haven’t done it yet, I’ve heard your arguments. No disrespect, but I disagree.
I think this should involve all the nonmilitary resources at our disposal first. Schumer is becoming more vocal in criticizing the US-Saudi ties.
Others need to follow his lead. Turn up the heat. Make these stories front page news. Make a bigger deal of which Gas Stations are selling Saudi Oil, make it uncomfortable for anyone benefitting from these practices to benefit.
There’s a growing “Blaming the Saudi’s is racist” movement. Nip it in the bud. Repeat 10 times a day that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.
Make the monarchy sweat until they beg us to tone it down. Tell them the price for doing so is their taking more concrete steps to democratizing SA.
Here we pull no punches. I know the situation is more precarious because of Musharraf’s nukes, but the fact that he merely slapped Abdul Qadeer Khan on the wrists should have led to strong condemnation by Bush. I know we’re still relying on them to help us find bin Laden…but how long does that buy them wiggle room? Reportedly they’re getting cozy again with the reforming Taliban. At a certain point we cut off the fake friendship and put them on notice. Clean up your act or we’ll put the Bush Doctrine to good use.
Admittedly, I have no data to tell me how potentially disastrous threatening Pakistan might be, but, again, promoting some vague war on “Islam” while we play nicey-nice with real, known enemy states is maddening.
Tacitus: Deeply, deeply disingenuous of you, Gromit.
How so? The bomb was placed, if I recall correctly, right under the day care center of the Murrah building. How is it disingenuous to characterize that act as “blowing up a day care center”? Simply put, it was a monstrous thing to do.
They’re also fringe groups because nothing intrinsic to orthodox Christianity supports such views. Can’t exactly dismiss that as irrelevant.
A true statement, but slightly tautological, which diminishes its relevance. If I you were to remove the qualifier “orthodox” then I suspect the members of these groups would disagree with the assertion that their views are not intrinsic to the faith. Of course, if I know anything about Christianity they would be completely wrong, but this is a perfect illustration of how two sets of people who purport to follow the same faith have dramatically different interpretations of doctrine (one with violent consequences, one perfectly peaceful).
Funny you mention that. On the whole, explicitly Christian political organizations these days are fairly humane, fairly tolerant, fairly socially conscious groups.
Yes, “these days”. How has the intrinsic nature of Christianity changed since the times when this was not the case?
It takes a willful foolishness indeed to refuse to recognize the essential differences in thought and culture between Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, et al. They are not simply the same creed with different proper nouns appended.
Again, you are absolutely correct, which is why I would never express such a view. The view I did express was that human behavior is relatively consistent throughout history among the more widespread religions, regardless of the specifics of the creed. Power structures are, in my experience, much more potent determinants of human behavior than ideology, religious or otherwise.
Yeah, remember that Harry Potter book that slaughtered 3,000 in NYC that one morning? Remember those Harry Potter books that got together and beheaded some screaming innocent? Remember the Harry Potter book that poured gasoline over his sister and set her alight?
Are you simply saying the acts described above are evil? If that were your original thesis, we would not be having this conversation, because I agree entirely. Or are you saying mass murders, beheadings, and honor killings are the special domain of Islam? Which religions get blamed for the actions of a fraction of their adherents (in these cases behaviors that transcend cultures and go back to before the inception of Islam) and which get the benefit of the doubt?
Hmmm…I have to say this is the first time I’ve seen anyone suggest that McVeigh’s prime motivation for the OKC bombing was religious. Well, you learn something new every day.
Still, it’d be interesting to know which Christian groups applauded the bombing. Maybe I can learn two things today.
The view I did express was that human behavior is relatively consistent throughout history among the more widespread religions, regardless of the specifics of the creed. Power structures are, in my experience, much more potent determinants of human behavior than ideology, religious or otherwise.
You’re being naive if you don’t believe that the ideology or scripture in religion doesn’t influence what kinds of power structures exist. The bible doesn’t tell you how to conduct political matters; the Koran does. Jesus doesn’t tell you to conduct wars on his behalf; Mohammed does.
This isn’t irrelevant to the history of either religion, or to the present day. Making all religions equal makes your intellectual life easier, but it’s just a way to ignore complexities and differences.
Edward, I know you said you didn’t want me to mix in.
But there was a reason why I decided to accept being banned at Tacitus’s blog: because it seemed to me important to speak out for the truth – even if, as actually happened, Tacitus than censored what I’d said and deleted the link to the post in which I’d said it. Which is here.
Because, yes, sometimes it’s better to play along and make nice and not actually use the divisive word “bigot”. But sometimes, where the bigot is articulate, has an audience, and (as most bigots do) claiming that theire bigotry is actually just a well-thought-out recognition of the facts: at that point it seems to me to be morally irresponsible not to stand up and say “No, you’re a bigot” and walk out.
And, sometimes, it’s just easier to play the martyr than to win on the debate floor. I think you’ve plugged your POV amply, Jesurgislac.
Moe Lane says: “We are skirting the edge of “reasonably civil” here, and I’m frankly surprised at both Tac and fabius for it.” He apparantly sets the bar for civility fairly high since I assume that the bit of snark he objects to is my comment: “You’re fourth point is kind of touchy-feely and might drive the conversation in a nuanced direction. Since I’m not there to drink a toast to lovely average Muslim mothers I’ll have to discourage you from persuing this line of discussion since we’d lose our conservative friends.”
Now I thought it was some tame snark, especially as I claimed friendship for conservatives, perhaps something that’s not reciprocated. Be that as it may, I rarely make my affections conditional and prefer to look on the sunny side of life. But what makes my statement almost uncivil? Am I wrong to insinuate that conservatives have no affection for nuance?
Many conservatives how visit this site also inhabit Tacitus.org. A few taglines their provide some evidence for the insinuation.
Timmy uses the following as his tag as he was so impressed by alk’s wit: “The Left is looking for a nuance that does not exist in this particular war. -Wisdom by alk”
Sulla proclaims that: “Speak clearly, if you speak at all” or nuance is foolish double speak”
Ken White insist that: “Superior firepower beats nuance everytime.”
Now, insinuation and nuance likely share a root word. And one couldn’t hardly do snark without employing one or the other. Perhaps Moe’s objection to my snark is further demostration of the right’s war on nuance. But perhaps I’m wrong to try to generalize behaviors from this small dataset. Are there examples of leading conservatives that are loath to use nuance?
And according to Bob Woodward, George W. Bush “Doesn’t do nuance.” He will, in fact, refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it nuanced. A mythology of straight-shooting, never-wavering, gut-deciding leadership surrounds the man who has ended nuance in our time. Perhaps its for the best, I’m not making value judgements here. All’s I was doing is trying to disuade Edward from employing a method of debate that seems unappreciated by many here at OW.
Slartibartfast: Hmmm…I have to say this is the first time I’ve seen anyone suggest that McVeigh’s prime motivation for the OKC bombing was religious. Well, you learn something new every day.
