Eboo Patel had a nice take on this in the Washington Post's odd online "on faith" thingy.
« Pun Involving the Word "General" | Main | Diplomacy 101 »
More Ayaan Ali
15 Oct 2007 03:31 pm
Comments (39)
Wolcott is always a delicious read!
"Let’s say that Ms. Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person. Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade."
Let's say you studied some history. The compromise on slave counts was necessary at the time to create a union. Would you be happier had the abolitionists (not a huge lobby then) held out, thus creating multiple nations where there's one now? Do you always stand ready to criticize the "good enough" because the perfect is your ideal model?
In 1787, a union without slavery simply wasn't in the cards. Period, end of story. We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery - proportionally more damaging than any American war before or since. Other than Britain (which was the leader in the fight), no nation has done more to eliminate slavery than the US.
As to the slave trade, you do know that as of 1808, it was illegal? As with slavery itself, it's easy, from the distance of 2007 to criticize the founders. They had a hard choice though: a union with slavery, or no union. They didn't have your ideal as a choice.
Also, you realize that the Islamic world engaged in slavery long before the West got into it, and kept at it far longer (Saudi Arabia, for instance, only outlawed it in 1960)? In many parts of the Islamic world, slavery is a de-facto reality still. The West engaged in slavery for a shameful - but historically short - period of time. The Islamic world would still be at it had the West not insisted.
In 1787, a union without slavery simply wasn't in the cards. Period, end of story.
Well then, there shouldn't have been a union. Many New England secessionists made just this argument throughout the 1840s and 1850s - that a league with slavery was immoral and disgusting.
There is a difference: since 3/5 compromise was not dictated to our Founding Fathers by Archangel Gabriel, Americans could amend their constitution without any missive from the good Archangel that it is OK.
On the core message, I am more sympathetic to Ali Hirsi, but on the attitude, to Eboo Patel -- basically, try to connect our views to Enlightement and try to be nice about it.
But people who are nice about religion have a problem. Ask an atheists why we should not stone gays to death (or some similar question, like the right to have a divorce in Christianity, or the right to object to divorce in Judaism and Islam). The answer would be "because I am not a f....g idiot, that's why!". Ask a nice religious Christian or a Muslim, and he/she will need quite a workout around some passages of the Scripture(s) that seem to require exactly that. At which point I would ask -- what are the benefits of religious belief other than making very simple question quite complex?
I may be mistaken, but I think James is missing the point. Also, that line "The West engaged in slavery for a shameful - but historically short - period of time.", sounds awfully familiar. Have you made that statement before James?
I often wonder if there are "argument" trolls out "there". People who recycle the same arguments over and over and from site to site in the hopes that they will "catch" someone and get them to respond.
Ask an atheist why we should not abort babies and the answer would be....?
People who recycle the same arguments over and over and from site to site in the hopes that they will "catch" someone and get them to respond.
Are you one of them?
Just to do a bit of blog-whoring, Aqoul seems to have started the particular string of posts stretching from Matt's blog to the Reason interview. And we've been on the AHA beat for a while.
As an atheist is it okay for me to criticize both Christianity and Islam for being the root of all evil? If I did that, can I escape Patel's claim that I just think Islam is crap? (Not that I think that, I think that would be his claim though.)
Also, I think his Africa analogy is specious. Or bogus. Whichever is worse.
Africa is a collection of many peoples of many different faiths.
Islam is connected by the Koran.
Not saying that I agree with Ali, just saying his analogy doesn't fit.
Regarding America being the root of all evil, that is exactly the interpretation I hear from the feminists on Matt's blogroll ALL OF THE TIME. I don't hear Matt backing them up and I don't hear Matt calling them out.
I think Patel's analysis is shit and I think Matt's goat blowing review of it suffers from political correctness.
And Ali is not the only Apostate. In fact, check out "TheApostate" blog to find a young feminist with apparently very similar views as Ali who also blogrolls other similar Apostates.
Check out Phyllis Chesler for an interesting POV. Grew up as an Orthodox Jew. Married Muslim Afgani in 1960. Had to escape Afghanistan. Recognized feminist leader.
