The religious imperative

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

sf's article brings to light the dichotomy of what the religion says and what a practitioner might interpret. Some catholic priests molest boys, does that mean that we should condemn catholicism for encouraging the molestation of boys? This is why I said, "actions are heinous, words are not." Some words may encourage heinous actions, but such judgments come after one person or a group put those words to action. Take Mein Kampf (as an example): as a book it is the out-of-touch, crazy writings of a man who should have been pushed to the fringe (unfortunately, antisemitism was strong during his day), but considering what actions his words produced... we now judge both as heinous (but it isn't until AFTER he acts).

[solicitr]

what is wrong with making intolerance or bigotry or discrimination something which society sees as a negative and something which should be discouraged if not altogether eradicated? [...] Trying to foster an environment in the world where intolerance and bigotry are scorned and reviled appears to me as definite progress.

All well and good if this were a crystalline world with bright boundaries and hard schema, but it isn't. In particular, there's no real working definition of "bigotry" or "intolerance", and they can be defined very, very broadly indeed- not least by the Professionally Offended, those whom it is impossible not to offend because they work so very hard at it.

One of the most pernicious aspects of Canada's Section 13 is that the crime is entirely subjective: the standard is whether a 'victim' feels offended, not whether offense was intended nor some objective standard of offensiveness met. While I disagree with prosecuting under those terms those as well, the "hurt my feelings" standard is especially objectionable in a purportedly free society.

In many cases the claim of 'bigotry' is simply an offensive weapon, an attempt to render opposing points of view "scorned and reviled." I think I've given a fair sampling of this tactic above; in not one of those cases (save arguably David Irving's) was there any actual bigotry on display, yet punishment attended nonetheless.

At least I have not seen any presented here or elsewhere.

Really? You haven't noticed that dissenters from the multiculturalist paradigm are scorned and reviled? The Carrie Prejean matter has already come up. Additional cases, just recently, would be Rush Limbaugh adjudged somehow unfit to invest in a football team, and former Rep. Tom Tancredo shouted down and assaulted by pro-illegal immigration rioters in Chapel Hill. In all three cases they were scorned and reviled as "bigots," as if they were akin to the David Dukes and Ernst Zundls of the world. And then of course there is the constant, incessant charge of "racism" levelled at any and all criticism of the currwent President.... if the 'bigot' canard is a weapon, then Janeane Garafalo is a Grand Mistress-at-Arms.

But to circle back to the main topic, and to show how effective and thus harmful these sort of suppression strikes can be,* it has come out that immediately after Major Hassan turned what was supposed to be a medical lecture at Walter Reed into an Islamist rant, his superiors met and discussed discharging him from the Army. But they decided not to do so-- because "it would have looked bad" to fire one of the military's few Muslim officers, according to one participant.


__________
*Theodore Dalrymple: "the purpose of Soviet propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate"

[solicitr]

out-of-touch, crazy writings

Out of touch, yes (or maybe not so much, given later events). Crazy? NO. It's too facile to dismiss as 'insane' those whose moral compass points away from true north. Just because someone's ideology (or actions) are several standard deviations off the mean, that does NOT mean that they are irrational, and can be let off the hook with the excuse of "mental illness."

[solicitr]

It's a crime in Germany and various other European countries, yov. Countries where the Holocaust took place.

And Switzerland, Spain and Portugal, where it did not take place, as well as (more or less) the entire EU.

Perhaps more troubling is the existence of laws criminalizing "hate speech" or, in Brazil, "racism", throughout the Western world: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, and (in effect and with some protections) the UK.

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

All well and good if this were a crystalline world with bright boundaries and hard schema, but it isn't. In particular, there's no real working definition of "bigotry" or "intolerance", and they can be defined very, very broadly indeed- not least by the Professionally Offended, those whom it is impossible not to offend because they work so very hard at being offended.

I just looked at three actual dictionaries and several on line dictionaries and every single one defined those words and there was overlap and areas of agreement as to what they meant.

Really? You haven't noticed that dissenters from the multiculturalist paradigm are scorned and reviled? The Carrie Prejean matter has already come up. Additional cases, just recently, would be Rush Limbaugh adjudged somehow unfit to invest in a football team, and former Rep. Tom Tancredo shouted down and assaulted by pro-illegal immigration rioters in Chapel Hill. In all three cases they were scorned and reviled as "bigots," as if they were akin to the David Dukes and Ernst Zundls of the world.

What I said was that nobody here has presented any evidence that intolerance or bigotry is the preeminent sin in the world today as it was earlier alleged.

When persons such as those you mentioned say things that others feel are examples of intolerance, there is nothing wrong with them expressing their opinion the same way you and everyone else here expresses their opinions.

But to circle back to the main topic, and to show how effective and thus harmful these sort of suppression strikes can be,* it has come out that immediately after Major Hassan turned what was supposed to be a medical lecture at Walter Reed into an Islamist rant, his superiors met and discussed discharging him from the Army. But they decided not to do so-- because "it would have looked bad" to fire one of the military's few Muslim officers, according to one participant.

Yes, the military does make many bad decisions that in hindsight they should not have made. Any large entity such as the military makes their share. Because they are governmental and thus responsible to the public, we find out about it. This is merely one example and some are attempting to use the religion excuse as the reason to absolve them of their duty. This proves nothing other than the fact that a bad decision was made for bad reasons and this is nothing new.

[solicitr]

...some are attempting to use the religion excuse as the reason to absolve them of their duty.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

But for amplification, Time quotes one of Hasan's colleagues:

"People are afraid to come forward and challenge somebody's ideology," explains Hasan's classmate, "because they're afraid of getting an equal-opportunity complaint that can end careers."