No, it isn’t. Try rereading. His primary motivation was, as far as I know, retaliation for the deaths of the Branch Davidians. And for more information on hate groups (Christian and otherwise), might I refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center?
And, sometimes, it’s just easier to play the martyr than to win on the debate floor.
True. Tacitus opted out of winning on the debate floor by banning me: I don’t see that makes him a martyr, particularly, but I’m sure it could be spun that way.
“the fact is that most effective thing he can do to safeguard him is to work for reform within the Muslim community itself.”
Let’s leave the rights and wrongs out of it. As a practical matter this is false. A non-Muslim living in Soho, whose main tie to the Muslim community is a relationship strongly disapproved of by religious conservatives, has approximately as much chance of ending the threat of Islamist terrorism as Fred Korematsu did of ending the threat of imperial Japan.* Meanwhile, we have an administration that has wrongly detained, deported, and allowed the abuse of immigrant Muslims. (see my last post for the evidence.) It’s gotten somewhat less dangerous as we’ve gone longer without a terrorist attack, but I fully expect there to be another terrorist attack and I fully expect it to get worse again. A new administration, with a new attorney general, would pose less of a danger to innocent Muslims and immigrants, and this will probably be a close election. If it’s not, well, maybe Congress can regain its independence and sense of decency one of these days. Public opinion will matter.
Of course, the most effective means are probably impeccable immigration papers, and a cell phone with the number of a good lawyer.
“Social perceptions do not always arise in a vacuum.”
Cop out. The existence of guilty Muslims does not excuse avoidable abuses of innocent Muslims.
*Not saying that anything equivalent to the detention camps has gone on; it’s just the historical example of this kind of collective guilt with which I’m most familiar. The Palmer raids may be a closer parallel, but I don’t know much about them.
OT–well, actually it’s on-topic, when I look at the original post: Remember to write to your Congressman and Senators about the Federal Marriage Amendment today! An attempt to exclude a particular despised minority from the Fourteenth Amendment for political gain should not be taken lying down, even if it’s not likely to succeed.
If anyone supports it, well, God. I don’t really know what to say to that.
not that Edward lives in Soho. I was randomly picking an artsy NYC neighborhood.
Gromit:
How is it disingenuous to characterize that act as “blowing up a day care center”?
Come now. There was a day care center in the WTC, too. Going to use that characterization of that building as well? I repeat: disingenuous indeed.
If I you were to remove the qualifier “orthodox” then I suspect the members of these groups would disagree with the assertion that their views are not intrinsic to the faith.
No doubt. But irrelevant. There is such a thing as a broad orthodoxy within faiths, and it is definable. Even if you refuse to recognize this fact, you are still faced with the issue of what the preponderance of believers believe: and, let’s be quite clear, within Christianity they don’t believe in killing for God.
Yes, “these days”. How has the intrinsic nature of Christianity changed since the times when this was not the case?
Not much, really. Christianity has one evil flaw encoded within its holy texts: anti-Semitism. That has been faced down and rebuked pretty well by the Western churches (not so much so by the Eastern churches). Beyond that, though, you can’t really argue that the various crimes of Christians throughout history were expressions of the intrinsic faith.
The view I did express was that human behavior is relatively consistent throughout history among the more widespread religions, regardless of the specifics of the creed.
This view is false. Buddhists and Hindus never developed warlike, expansionist empires. Christians let most of their global empires go. Pace the fools of Hindutva, none of these three faiths proved inimical to social pluralism. Why, by contrast, did Islam produce warlike expansionism, a tenacious will to hold on to every inch of territory at all costs, and an extant system of religiously-based apartheid?
Beliefs and doctrines matter, and they do produce massively differing behaviors. It’s not all economic determinism and pure power dynamics.
Are you simply saying the acts described above are evil?
More like it’s silly to implicitly compare the “threat” of Harry Potter to the modern crimes of Islamists.
Or are you saying mass murders, beheadings, and honor killings are the special domain of Islam?
I hear the Unitarians are into beheadings.
I kid. Seriously, yeah, it’s mostly Muslims you get this stuff from these days. Pity, but true.
Which religions get blamed for the actions of a fraction of their adherents….
A fraction? I guess the majority who endorse the jihad and dhimmi technically constitute a “fraction.”
No, it isn’t.
Ok, if you say so. Am I lying, do you think?
And for more information on hate groups
No one’s said that hate groups don’t exist. Again, I’m still not seeing evidence of even fringe support for the OKC bombings.
Katherine:
A non-Muslim living in Soho, whose main tie to the Muslim community is a relationship strongly disapproved of by religious conservatives, has approximately as much chance of ending the threat of Islamist terrorism….
He doesn’t have to end the threat of Islamic terror. What he can do is support the work of those trying to get American Muslims to stop supporting it — and its apologists.
The existence of guilty Muslims does not excuse avoidable abuses of innocent Muslims.
No one is arguing that. I am arguing that one can’t bemoan that, as a Muslim, one is subjected to extra public scrutiny, while doing nothing whatsoever to address the legitimate sources of that scrutiny.
If anyone supports it, well, God. I don’t really know what to say to that.
Shocking, I know.
Actually we do live in Soho, Katherine…cliched as that may be.
Still, it’d be interesting to know which Christian groups applauded the bombing.
You and me both, S.
Tacitus opted out of winning on the debate floor by banning me
Again, not to speak for Tacitus, but I suspect you were banned for a) calling him a bigot, and b) supporting this accusation with a circular argument. And this latest routine, which boils down to “I know you are, but what am I?”, isn’t any more compelling than your livejournal entry.
But there was a reason why I decided to accept being banned at Tacitus’s blog….
Heh. That reason being: you had no choice, having totally blown it? Right.
Free clue, Jes: while you’re braying bigotbigotbigotbigot, there’s a discussion going on here. Join, perhaps. Or not, more likely. Just saying.
And this latest routine
Slarti, in any online argument, the loser is the one who has to resort to banning to “win”. Tacitus lost.
Heh. That reason being: you had no choice, having totally blown it? Right.
Tacitus, if you bothered to read my journal
before you erased the link to it and replaced my last post on your blog with your own words, you’d know that I recognised I did have a choice: to keep quiet about your anti-Muslim bigotry, arguing your opinions on Islam/Muslims as if you were basing them on thoughtful observation rather than on bigotry, or to stand up, say my piece, and walk out, letting you slam the door behind me. I chose to stand up and say my piece, aware of how you’d promised you would react to it. Your choice was to ban me or to honestly address your own bigotry. Apparently you’re still working on the assumption that you can’t be a bigot, because the negative opinions you hold about Islam are true.
*shrug*
I chose to stand up and say my piece….
And say it. And say it. And say it. And say it.
How noble.
Look, in the absence of you, say, refuting any of my critiques of Islam — you haven’t, and you can’t — forgive me if I don’t take you seriously. In any sense. A man who substitutes invective for argument, and maintains that an SS trooper is a “hero” merely for dying for his beliefs, is a poor excuse for an interlocutor. Or a moral actor, frankly.
Jesur/Tac – get a room. You know, a IM room.