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/2007/10/09/towards_a_universal_doctrine_o.php
TOWARDS A UNIVERSAL DOCTRINE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/2007/10/11/ibn_warraq_slays_tariq_ramadan.php
IBN WARRAQ SLAYS TARIQ RAMADAN IN THE BATTLE OF IDEAS
On October 9th, in London, Ibn Warraq debated Tariq Ramadan and he won the high-profile debate hands-down. The debate, known as Intelligence Squared, and sponsored by the Spectator, demands that the audience vote before the debate and again at its conclusion.
The subject was: ‘We Should Not Be Reluctant to Assert the Superiority of Western Values’. Ibn Warraq was joined by Douglas Murray and David Aaronovitch. Opposing them were Tariq Ramadan, William Dalrymple, and Charles Glass. At the end of the dramatic two-hour debate, the 700 audience members cast their votes.
The result was a stunning victory for those who believe that Western values are worth defending: 465 votes were cast in favor of the resolution; only 264 people voted against this. Apparently, the audience was persuaded by the debate to change their votes.
Ibn Warraq called me the moment his plane touched down to verify this. As the author of many books, including the forthcoming “Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism,” Ibn Warraq (a pseudonym) was well prepared.
Before he left, I told him that he was my—our—Knight going into battle and that he must slay this overly glamorized dragon on the field of Ideas. And so he did.
Podcast at:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/intelligence/242761/we-should-not-be-reluctant-to-assert-the-superiority-of-western-values.thtml
We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values
"Are you one of them?"
Depends on what you mean by "them"...Who are you to call me one of "them"!
Ohhhhh, "them". I follow you, ;), ;). I WISH! That would be SO COOL!
Or maybe I should say, maybe I is, maybe I ain't...
"As an atheist is it okay for me to criticize both Christianity and Islam for being the root of all evil?"
As an atheist it would make more sense for you to claim that humankind is the root of all evil.
It's also very odd for an atheist to claim the superiority of Western values considering the Judeo-Christian nature of said "values".
Oh, and I'll have to pass on the pajama's and any silly debate that "demands" that I vote before and after. WTF, the societal cues for determining "intellegence" are being taken from America's Funniest Home Videos (hysterical show, btw, can't get enough of those crotch shots).
Oops, "intelligence", that wasn't very intelligent of me...
"Married Muslim Afgani in 1960. Had to escape Afghanistan. Recognized feminist leader."
For future reference, the easiest way to separate an expert on Afghanistan from an amateur is that amateurs use the word "Afghani" to mean people. Afghans are the people of Afghanistan. The Afghani is the currency of Afghanistan.
Rihilism,
As an atheist is it okay for me to criticize both Christianity and Islam for being the root of all evil?" As an atheist it would make more sense for you to claim that humankind is the root of all evil.
Neither claim makes much sense. Religion is a part of human culture, like science and politics and art. Some aspects of culture improve human welfare and others harm it. So one question is whether religion improves human welfare or harms it. Is the overall effect of religion on human welfare today positive or negative? I think it is overwhelmingly negative. Note that this does not mean the effect of religion has always been negative in all human cultures at all times. But in modern industrialized liberal democracies, I think religion is a very bad thing, and should be subjected to strong and constant criticism.
Note also that this is a different issue from the question of whether religion, any religion, is true. Even if religion is in some way useful, that doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean religion isn't nonsense. And I think the evidence is also overwhelming that religion is nonsense.
Oh, did I say I was an expert?
I am not an expert in anything, which is why I try to read a variety of opinions at a variety of blogs.
However, I do have an easy test to determine if someone is a douchebag. Congrats, you passed.
Similarly, let's just get your pajamas hate on! No need to listen to anything any of their bloggers might have to say, THEY ARE ALL ROGER L SIMON!
Like David Corn and Marc Cooper (formerly blogging for Pajamas.) Remember, when all else fails, or better yet, before you've tried any alternative, GET YOUR HATE ON!!!!!
I can't imagine that feminist, orthodox jew, psychologist, married to an afghan (person not sweater), lived in the country, works on the issues of feminism in the third world, I DOUBT SHE HAS ANYTHING OF VALUE TO SAY. Why? Because she blogs for Pajamas.
Similarly, why listen to a variety of experts on islam and western culture debate? It's a stupid debate because they try to measure how effective the debate was in terms of trying to sway peoples opinions.
God forbid we listen to debates that try to measure their effectiveness or determine some form of winner.
HATE TEH DEBATE! GET YOUR HATE ON!!!! WOOT!!!!
Is this the reality based open minded liberal blogosphere? I could have sworn I just stepped into some LGF dung.
Wow, someone in another thread pointed out a minor mistake I made and I was just like, "ew, whatever." However, I make a simple observation and you go off all crazy. Is your caps lock key stuck? Did anyone here say anything about Pajamas Media? Did anyone here claim that radical Islam and al-Qaida and the Taliban are good? Everyone here knows they suck and that they attacked us on 9/11. However, this country has over-reacted to the threat of radical Islam, which can not really threaten us to the extent that universalist ideologies like fascism and communism once did. We, as a nation, panicked and invaded the country in the Middle East with the most secular government and have seen something of a theocracy take its place.
"Regarding America being the root of all evil, that is exactly the interpretation I hear from the feminists on Matt's blogroll ALL OF THE TIME."
If you think that, then you lack reading comprehension. Critiquing the foreign policy of your own country as a way to help correct that foreign policy is not blaming your own country for all of the bad things in the world. You appear to be an overly sensitive person who see everything as an attack. That is your own fault. You have added nothing of value with your hyperventilating.
Rihilism mentioned pajamas as in "Oh, and I'll have to pass on the pajama's and any silly debate that "demands" that I vote before and after. WTF, the societal cues for determining "intellegence" are being taken from America's Funniest Home Videos"
Pointing out an error is one thing, "oh by the way, the name for a native afghan is afghan not afghani their unit of currency"
Douchebaggery is "Nyah, you're no expert, blah blah blah"
And back to rihilism, I have no idea what you mean by judeo christian values. Honestly. It's a bullshit term. Ya know who defines our values as Judeo-Christian values, primarily rightwing assholes like Dennis Prager, a bunch of clownhall and nro and pajama bloggers.
Is math and science a judeo christian value? Cause personally, I would have supported Galileo and I still use Arabic numerals.
Oh, I see, you're the rational one who states
"Regarding America being the root of all evil, that is exactly the interpretation I hear from the feminists on Matt's blogroll ALL OF THE TIME. I don't hear Matt backing them up and I don't hear Matt calling them out.
"I think Patel's analysis is shit and I think Matt's goat blowing review of it suffers from political correctness."
And I'm the hater unwilling to listen to ideas from different sources?
Perhaps you are simply hearing precisely what you want to hear, mmm? Something that doesn't contradict your belief that religion, rather than people who "profess" it, is the root of all evil. And, I'm sorry, but condemning everyone for the actions of some is not moral whether you believe in God or not. And if that's the "lesson" that is learned by suffering at the hands of inhuman people who condemn people because of who they are, then I would submit that they "learned" the wrong lesson.
And simply because I may not be interested in Pajamas, does not mean I wouldn't consider what Apostate has to say since I was not familiar with the blog (you feculent twit). And I actually used to read and agreed with Corn frequently, though not since he decided to become an enabler for people like Simon (you self-righteous little pimple).
And excuse me if I don't believe there has to be a "winner" to find value in a debate or that I think that "voting" is a gimmick and a meaningless one at that, meant for those incapable of forming their own informed opinions.
And please tell me why I should waste time listening to some little shit who acknowledges lack of "expertise" and yet expects me to blindly follow the quest to "assert the superiority of Western values". I've no interest in crusades, Western or Islamic, you moron, and even if I had the inclination, I'm not jumping on your bandwagon.
And, BTW, lay off the caffeine, it'll stunt your growth...
"Ya know who defines our values as Judeo-Christian values, primarily rightwing assholes like Dennis Prager, a bunch of clownhall and nro and pajama bloggers."
Well I don't take my cues from Dennis "dropped at birth" Prager but he is precisely the type of person I would expect to assert the superiority of Western values (codeword for Judeo-Christian values).
Now, back to Mixner.
"Neither claim makes much sense."
No, I think that attributing evil behavior to "humanity" rather than a particular religious "belief" makes eminent sense.
"So one question is whether religion improves human welfare or harms it."
I think you're confounding the misapplication of religious "beliefs" to the religion itself. There's no denying that truly atrocious actions have been undertaken in the "name of religion", but that is not the same as saying that there is something intrinsic to religious faith that makes it any more or less "poisonous" than other aspects of human culture.