Fabius – You’re right, and I apologize.
Before Moe steps in and does his kindergarten teacher bit, I bow out.
Jes, I don’t think it’s useful to rehash banning decisions at other sites.
Tac, I thought you said once that a constitutional amendment was “supremely unneccessary”? Perhaps I am mis-remembering. If you have changed your mind, why?
Here’s my prognostication about what will happen if the amendment does not pass:
1) The Supreme Court will uphold DOMA, or find it superfluous, as far as one state recognizing gay marriages in another state–the full faith and credit argument against it won’t succeed. (I don’t know much about the full faith and credit clause, but as I understand it the consensus is that this would be the correct decision.)
2) The Supreme Court will strike down DOMA as regards the federal government. (This is also the correct decision, in my view.)
3) The Supreme Court will reject the Equal Protection argument against state bans on gay marriage. (This is the wrong decision, in my view.)
4) Some liberal state supreme courts will follow Goodridge, and some liberal state legislatures will allow gay marriages or civil unions. Most states will not for a while.
5) Eventually, all or most states will, because there is a large generational divide on this issue. But it will take a long time and the courts will not move very far ahead of public opinion.
6) This will not threaten mine or any other straight person’s marriage in any way at all. It will improve life, a lot, for some very close friends of mine.
The prediction I’m least confident of on this list is #2. The prediction I’m most confident of is #6.
Jes, I don’t think it’s useful to rehash banning decisions at other sites.
Tac, I thought you said once that a constitutional amendment was “supremely unneccessary”? Perhaps I am mis-remembering. If you have changed your mind, why?
Here’s my prognostication about what will happen if the amendment does not pass:
1) The Supreme Court will uphold DOMA, or find it superfluous, as far as one state recognizing gay marriages in another state–the full faith and credit argument against it won’t succeed. (I don’t know much about the full faith and credit clause, but as I understand it the consensus is that this would be the correct decision.)
2) The Supreme Court will strike down DOMA as regards the federal government. (This is also the correct decision, in my view.)
3) The Supreme Court will reject the Equal Protection argument against state bans on gay marriage. (This is the wrong decision, in my view.)
4) Some liberal state supreme courts will follow Goodridge, and some liberal state legislatures will allow gay marriages or civil unions. Most states will not for a while.
5) Eventually, all or most states will, because there is a large generational divide on this issue. But it will take a long time and the courts will not move very far ahead of public opinion.
6) This will not threaten mine or any other straight person’s marriage in any way at all. It will improve life, a lot, for some very close friends of mine.
The prediction I’m least confident of on this list is #2. The prediction I’m most confident of is #6.
Moe should get a bigger whistle.
But the steel cage match amongst Edward, Jes, Fabius and Tac, simply put is an awful lot of the same old stuff.
Edward, I leave you with this one question, if you lived in an Islamic country how would you and your partner be treated (as compared to the US)?
Jesur/Tac – get a room. You know, a IM room.
Oh, finally I respond to the steady stream of calumnies, and this is what I get. Bah, Fabius.
….I bow out.
As usual.
Honestly, Katherine, it probably is unnecessary (I thought it was necessary from a full faith and credit standpoint, but it seems I may have been wrong). At this point, though, I’m so immensely tired of being derided as a “bigot” for supporting the principle behind it — namely, that marriage is an explicitly heterosexual institution — that I’m just going to support FMA out of pure irritation with those who oppose it.
Yeah, I know it won’t pass. But after watching the debate, I wouldn’t be sad if it did.
Tac, can you point me to evidence that the corrupted definition of the term jihad which is embraced by militants is also embraced by a majority of muslims worldwide? I would be suprised. I do, however, feel that things are going in that direction, in no small part due to the way the U.S. tends to use a hammer where a soldering iron would do (particularly in terms of rhetoric).
“It’s an intrinsic expression of the faith, and has been such since the time of the Prophet.”
I disagree. Even if it were an intrinsic expression of the faith, I think you would have to date that to some of the prophet’s later successors, rather than the prophet.
“I just don’t see the historical justification for asserting that Allah is anything but a pre-Islamic tribal deity grafted onto an appropriated notion of the Judeo-Christian god.”
And the Judeo-Christian god is not an appropriated notion?
One more comment that I feel compelled to make is that every major religion has, at some time or another, been interpreted in such a way as to give some minority a great measure of secular or political power. I concede the point that Islam is currently the world champion of corrupted textual interpretation to serve political ends, but it’s never been a one horse race and never will be.
(This last bit is slightly off topic.) To paraphrase some of the comments above, the world’s just not a black-and-white, for-us-or-agin’-us kind of place. Especially for those of us who are Americans. Why we of all nationalities can’t seem to grasp this is beyond me. People where I live sometimes ask me about “a typical American”. I can only respond that there is no such thing. Our leaders’ thinking should reflect this.
I don’t believe you really take positions on what Constitution should say based on pique. Anyway, they may be talking about Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Paul Weyrich, etc., not you. Those folks really are bigots.
Trivia: I got married the same day of the year that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. To see it asterisked, by people claiming to defend my marriage, at the expense of good friends who were at my wedding, just pisses the hell out of me. And I’m not even personally affected.
I don’t throw around “bigot”, since it’s not useful and not accurate for most FMA supporters; I don’t throw around “homophobe”, which is more often accurate (why do this, except fear?) but equally useless. But this is a personal issue, and it’s not surprising that emotions run high and manners get bad.
Edward, I leave you with this one question, if you lived in an Islamic country how would you and your partner be treated (as compared to the US)?
I’m sorry, Timmy. I know how hard straight folk work to treat me and my partner real kind and all, much much better than those mean ol’ Muslims would, almost human some would argue, but here I was thinking the standard in the US was “equal.”
I’ll fight for my rights, thank you. I don’t need anyone’s charity.
Yeah, I know it won’t pass. But after watching the debate, I wouldn’t be sad if it did.
And I’m sorry for you too Tacitus, that by fighting for my rights I’m so heavily taxing your patience.
You wouldn’t be sad if discrimination was written into the constitution? You don’t have much respect for the document then, I’d say.
I know both of you will take offense at these comments. I know both of you won’t feel you deserve this from me. I don’t think either of you have a good sense of just how humiliating having other people pontificate on the validity of your relationship is, as if you’re cattle, though.
Tac, can you point me to evidence that the corrupted definition of the term jihad which is embraced by militants is also embraced by a majority of muslims worldwide?
It’s not a “corrupted” definition. It is, rather, the historical and preponderant definition as established by the Prophet. Don’t take my word for it: scholars of Islam like Robert Spencer, Bernard Lewis, and Daniel Pipes have written on this at length. And if you don’t want to take their word for it, troll MEMRI and see how the terminology is used and understood.
And if even MEMRI doesn’t satisfy you, even Edward reports that his Muslim friends all understand jihad in that way.
People where I live sometimes ask me about “a typical American”. I can only respond that there is no such thing.
But there is. All Americans ought to have — and, I think, do have — at a minimum a belief in some form of classical liberalism and a reverence for the Constitution as the foundation for their beliefs.