I have enormous sympathy to the atheist position and frequently question the existence of God, but I think it is too simplistic to suggest that belief is the root of all evil. I actually agree with you that religion SHOULD be subject to strong and constant criticism since it is frequently used to justify the most heinous behavior. However, I don't believe its absence would necessarily result in an absence of such behavior and "purging" society of belief implies a fanaticism no less caustic than the fundamentalism we are forced to live with today.
As to the "evidence",..., well it's been a very long "debate" and I'm not certain all the evidence is in yet.
Rihilism,
No, I think that attributing evil behavior to "humanity" rather than a particular religious "belief" makes eminent sense.
He didn't attribute evil behavior to "a particular religious belief."
I think you're confounding the misapplication of religious "beliefs" to the religion itself.
No, I'm talking about religion itself. But do please explain how you think one may reliably distinguish the "misapplication of religious beliefs" from religion itself. How about, say, the Crusades? Were they a "misapplication?" Or, say, the Catholic ban on contraception? Is that a "misapplication?" How do you tell?
I have enormous sympathy to the atheist position and frequently question the existence of God, but I think it is too simplistic to suggest that belief is the root of all evil.
I haven't said, and wouldn't say, that "belief is the root of all evil." I said that I think religion is nonsense and that its effect on human welfare in the modern world is overwhelmingly negative.
I actually agree with you that religion SHOULD be subject to strong and constant criticism since it is frequently used to justify the most heinous behavior.
Good.
However, I don't believe its absence would necessarily result in an absence of such behavior and "purging" society of belief implies a fanaticism no less caustic than the fundamentalism we are forced to live with today.
I don't believe there would be no bad behavior in the absence of religion. I do believe there would be less bad behavior in the absence of religion. I don't advocate the "purging" of religious belief from society, if by that you mean the coercive or violent suppression of religion.
Yeah Rihilism, I read lots of blogs. And I find some of them are full of shit. I read mainstream fem blogs too, and I read equity fem blogs, and I read rad fem blogs, but the fem blogs on Matt's blogrolls are especially bad in attributing evil to all things American with no other analysis.
But I read them, unlike you, who is proud to say, I don't read these blogs and I don't read those blogs and I don't listen to people who aren't experts so you have nothing of value to add.
So yeah Rihilism, I'm the one with the closed mind and not you. Anal scrapes.
Too tired, I need to get to bed for work tomorrow. Argue more then....
Ask an atheist why we should not abort babies and the answer would be....? ----- "We should not????"\
Basically, yet another reason to avoid religious basis for morality. Abortion bad, gays -- abomination, insider trading -- the Lord could not take less, torture -- why not for a good cause. Of course, interpretations may differ, but that's the point -- no valuable guidance.
For the record, I think that militancy is not a practical posture, and in the case of Ali Hirsi it is understandable, as she was personally on the receiving end. Somehow, the interview with her reminded me about jihad rhetoric, and that she probably is steeped in that thinking. Apostasy as a mirror image.
Also, religion is by no means root of all evil. It is instructional to check the people who "found religion". Nice people remain nice, as a rule, and assholes --- well, one can be born twice, each time as an asshole.
But I do not see religion as adding much of value (at least understood as revelation, as opposed to "classics of our literature").
There are no Western Values? All that Magna Carta shit didn't happen? The Bill of Rights crapola, gone? Shakespeare out the window? Feudalism, Romanticism, Industrial Age, WWI, Hemingway, WWII, Slavery and its abolition, just so much methane?
All of that reflects some odd mixture of Jewish and Christian thought? Even though our founders thought both were heaps of shit?
Wow, your political correctness has eaten holes in your brain, but I'm glad that Prager will have someone to listen to.
Western values vs. Muslim values? Six of one, half dozen of another?
Because we see lots of Western refugees streaming into Muslim nations?
Because religious tolerance is not such a big deal?
Because we have as many death fatwas against Western intellectuals as they do?
Because shitloads of students from the west try to get into the Islamic universities every year?
Because we have madrassas too?
Because women's liberation is not such a big deal?
Because tolerance of gays and bisexuals can be won back swiftly?
Because the burkini is really a clever idea?
Because if the Spaniards and English hadn't been so mean to them, they would have turned out just like us but earlier?
Well I don't want to say Western Culture love it or leave it, but if you really think it's six of one half dozen of another, why do you stay in the west, why haven't you seen if the grass is greener in an Islamic Country?
It really is okay to be a member of the West and think that Western culture is superior. It's like it really IS okay to be a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu and think your religion is the best. What is not okay is to say "Death to the others." What is okay is to say, I have examined my choices and I think my choice is best.
What's politically correct is to not say that and think it.
What's a sad unexamined life is to not think that, and never explore the other culture.
Crushing the muslim world is stupid. Muslim immigration reduction is not. It is not self-evidently right, but should be considered.
A cool, logical cost-benefit analysis, with lives being weighted the most, is the best way to approach the proposal of muslim immigration reduction.
The costs would be less international prestige throughout the world, especially the muslim world, and possibly a growth in the number of foriegn muslims who hate us, and thus more terrorists. But if muslims could be effectively barred from immigrating and visiting than those terrorists could not hurt us much in america. US muslims might be driven to more terrorism by such an immigration halt. Also, the psychic loss that some americans will feel from no longer believing they live in a tolerant, diverse, multi-cultural society should be factored in. Also of course, the economic loss of less muslim immigrants should be factored in (most are very educated, an economic plus). The especially severe psychic loss for US muslims who will feel that they are hated should be factored in too.
The benefits would be less immigration of terrorists (even though the vast majority muslims are not terrorists), and a lower domestic population from which terrorists can hide in (the sea in which they swim) and recruit. Many americans will get a psychic gain from feeling safer, whether they are or not. The psychic gain of halting muslim immigration that people who think like Virgil Good would feel should be factored in as well (this will include non-trivial numbers of recent non-muslim immigrants from majority muslim countries who often have bad memories of large muslim populations).
Whatever the outcome of a cost benefit analysis, it will only be valid if it is actually acknowledged that muslim immigration, student studying, and tourist visits has a cost in treasure and lives, which September 11th, the Los Angeles El Al ticket counter shooting, the first WTC bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and numerous averted terrorist attacks show. Nearly every ledger has two sides to be acknowledged, and this is no exception. The outcome doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I believe that the optimal policy is reduced muslim immigration from the current ~40,000 per year to something like ~10,000 per year. We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit. If we made sure that the reduced flow was more proportionately the cream of the crop than the current flow is, then we'd have less economic losses than pure reduced numbers of muslim immigrants alone would indicate.
Whew, getting it from all sides, here. Well, let me take a few shots.
"But do please explain how you think one may reliably distinguish the "misapplication of religious beliefs" from religion itself. How about, say, the Crusades? Were they a "misapplication?"
Well, yes, since it was motivated by greed and politics, I'd say it was misapplied. Also, the original statement was "As an atheist is it okay for me to criticize both Christianity and Islam for being the root of all evil?" Thus my statement that no, humanity, is the root.
"I said that I think religion is nonsense and that its effect on human welfare in the modern world is overwhelmingly negative."
Yes, and in my opinion it is not religion but those who are using religion for political purposes that are the cause of most of the strife in the modern world.
"I do believe there would be less bad behavior in the absence of religion."
None or less, at the most you'd have a brief respite before people found another reason to kill one another.
"All of that reflects some odd mixture of Jewish and Christian thought? Even though our founders thought both were heaps of shit?"
It is neither correct to claim that we are a "Christian" nation anymore than it is correct to claim that the founders were devoid of any religious beliefs. Are you of the opinion that all of the examples of Western Culture you cited were entirely without basis in religious beliefs?
"What's politically correct is to not say that and think it."
I neither say nor think it and I don't think saying so makes you a hero or that not saying it means you're being any more than polite and respectful.
After examining one's life, to come to the conclusion that one's own culture is superior is rather self-serving, don't you think? Isn't that precisely what the religious loonies (pick your religion) are doing here and there? "Cultural superiority" has been used to justify almost as many wanton acts of violence as religion and yet now, in our current struggle we should adopt this idea as the clarion call of all our good works? We're better than you, nya, nya, nya?
"It really is okay to be a member of the West and think that Western culture is superior. It's like it really IS okay to be a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu and think your religion is the best. What is not okay is to say "Death to the others." What is okay is to say, I have examined my choices and I think my choice is best."