Timmy–
I would be treated worse in a Muslim country too. Does this mean I shouldn’t complain if I was prohibited from driving only at night, or allowed to go to college but only certain schools, or allowed to work but only at discriminatory wages?
So would my husband. Does that mean he shouldn’t complain if he is merely discriminated against for being Jewish, with no danger to his life?
Of course it doesn’t. And you know that full well.
Edward, I took Timmy’s query as trying to draw forth from you an admission that maybe you’re pretty much dead wrong on your assessment of Islamic societies and their capacity for tolerance — not a comparative exercise.
And I’m sorry for you too Tacitus, that by fighting for my rights I’m so heavily taxing your patience.
It’s not a right you have, in my book. But it’s the mouth-breating invective that taxes my patience far more than your efforts.
You wouldn’t be sad if discrimination was written into the constitution? You don’t have much respect for the document then, I’d say.
Would you really? Who bore arms in its defense between the two of us? Thanks, Edward. (And please don’t riposte with the military’s gay policies — I’d give credit even if you wanted to. But let’s be honest, here.) In answer to your question, it would trouble me no more than “discriminitory” Constitutional age limits on officeholders.
I don’t think either of you have a good sense of just how humiliating having other people pontificate on the validity of your relationship is, as if you’re cattle, though.
Take that up with those pushing this issue into the public sphere. Sort of invites the “pontification,” I’d say.
Timmy–
I would be treated worse in a Muslim country, too. Exactly what does that have to do with anything?
There’s worse, as in losing some of your rights. And then there’s worse, as in being killed for being homosexual. I’m thinking neither of them is preferable, but one is maybe a little different in consequence than the other.
Who bore arms in its defense between the two of us? Thanks, Edward.
This mode of argument leads to no good, especially since gays aren’t allowed in the military and those that do dispite that seem to requite themselves quite well. Unless this is Battlefield Earth and we’re fighting the insect hordes then military service confers no special citizen rights except pride of service and gratefulness of the rest of us.
Would you really? Who bore arms in its defense between the two of us? Thanks, Edward. (And please don’t riposte with the military’s gay policies — I’d give credit even if you wanted to. But let’s be honest, here.)
Really? The only folks who get to claim they believe in the Constitution are those who volunteered to join the military? That’s the standard? You might want to tell the Vice President.
It’s not a right you have, in my book.
Funny, your ability to stop me is not a right you have in my book.
Take that up with those pushing this issue into the public sphere. Sort of invites the “pontification,” I’d say.
What does that mean exactly? If gay people want to change the laws, they should push the issue in private spheres?
On re-reading Tac post above I withdraw my previous post as military service is evidence of one’s devotion to the constitution (though certainly not sufficent proof).
Tac–I repeat, if the Constitution is sacred, you don’t base your view of what it should say based on how annoying you find the people arguing for or against its amendment. I have no doubt that you respect it in general, but I don’t think you’re showing it in this particular case.
You said something very eloquent once about how you shouldn’t trust people who use military service as a rhetorical club….
Age is a terrible parallel with sexual orientation. Everyone was once under 35, and everyone who stays alive will one day be over 35. Whereas heterosexuals need not fear becoming homosexual, and gay people cannot escape discrimination by becoming straight.
These are the court’s usual criteria for whether to subject a certain form of discrimination to more scrutiny:
1) the discrimination interferes with a fundamental right. (check)
2) the discrimination is against a “discrete and insular minority” so we cannot count on the political process as much as we normally would. (check. Much more true of sexual orientation than for gender, which does get heightened scrutiny.)
3) the discrimination is based on an immutable characteristic….(check. Not genetic, perhaps, but immutable. Less so than race and sex, but much more so than religion.)
4) or a characteristic that is so fundamental to one’s identity that one should not be forced to change it (well, this is where the controversy is, but in my book: check. The person you love, the person you spend your life with, is as fundamental to your identity as the God you pray to.)
5) there is, in fact, a history of wrongful discrimination against this group. (check).
On the fundamental right thing, I know the “marriage is a privilege, not a right” argument, but the Supreme Court explicitly rejected it in Loving v. Virginia.
I know this is bound up with the controversial “right to privacy”, but please don’t judge the right to privacy only on Roe v. Wade–you can believe in a right to make reproductive decisions without the government interfering, and also believe that there is a fundamental government interest in protection unborn life (or even potential life). The right to privacy, or to be more accurate, to bodily integrity and governmental non-interference in personal decisions about reproduction and marriage, is not just Roe and not even just Griswold v. Connecticut. It’s also Loving v. Virginia, and Skinner v. Oklahoma (which said that forced sterilization of the mentally retarded was unconstitutional.)
The only folks who get to claim they believe in the Constitution are those who volunteered to join the military?
You’re usually not this obtuse. I claim no such thing. I do claim that you’ve got no right to imply that I don’t believe in the Constitution. For the reason stated.
What does that mean exactly? If gay people want to change the laws, they should push the issue in private spheres?
Means you can’t whine about the reasonable consequences when you push it in the public sphere, Edward.
Katherine, your first postulate is wrong. Everyone presently has the right to marry. It’s the definition of marriage you take issue with.
You’re usually not this obtuse. I claim no such thing. I do claim that you’ve got no right to imply that I don’t believe in the Constitution. For the reason stated.
Had you left it at that, so would have I. And, actually, you did infer you were more entitled to claim you support the constitution than I am “Who bore arms in its defense between the two of us? ”
Means you can’t whine about the reasonable consequences when you push it in the public sphere, Edward.
Guess that all depends on your definition of “reasonable.”
Everyone presently has the right to marry. It’s the definition of marriage you take issue with.
So much for the sanctity meme.
“that I’m just going to support FMA out of pure irritation with those who oppose it.”
I’m assuming a certain amount of facetiousness here, but still I’ll take this opportunity to point out that I wish people would do this less. There are way too many liberals who vehemently oppose something just because conservatives want it (hello, vouchers) and way too many conservatives who base some or all of their ideology on the fact that many liberals are young, foolish kids and they don’t want to be associated with them. When ideology and principle are cultural affectations, we’re in bad shape.
Second, I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that the moral thing to do is not tolerate injustice and we (by which I mean Americans, liberals, and the West) ought not tolerate many elements of widespread Islamic society, including dhimmi, the treatment of women, the cruel and unusual punishment of criminals. We also ought not tolerate forced female circumcision. And a hundred other things. Yes, it’s culturally imperialist. But you don’t stand idly by while people are being destroyed on grounds of cultural sensitivity. We should be arguing about the methods, not the whether.
Good points, all Sidereal.
Edward:
And, actually, you did infer you were more entitled to claim you support the constitution than I am….
No, Edward. I’m quite clear on my inferences: I inferred that you had little right to question my support. Not that I support it more.
Guess that all depends on your definition of “reasonable.”
If group X is pushing premise Y (that being, in this case, that homosexual relationships may constitute “marriage”), then those opposing premise Y are well within the bounds of reason to question and critique it.