Yes, because it always ends there, people who believe their culture is superior never move beyond that personal belief and never try to "prove" it to those who disagree.
"But I do not see religion as adding much of value (at least understood as revelation, as opposed to "classics of our literature")."
Come, now, that is truly throwing the baby out with the bath water (well, except for the literary part). To assume that everyone who holds religious beliefs adheres to the same lunacy as Jerry Falwell or OBL is more than a little bigoted.
"Of course, interpretations may differ, but that's the point -- no valuable guidance."
Love thy neighbor, do unto others, let he who is without sin..., feed the poor, nurture the sick, take care of the children, and respect the elderly? I'm not arguing that any of these concepts would or would not exist without religion but to suggest that there is no guidance or value whatsoever is a bit pedantic.
"Nice people remain nice, as a rule, and assholes --- well, one can be born twice, each time as an asshole."
Agreed, and one need not be a member of a particular religion to be either. If I thought that it was as easy as being "born again", then I'd agree with you.
"We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit."
You seem to want to conflate the worst aspects of behavior of one or any religious belief with everyone who happens to share that religious belief. Or that by doing so, we are somehow safer, and that terrorists aren't capable of recruiting any disenfranchised, immigrant or citizen. You are more likely to exclude those who me us no harm and may return to their country of origin thinking and expressing the thought that "westerners" are actually decent people like us and all this violence and hatred serves no one.
I actually know people who are here from a multitude of foreign countries to study and I frequently find myself having to excuse the boorish behavior of some of our citizens. I think the ultimate tragedy would be to deny them access to all that is good and just in our society in order to implement a short sighted policy that does little more than assuage the irrational fear of the "other".
Oops, didn't get the HTML tags in there correctly. My apologies in advance for the lack of readability.
"Basically, yet another reason to avoid religious basis for morality."
So, the values practiced by an avowed atheist such as Christopher Hitchens are superior to those of say, Desmond Tutu? Tutu was informed and continues to be informed of his values through his faith. Hitchens seems to confuse anger and a strong desire for revenge with "logic". I've no doubt that someone can obtain a decent system of values without being a "believer". But I don't think that faith or lack of faith guarantees the outcome.
Since I've not belonged to an "organized" religion for some time (I always assume humans fuck up everything they touch), I find myself in bit of an odd situation being the "defender" of religious values. But I still think that you are confusing religion with hatred, bigotry, injustice, violence and politics clothed in religion.
"Wow, your political correctness has eaten holes in your brain, but I'm glad that Prager will have someone to listen to."
Dennis Prager, politically correct? As I said earlier, Prager is precisely the type of person I'd expect to tout superiority of Western Culture.
By the way, whatever, "Anal scrapes" is hysterical! Seriously (seriuosly, I'm not trying to be snotty or sarcastic), I haven't heard that one before and I just about died laughing when I read it. I'll have to use that next time I find myself arguing with Mixner and in need of a good insult...
Patel is laughable. He really thinks that the US Constitution is somehow comparavble to a holy book. Its hard for me to believe that a document which can be changed with time and is the basis for civil law is somehow the same thing as a holy book that people believe was written by an omnipotent deity.
To illustrate how absurd his point is I would ask him the question, "Do you think it is possible to interpret the Quran in a way that is compatible with Western democracy?" I don't know what kind of contortionist exegesis one would have to engage it, but it would surely be good for some laughs. What is it in you that so desperately want to save Islam? What is there to save in Islam? Its record when in power is deplorable, and anywhere that it is the majority religion it is either in power or the society it produces is barbarous. The West is not pluralistic in the sense that it stands for nothing and can absorb any cultural ethos into its collective. Where is there any consilience between Islam and say... the Enlightenment, since he brought it up. There is not, and I would wager that until they give up an attachment to the Koran and Islam they will be forever foreign and we the better for it.
Rihilism,
So, the values practiced by an avowed atheist such as Christopher Hitchens are superior to those of say, Desmond Tutu?
He didn't say that. He didn't say anything like that. Why don't you address the statement you actually quoted, instead of going off on yet another strawman tangent.
Tutu was informed and continues to be informed of his values through his faith.