So much for the sanctity meme.
To which I respond: ?
“Katherine, your first postulate is wrong. Everyone presently has the right to marry. It’s the definition of marriage you take issue with.”
That argument could equally be made in Loving v. Virginia. Actually, it was made in Loving v. Virginia.
The right to marry doesn’t mean much if you can’t choose your partner. Hell, there’s a better chance of a white person in love with a black person (or vice versa) one day falling in love with someone of the same race, then there is of a gay person falling in love with a person of the same sex.
I am not saying that there is no way to distinguish interracial marriage from same sex marriage. On Fourteenth amendment grounds there is; that’s why I think the correct standard is intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny.
But it is….distressing, how the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage are trotted out without any embarrassment or attempt to actually distinguish it. Activist judges, “it’s always been this way”, and all the rest.
Why is it okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but not okay to discriminate based on race?
I sense the Neverending Thread in progress.
Tac, assuming you do oppose Premise Y, is it fair game to ask on what grounds? I’m still considering it, myself.
At the end of the paragraph 3–“same sex” should be “opposite sex”.
Is the discussion we are having about Islam, or Islamic societies? And then do we mean Islamic societies today, or in their various forms throughout history? Is the discussion about Islam generally, or about Islamism? Is it about Islam generally, or is it about radical, violent Islam? I see a lot of conflation going on (and I’m not suggesting I’m immune) and it really seems to lead to folks talking past one another.
And when we speak of Islamic societies, are the relatively pluralistic liberal democracies of North America and Europe then considered “Christian” societies by the same standard, or are they something else?
I’m also seeing a lot of instances of opponents’ arguments being paraphrased into more easily-rebuttable extremes. I don’t think this is intentional, but it does decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.
Thanks for the response, Tac, I’ll add them to my reading. I stand by the last three paragraphs, though.
Cheers, all. Have you seen the lovely kittens?
That argument could equally be made in Loving v. Virginia. Actually, it was made in Loving v. Virginia.
No. The court in that case implicitly accepted interracial marriages as marriages — they just asserted that the Commonwealth of Virginia wouldn’t recognize them. Heck, even the statute in question did the same.
On re-reading Tac post above I withdraw my previous post as military service is evidence of one’s devotion to the constitution . . .
Pffft. Do we need to bring up McVeigh yet again in this thread?
The court in that case implicitly accepted interracial marriages as marriages — they just asserted that the Commonwealth of Virginia wouldn’t recognize them.
I see the distinction but not the difference.
So the Loving court would have accepted the statute if it said that “marriage shall be defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race”?
No. That’s pure semantics. You could write any kind of discrimination into the law that started “marriage shall be defined as….” “Marriage shall be defined as the union of two Christians.” “Marriage shall be defined as the union of a blonde and a brunette.” “Marriage shall be defined as the union of a non-Gypsy man and a non-Gypsy women.”
The argument that the Loving court rejected, was that the law was okay because black people and white people were equally free to marry someone of the same race. You are arguing that the FMA
is okay because straight people and gay people are equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
You would not support the amendment unless you believed there is a substantive reason that discrimination based on sexual orientation is okay, though discrimination based on race is not. What is the reason?
“I sense the Neverending Thread in progress.”
Bastian’s Father: Your teacher said you were drawing horses in your mathbook.
Bastian: Unicorns. They were unicorns.
Bastian’s Father: What?
Bastian: Nothing.
I know I shouldn’t be jumping into a thread, especially after the topic has drifted from the intrinsic nature of Islam to gayness vis a vis the U.S. Constitution.
That said, I have a small bone to pick with you, Tac. You’re currently attempting to show that a Christendom which has by and large lost its faith is more liberal than a dar al Islam which has not. No one is disputing that.
What I would like to point out, though, is that, though there *is* something of a difference (probably crucial) between a faith whose founder was a more or less pacifistic street preacher and one whose founder was a warlord, you know very well that the accidents of Western Civ as constituted between the reign of Theodosius and the Peace of Westphalia were very, very similar to those in Islam. In both Theodosian to Westphalian Xianity, apostasy was, like in Islam, a capital crime, Jews were, like in Islam, second class citizens, and as for Muslims, well, the general solution to that problem was to make sure that there weren’t any living in (re-) conquered territories.
You are right that spreading of faith by conquest was much more rare in Christendom than the House of Islam (in fact, the only real examples in the former that come to mind are Charlemagne in Saxony, the Teutonic Knights in Prussia and perhaps St. Olaf in Norway). But as for the nature of society itself, well, regarding freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religions, and sexual freedom*, there is not a whole lot of daylight between Christendom and dar al Islam when the elites of that society believed in their respective faiths.
Catholicism didn’t come to a belief in liberal democracy until relatively recently, and Calvinism (again, until recently) believed in democracy only for the elect.
In spite of my few disagreements, I think that I still have to draw the conclusion that the current unpleasantness with the House of Islam will last until 1) the West embraces Islam or 2) Islam’s elites lose their faith as the Xian counterparts did close to two centuries before. As things stand now, option 1 is much more likely, which really is a shame, since I quite like beer and bacon.
—-
*And sexual freedom as we know it today is more a byproduct of vulcanized rubber and our ability to synthesize progesterone than anything happening in the realm of ideas. Societies in which man+woman=baby in generally will have much stronger forms of social discipline in place.
Edward, Fabius and Katherine, excellent job of trying to change the subject but thanks for pointing out the underlying intolerance of an Islamic society. Next time the topic is solely Islam I will be more than happy to point out the observation.
It is also good to see that Katherine has joined the steel cage match and someone gave her a chair. Oh my!
Carry on, as this has been one of the most amusing posts I’ve seen in while. It reminds me of some early Kos posts only the language and ideas are more demure. But Tac against the mob, always interesting and apparently Tac has recovered from his recent “blue” period.
But Tac against the mob, always interesting and apparently Tac has recovered from his recent “blue” period.
Apparently, it’s his redstate meat diet.
Tac’s talented enough that he doesn’t have to work blue.
Buddhists and Hindus never developed warlike, expansionist empires.
But not for lack of trying. Look to 7th century (?) Tibet (Sron-btsan-sampo, if memory serves, which I don’t think it does) and the various Buddhist kingdoms of Southeast Asia (see the Burmo-Thai border, the sack of Ayutthaya, the expansion of Myanma, Boddhopaya, &c) for example of warlike Buddhist expansionists. There are plenty of examples of warlike Hindu expansionism on the subcontinent and in parts of SE Asia, too, although Hinduism is such an astonishingly old religion its conquests are mostly considered ancient or even prehistorical.
[One can also include some of the Chinese dynasties as Buddhist, not to mention the various Shinto/Zen hybrids of Japan and Korea, thus jacking up the “warlike expansionist” quotient a bit further. It depends on exactly how flexible one’s definition of “Buddhist” is, though, which isn’t really my speciality.]
In other words, it seems as if you’re confusing a lack of successful warlike expansionism with an absence of the desire for (and attempts at) warlike expansionism. That’s problematic, as the crux of your argument rests on the latter and not the former.
PS: Can’t remember offhand, but what religion was Sriravajaya (again, from memory) in Indonesia? I seem to recall it being some kind of Buddhist hybrid too…
Christians let most of their global empires go.
That strikes me as a tactful way of saying that the vast majority of the Christian empires went into varying forms of revolt and the motherland decided that outright warfare wasn’t worth it — or, having engaged in outright warfare, found the costs greater than the rewards. The implicit altruism of your formulation is markedly disingenuous in the present context.
Well, I hesitate to jump in, especially because I have limited knowledge, but I’m not sure I’d consider dhimmi and jihad as necessarily being synonymous with or requiring Islamic extremism (perhaps, more precisely I should say that I don’t understand the elimination of dhimmi and jihad as being necessary to peaceful coexistence with Islamic people or states, although obviously there are certain conceptions of jihad that are not compatible with peaceful coexistence). I’m pretty sure I’d rather be a dhimmi in Medieval Spain than a Jew in Medieval England (well, at least during the time when Jews were still being slaughtered in England, rather than simply being banished). Religious doctrines can be remarkably flexible which suggests to me they tend to reflect problems more than create them.
I’m also pretty sure I wouldn’t go to MEMRI as my primary source on Islam. Abu Aardvark has a nice explanation of how the problem with MEMRI isn’t their technical translation, it’s with their selective translation– something like if an Arab tried to learn about US politics by reading translations of only right wing evangelicals.
Quick addendum: The kingdom of Srivijaya on more-or-less Indonesia was indeed a Hindu-Buddhist empire (Hindu earlier, Buddhist later, ultimately converting to Islam under the aegis of Aceh) that lasted about five hundred years. You can also include the Khmer, the Mon and a bunch of other SE Asia kingdoms in the warlike Buddhist expansionists.
“PS: Can’t remember offhand, but what religion was Sriravajaya (again, from memory) in Indonesia?”
Srivijaya. More or less a Buddhist culture, but who knows about the leadership.
Hindus were excessively expansionist and warlike in an ancient time when the word ‘Hindu’ didn’t exist and what we (incorrectly) perceive as one religion today was a hundred different branches of Aryan Vedic religion.
I think the point is stronger if you talk about people who conquer in the name of some religion rather than people who conquer and happen to be of some religion. There’re no significant historical examples of people using conquest to ‘spread Buddhism’ or ‘spread Hinduism’ or terms equivalent to ‘Christendom’ or ‘Dar al Islam/Dar al Harb’. And as Tacitus points out, the idea of spreading Christendom by the sword is far out of favor. So I think it’s safe to say that Islam is unique in today’s world as a religion that has a large and active segment interested in spreading its precepts and judgements to other people by force.
On the gripping hand, what we’re really talking about here is culture, not religion. One religion can flourish into a hundred different cultures depending on the soil it’s growing in, and focusing on the religion is inefficient and probably doomed to failure. If the predominant mode of Islam was non-expansionist, non-governmental, non-sharia, non-dhimma, no one would have any substantive complaints against Islam.
was a hundred different branches of Aryan Vedic religion
Pesky Aryans.
How they managed to migrate to northern Idaho I’ll never understand.
Having these two conversations at once is confusing. But discussions beginning after 2.5 margaritas were ever thus….
Did I scare Tac off with my inadvertant but embarrassingly accurate impression of my criminal law professor? Or is he, you know, working?
Having these two conversations at once is confusing. But discussions beginning after 2.5 margaritas were ever thus….
An experiment not to be repeated lightly I’ve discovered…
BTW Edward:
Props for the above, it shouldn’t go without saying.
Props for the above, it shouldn’t go without saying.
It’s been one hellish day, Slarti…brain is mush, could you spell that out?
In particular, what does “props” mean exactly? I see it everywhere, but it signifies physical objects on a set or stage to my mind.
IOW, what does “props” mean exactly I see it everywhere, but it signifies physical objects on a set or stage to my mind.
It means respect or kudos. Short for “proper respect”, I believe. (And boy do I feel like I should be talking in a pinched nasal voice when I type that.)
Ah…thanks Josh.
and thanks Slarti.
Two and a half margaritas past enough sense to know better
Edward, I was just wondering how you are going to survive, the gathering at the end of October?
Edward, I was just wondering how you are going to survive, the gathering at the end of October?
I figure, after you’ve bought my fifth whiskey of the evening, we’ll stumble in an internet cafe and I’ll start the mother of all contentious posts by revealing that I’m actually Barbara Streisand.
by revealing that I’m actually Barbara Streisand
You bitch! You’ve been holding out on us!
You bitch! You’ve been holding out on us!
What? You were expecting front row tickets to my concert?
It’s spelled Barbra….
It’s spelled Barbra….
It is?
Oops.
Actually it occured to me that had I actually been Barbra Streisand, Timmy would have probably had some clue to the fact before the fifth whiskey.
“Probably,” I note… ;p
“Misty watercolored memories of the way we were,” Edward? Interesting. Do you know the leading manufacturer of watercolors in America, and what their campaign contributions were in the last four election cycles?
Do you know the leading manufacturer of watercolors in America, and what their campaign contributions were in the last four election cycles?
Hmmm…good question for the Jeopardy thread, too.
I don’t actually.
(that was my first and last attempt to channel Timmy…)
I was wondering how many margaritas is “2 1/2 past enough sense to know better,” and now I’m trying to extrapolate back from 5 whiskeys = Barbra Streisand….
Actually it occured to me that had I actually been Barbra Streisand
I would have just asked you to sing “Memories” and then everyone in the bar across the street would have known, who you were not. 🙂
Katherine, before you try to channel the Wonder Dog again, a liter of good Irish after the Sox have lost to the Yankees in the playoffs or the Sox have won the World Series, in either case Timmy will have strong vibes (the Irish is necessary to match channels). 🙂
Hmmm. Seeing as how I probably would be dead after a liter of the Irish, I’d better not try.
Edward! You’re Barbra? Coooooooooooool.
*helpfully* There’s always the 12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married.
But really, once Merriam-Webster have acknowledged that the dictionary definition of marriage includes same-sex couples, opponents of same-sex marriage have lost already: it’s like trying to argue the word gay back into the closet.
One of my favorite moments from February this year:
“Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just…”
People who try to oppose the cause of liberty and justice for all in the US do, usually, lose. Eventually.
They did the same at the Massachusetts state house, which is the reason I now know the second and third verses to all those songs.
The Star Spangled Banner gets prettier,
then more bloodthirsty,
then prettier again:
This Land is Your Land gets more socialist:
But the one I was really surprised by was My Country Tis of Thee, which I’d always associated with elementary school concerts and general lameness until I learned the third verse:
I thought that the triumphant last verse of the Star-Spangled Banner was especially appropriate for that occasion:
Sometimes you get to see what those words mean when you really mean them. “Liberty and justice for all” is a phrase that a million schoolchildren scramble over every day. But meant sincerely, it means: You don’t lock up Muslim immigrants and export them for torture. You don’t forbid couples from getting married because some people don’t like the idea – whether because they’re of different races or of the same sex. From blood to bread, it means what it says it means, and when the US lives up to that ideal, the US is a splendid nation.