What does this mean, "informed" by his faith? What is this "information" that Tutu allegedly gets from his faith? How is faith of any use whatsoever to the resolution of moral questions? You have a penchant for uttering the pious platitudes of liberal religionists, but you don't seem to have given any serious thought to what they mean or whether they make any sense.
Rihilism,
Well, yes, since it was motivated by greed and politics, I'd say it was misapplied.
Huh? How does that mean it was a "misapplication" of religion? And you didn't answer the question about the ban on contraception. Is that also a "misapplication?" How about the ban on gay sex? Or the teaching that unrepetant sinners burn in hell for all eternity? Or the Jehovah's Witness teaching that blood transfusions are contrary to the will of God? And so on and so forth. I'm still waiting for you to explain, and justify, your criteria for distinguishing "true" religion from "misapplications" of religion.
Different religions make different, and often mutually contradictory, claims of truth. How may we determine which of these competing claims of truth (if any) are actually true, and which false? Why is one man's faith a more reliable guide to the truth than another man's faith? Why is the faith of a liberal Catholic a more reliable guide to the nature and will of God than the faith of, say, an Islamic fundamentalist?
Don't get yer panties in a bunch, Mixner, I felt compelled to respond to four different people before I got to your nonsense, so I responded to the "good" ones first.
"He didn't say that. He didn't say anything like that. Why don't you address the statement you actually quoted, instead of going off on yet another strawman tangent."
Not that it's a strawman to point out the flaw in someone's logic, but I'll erect any stawman I'd like, you rabid little squirrel.
"What does this mean, "informed" by his faith? What is this "information" that Tutu allegedly gets from his faith? How is faith of any use whatsoever to the resolution of moral questions?"
How ignorant are you, ya comment section freak, ya! Tutu's faith teaches him his values. Teach, as in convey information, to inform? Oops, I forgot who I was talking to.
"You have a penchant for uttering the pious platitudes of liberal religionists..."
And you, you humorless scumbag, have a penchant for stating the obvious as if it were a ground-shaking profundity. Such as "Religion is a part of human culture, like science and politics and art." Really? Go figure.
"Huh? How does that mean it was a "misapplication" of religion?...." blah, blah, blah blah, blah.
Can we just be clear on this, Mixner, I have no intention of providing you with any justification, rationalization, consternation, or fornication. I'm simply here to inform you of what an uninformed, pathetic little anus scraping (got it) you are.
I've made my beliefs as well as my respect for the atheist position, clear. I also respect (and know) plenty of people with deep religious faith (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist) that enriches their lives as well as the lives of those around them. To suggest that they are stupid, silly, lack values, or believe in nonsense belies an underlying bitterness on the commentator's behalf that has absolutely nothing to do with logic or "evidence".
I also know plenty of people who feel no need to believe in a higher power. They also bring a richness to their lives and the lives of those around them.
One can be born again into any sort of fundamentalism (religious or atheistic), but as Piotr suggested earlier, the assholes tend to remain assholes.
Rihilism,
Tutu's faith teaches him his values. Teach, as in convey information, to inform?
You're evading the question yet again. What "information" does it convey? Why should we believe Tutu's faith conveys "information" rather than just superstitions?
Can we just be clear on this, Mixner, I have no intention of providing you with any justification,
Sorry, but you're the one who made the claim about the "misapplication" of religion. So you need to explain how you distinguish "misapplications" of religion from bona fide religion. The fact that you have twice now refused to say whether you consider the Catholic Church's ban on contraception to be a "misapplication" speaks volumes to the utter incoherence of your position.
"So you need to explain how you distinguish "misapplications" of religion from bona fide religion."
You continue confusing me with your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, Mixner, and assume that I owe you an explanation. I've diggleberrys and nose-goblins to sort by size, shape, and aesthetic value, Mixner, and I don't have enough hours in the day to respond every time you want to know what the meaning of "inform" is or to explain why values are, in fact, information.
You, like everyone, are free to choose not to believe in God (a position, I stated repeatedly, is reasonable and due respect) but if you persist in mocking all people of faith, I assure you I will persist in mocking you.
Comments closed October 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
One more reason not to subscribe to the Atlantic: who wants to pay Jeffrey Goldberg's ($350,000?) salary?
Goldberg, five years ago:
Oops.
Howard Kurtz, a couple months back:
Topnotch Wolcott snark at the link.
Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 15, 2007 4:03 PM