I have to step in between Tacitus and Edward to speak on the truly important issue, the one with real emotion involved, and history behind it.
Quite outrageous, and I demand immediate retractions of this flummery. You are both misusing “infer” when you mean “imply.”
Five lashes to each.
As for fabius… if he was not in fact intending to suggest from
“You’re fourth point is kind of touchy-feely and might drive the conversation in a nuanced direction. Since I’m not there to drink a toast to lovely average Muslim mothers I’ll have to discourage you from persuing this line of discussion since we’d lose our conservative friends.”
…the position that conservatives here would refuse to abandon the argument that we were in a general holy war against Islam (an argument that I have explicitly rejected myself) then I will again offer apologies for the legitimate misunderstanding.
Moe
PS: I think that covers it, except of course for dutchmarbel’s explanation about why I as a monotheist of course shouldn’t take exception to those of my persuasion being called ‘not very tolerant’. I am breathless with anticipation. 🙂
Quite outrageous, and I demand immediate retractions of this flummery. You are both misusing “infer” when you mean “imply.”
Actually, “infer” was the only word I got right in that sentence. All the other ones were wrong. 😉
I would have just asked you to sing “Memories” and then everyone in the bar across the street would have known, who you were not.
And all this time I thought it was…oh, never mind. Probably just wishful thinking on my part.
You‘re fourth point is kind of touchy-feely
AAAGH! Misplaced apostrophe. It burns, it burns!
*following Gary Farber’s good example, but without the love of whipping*
Moe said PS: I think that covers it, except of course for dutchmarbel’s explanation about why I as a monotheist of course shouldn’t take exception to those of my persuasion being called ‘not very tolerant’. I am breathless with anticipation. 🙂
I thought the explanation was in the sentence “Monotheists are by definition not very tolerant IMHO, because they all claim that their variety is the one and only really worthy kind and they have the moral highground.” and right after I mentioned that every faith had fanatics and those of less fanatical inclination.
I have very tolerant religious monotheistic friends so if you read the above as if it said that monotheism and tolerance are mutually exclusive I phrased it wrongly. (please Gary, I apologize, no whipping ;-))
I ment to say that monotheism in principle believes that their belief is the only true one and thus in principle cannot hold other believes as equally valid. Even between factions some have a hard time tolerating the other factions belief (we had an issue when our protestant crownprince wanted to marry a catholic girl, and we recently had some protestant factions merge which was a hard and difficult proces).
I read a very interesting Dutch lecture about some research in the Netherlands. The short summary is that some people are more inclined to have an authoritarian, dogmatic, personality and they will prefer the most fundamentalistic interpretation of their ‘cultural ideology’. They can thus be found in the orthodox factions (the lecturer includes the believe that everything should be scientifically explainable in there ;-)) – not because the orthodox faction creates them but because their psychological profile leads them to following the most orthodox group – and they are the least tolerant group too.
I hope this clarifies – but it is hard to get the necessary nuances through even in ones mothertongue.
I was only teasing, dutchmarbel.
Moe
PS: Interesting whipping meme running through the comments section these days (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course). [Insert baroque joke using the term ‘vanilla’ here] 🙂
Well, if the joke ain’t baroque, don’t fix it, Moe. :>
I ment to say that monotheism in principle believes that their belief is the only true one
I’m at a loss to see how this sets monotheism (not that monotheisms have much in common, outside of the one-God notion) apart from other religions in general.
As for fabius… if he was not in fact intending to suggest from
Moe, my argument may have been too nuanced. I was claiming conservatives would object to nuance rather than lovely normal Muslim mothers. And thusly, I lost you.
As long as you weren’t trying to be deliberately insulting, fabius, nuance away. 🙂
Jesurgislac – one of the risks of commenting online is the possible, nay inevitable, commision of a semantical or grammarical errors that displays one’s naked faults all around the globe. It’s particularly gratifying to have those errors mocked, paraded, pointed to and highlighted. This is not a complaint. Your doing god’s own work by pointing out one of the difficulties in my misuse of you’re. It’s just that this particular error happened yesterday, on the fifth post of this thread, and I thought that I had escaped censor. Darn you’re vigilance, Jesur. Darn you!*
*All curses are meant in the very best way. Imagine smiley emoticons throughout.
commision of a semantical or grammarical errors
Oops, doen’t agree in number.
doen’t = doesn’t
Oops.
Fixing all the typos is going to involve, apparently, an endless string of posts noting the typos, then apologizing for the typos in the corrections, then having someone point out a few that you’ve missed, etc. Consider your point made.
grammarical?
See?
I know the distinction between infer and imply. I did not know that flummery was a word.
As to the FMA, from the Senate debate:
“There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level.”–Wayne Allard.
“Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing — that’s what we hear.”–Rick Santorum, describing the arguments of FMA opponents.
“[Santorum] said the amendment was needed to ‘stop what I believe is the death knell of our society.’ “–Washington Post.
You know, I really prefer Dick Cheney’s approach.
I can’t imagine why they don’t want these guys speaking to the convention a few blocks from Chelsea.
Nothing to do with grammar, but simply with fact: the first statement isn’t true. Belief in one god/many gods and degrees of tolerance are, yes, orthogonal concepts.
You can, and many people do, believe in one god, and grant total credit to other religions and belief systems as worthy of equal respect, or you can be a fanatic Shintoist, animist, or Hindu, believing that your understanding of your gods is the only possible correct interpretation, and that blasphemers should be killed.
Simple fact, as witness Unitarians or Quakers versus Japanese fanatics who have killed offenders with swords (or were kamikazis), and the hundreds of thousands of Hindus in the past sixty years who have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Moslems.
The second statement, the reformulation, is defensible, to be sure, but far less relevant than the issue of how tolerant practioners of whatever belief system, monotheistic, polytheistic, or otherwise, are.
I live to enlighten:
“There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level.”–Wayne Allard.
I can’t bring myself to listen to this debate. I’d be making a permanent shit list if I did, and I like to think that the mixture of partisan goals and frustration that normally comes with change is leading our “leaders” to overstep the boundaries of good taste and good sense as they deal with this, but that in calmer days to come they’ll regret the flammatory rhetoric and will see they have so much more in common with gay Americans than they must currently think they do.
You’re a better man than I.
I do think they’ll regret it, but only because they cannot possibly realize how bad it sounds to talk about a minority’s secret “master plan” to destroy your family.
they cannot possibly realize how bad it sounds to talk about a minority’s secret “master plan” to destroy your family.
I agree, but what really makes my German/Irish blood boil is the implication (Gary???) that my family is somehow less than theirs.
Those are most definitely fighting words.
Forcing my German/Irish blood to settle down a bit, though, I do think the pro-ban contingent is on the wrong side of history. Unless the gay population disappeared, the demand is not going anywhere, so the idea that passing FMA would settle the matter is fantasy. It would be a stop-gap, buying more time, but to distant generations would seem beyond cruel and ignorant.
Correctomundo usage.
Simple guide: “Inferring” is deducing what someone means. Inferring is to look at what someone says, and come to a conclusion of your own about it.
“Implying” is to state something indirectly.
You can infer what someone else has implied, which is what you did above, Edward. But the idea that “my family is somehow less than theirs” is something you inferred, and they implied, but not something they therefore inferred (though, as a separate act, they may think they have inferred it from somewhere else unstated).
Clear as mud?
Next up in Gary’s Lessons In Usage: using more than a single punctuation mark remains incorrect, and does not lend emphasis.
On the topic at hand, I’m pleased and slightly comforted that the vote today will be such a hopeless loss for the DOMA side. To quote Nelson Muntz: ha-HAA!
“overstep the boundaries of good taste and good sense”
It goes way beyond questionable taste and sense (though it is also that). Those are just issues of style and timing. What it really is is deliberately fabricating facts in order to manipulate emotions to get a desired result. Back on the ranch we call that lying.
On reflection, there is an alternative to their being liars which is that they actually believe what they’re saying, which would make them not dissemblers but insane.
using more than a single punctuation mark remains incorrect, and does not lend emphasis.
Are? you? Sure? about? That???
not even comic emphasis?
“Next up in Gary’s Lessons In Usage: using more than a single punctuation mark remains incorrect, and does not lend emphasis.”
Now you’ve dipped too far into proscription. Whether it lends emphasis is an empirical question, and empirically it does indeed lend emphasis, at least for some people!!
I like the exclamation point in parentheses to denote absurdity, though I am militantly anti-exclamation point in general. E.g.,
“You can say I’ma hater,” said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a leading proponent of the amendment. “But I would argue I’m a lover.”(!)
“I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance,” said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. “Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?” (!!!)
I also sometimes do the exclamation point within question marks, e.g.,
why the hell is this guy the third ranking Republican in the Senate?!?
But I’m not proud of it.
They didn’t even get a majority–48 yea, 50 nay, with Kerry and Edwards the two non-voters. (They would have voted on the amendment itself but not on the procedural measure.) Insert your Nelson Muntz impression here.
That’s more along the lines of chess notation, Katherine.
I’m very glad for the decision today, yet there is a dark cloud to this silver lining. From CBS/AP (via Josh Marshall) comes this quote from Sen. Tom Daschle., explaining why the FMA is unnecessary:
“Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It’s what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It’s what I believe.”
This might sound like something that would come from an arch-conservative, but when are Democrats like Daschle going to start looking past opinion polls and start leading? America needs to be sold on the rightness of equal rights for all, not to be told, in essence, “don’t worry, our current laws are sufficient to maintain inequality.” Is stealth politics really the only way to advance justice?
On the topic at hand, I’m pleased and slightly comforted that the vote today will be such a hopeless loss for the DOMA side. To quote Nelson Muntz: ha-HAA!
Speaking of usage nitpickery, Nelson’s signature epithet is actually accented, insofar as it’s accented and not spondaic, the other way around. Your transcription implies that the first “ha” is anacrustic to the second, when it’s clearly the dominant syllable.
[IIRC, the interval is about a drop of a minor 3rd which somewhat accounts for the perception of accenting.]
OK, this thread’s getting pretty full, so I put up one to handle the spillover here.
No, it’s a matter of professional copyediting. If you can find a single style manual that says it’s allowable, I’d be interested. Every single one I’m familiar with, from Chicago to AP to NY Times to Words Into Type to Wired states clearly what is proper punctuation and what is not. If you wish to quarrel with them as overly “proscriptive,” be my guest. And, of course, I’m neither copyediting/proofreading anyone here, nor in any way enforcing such “rules” of punctuation. I merely mentioned their existence.
That some people don’t use proper punctuation, or believe that multiple question marks mean that a question is being asked… something, I don’t know what, or that that multiple exclamation marks lend emphasis, I cannot quarrel with.
I’d say that all your cited usages are allowable in informal writing, Katherine, though I’m not sure if I could back that with a style book; the notion that the more exclamation marks to close a sentence, the more emphasis, though, is as great a mis-usage as the idea that the number of dots in an ellipses is subjectively choosable; both are simply sub-literate, just as would be choosing a subjective number of commas to repeat at the same point.
There is no accepted style guide for blog comments, and hopefully never will be. Therefore the question of usage is not normative but pragmatic. Propriety has no meaning and the only standard is effectiveness. And since repetitive series of punctuation are intended to indicate degrees of emphasis and are usually effective (present company excluded, of course) without impeding communication, go for it.
Personally I prefer judicious use of italics and variations in full stops, but that’s just an aesthetic hangup.
Gary Farber:
Make that “ellipsis”. “Ellipses” is plural.
There’re no significant historical examples of people using conquest to ‘spread Buddhism’ or ‘spread Hinduism’ or terms equivalent to ‘Christendom’ or ‘Dar al Islam/Dar al Harb’.
I’m not sure what your metric for significance is, but you can find some examples of the military spread of Buddhism in Southeast Asia, specifically around Pagan and Mandalay in the late Middle Ages. [Pagan, circa 1050; Mandalay slightly later, around 1400 I think.] Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and Khmer are also candidates for kingdoms who, in expanding by force, also sought to forcibly expand their understanding of the Buddha, although I couldn’t say how strong an impulse this was as compared to the usual impulses for temporal power and conquest.
I’m also not entirely sure that SE Asian Buddhism didn’t have some notion of the temporal kingdoms enlightened by the Buddha, some sort of common understanding of enlightenment that the other kingdoms lacked. That said, I do agree that there was no “gestalt”, if you will, of Buddhist consciousness, a common understanding of those kingdoms as a collective sacred entity unto itself which would be fully realized only with unlimited growth, my crude approximation to the common meaning of Christendom and Dar al Islam.
[Ed note: I initially wrote another five paragraphs or so of blather on this topic, but they’re frankly of limited interest to a general audience. Drop me a line if you’re interested in pursuing this further.]
So I think it’s safe to say that Islam is unique in today’s world as a religion that has a large and active segment interested in spreading its precepts and judgements to other people by force.
I agree. It’s just the historical aspect of the original argument I was taking issue with; the modern aspect strikes me as completely sound. Although it does raise the question: just how large and active is that segment?
Theoretically I couldn’t agree more, Gromit, but perhaps you’ve not noticed that Daschle is in extreme danger of losing his seat to John Thune, and he can’t lead when he’s not in the Senate, and the Democrats are down another Senate seat (and this year we have a very good chance of the Democrats regaining the Senate, though I wouldn’t put any huge bets down on it). South Dakota is a pretty conservative state, and I accept Daschle’s stance as likely necessary to stand a chance of staying office. Politics is, alas, often about sad, practical, compromises.
Dave Schuler: Make that “ellipsis”. “Ellipses” is plural.
Dave, I think I love you.