Or, in other news:

New York (CNN) -- A leading Muslim-American group lashed out at the federal government Friday for moving to seize assets -- including four mosques -- that belong to a foundation and a corporation believed linked to Iran.

"The American Muslim and faith communities must not allow houses of worship to become pawns in geopolitical struggles," said Imam Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation. "The tension between the United States and Iran must not be played out in the mosques of America."

The group said "it is an abiding concern among the American Muslim community that this action is just the beginning of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting tragedy."

[sauronsfinger]

I offered

...some are attempting to use the religion excuse as the reason to absolve them of their duty.

Solicitr responded with

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

But for amplification, Time quotes one of Hasan's colleagues:
Quote:
"People are afraid to come forward and challenge somebody's ideology," explains Hasan's classmate, "because they're afraid of getting an equal-opportunity complaint that can end careers."

When people are under the spotlight and their past actions are examined and found wanting, they become concerned for their own career, their own welfare, and their own reputation. It is not surprising at all that this nameless colleague wants to place the blame elsewhere instead of assuming full responsibility for his own actions.

We all can only hope that all the facts come out in a full and complete investigation as the President and Attorney General have promised the nation.

Regarding your reprinting the statement from Imam Bray -

I am not a Muslim or of Middle East Arabic ethnicity. If I were, I might also be feeling some fear and uncertainity right now coming from a possible backlash from the Ft. Hood shootings. I have heard some of the over reaction from FOX News and such public voices and much of it has been over the top and borders on scapegoating an entire religion for the actions of what could be a rather sick individual.

[solicitr]

this nameless colleague wants to place the blame elsewhere instead of assuming full responsibility for his own actions.

In fact, this nameless colleague was one of the few who actually *did* take action, reporting his concerns to the chain of command- and was told to shut up.

I have heard some of the over reaction from FOX News and such public voices and much of it has been over the top and borders on scapegoating an entire religion

Examples? I've heard a lot of talk about this supposed 'backlash,' but no actual examples.

If I were, I might also be feeling some fear and uncertainity right now coming from a possible backlash from the Ft. Hood shootings

Facts on the ground:

Despite their initial trepidation, Killeen's Muslims have not been targeted by the larger community. Rather, they have been quietly accepted, as always

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 47,00.html

What I do see and quoted above, however, is cynically crying "backlash" as an attempt to delegitimize the Feds' entirely justified rolling-up of a covert Iranian network. This is using the 'bigot' canard as a political weapon.

[sauronsfinger]

Here is what you asked for

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOLdFaARCNI

What I do see and quoted above, however, is cynically crying "backlash" as an attempt to delegitimize the Feds' entirely justified rolling-up of a covert Iranian network. This is using the 'bigot' canard as a political weapon.

Once you view this selection, there are plenty of others right there on the same site for you to click on and then you can view more examples.

I do not see any cynicism involved. What I see is fear of being scapegoated the way other ethnic groups have been scapegoated in the past in this country. Muslims have gone to American schools and know about such things as Japanese internment camps and race riots.

They just had some of the funerals for these dead soldiers. I suggest it would be prudent to await the federal investigation before one begins speculating about the results of the investigation. let the chips fall where the may, the truth be told and justice be done.

[superwizard]

Superwizard, I don't disagree at all, and I am *not* trying to lump all Muslims or all of Islam in with the radicals. But the quotation demonstrates that there exists a strain of religious belief (in this case a branch of Islam, but it could be a branch of Zoroastrianism or anything else) which asserts a religious imperative for murder and mayhem.

Thanks for the clarification solicitr. I was just replying to what the Imam Anwar had said because he had said them with such generalizations.

I agree with you that there is an extremely violent extremist group whose members consider themselves Muslim (how could I not?). I don't think their ultimate goal is death and destruction but that they believe it is necessary to fulfill their distorted (in my opinion) understanding of Islam. That said I myself have a hard time understanding the mindset of many of these people so I am not in the best position to talk about their beliefs and mindsets...

I read a few places people wondering about the backlash against Muslims and Arabs and to be honest, being an Arab American Muslim, when the attack happened I was fearful of a strong backlash. So far however things have been pretty fine as far as I know. I believe that it was helpful that within hours every major Arab or Muslim organization that I know of in the US had sent out a press release immediately and unequivocally condemning the attack. My hope is that more and more Americans are realizing the difference between most peaceful muslims and the extremist fringe...

[Cerin]

A question that I think deserves to be answered - what is wrong with making intolerance or bigotry or discrimination something which society sees as a negative and something which should be discouraged if not altogether eradicated?

Discrimination and intolerance are valuable and essential. We are constantly discriminating between ideas and determining what we find acceptable and unacceptable according to our value system. And I should hope we can continue to exercise intolerance of things we find intolerable. I'm sure you are not suggesting that we should be headed for a state of mind and society where we accept all ideas as equally meritorious or worthy of deference because not doing so might offend people who's ideas and standards differ from our own. Would we be intolerant of human sacrifice by Satanists and discriminate against them? I should hope so.

Bigotry seems clearer. Merriam-Webster on bigot says, 'a person obstinately devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred. 'Opinions and prejudices' would seem to be the key there. It doesn't talk about deeply held convictions or religious beliefs, just opinions and prejudices (which we shouldn't be engaging in in the first place). Regarding or treating a group with hatred. We can all condemn that. Thinking that one's opinion is the only correct one always leads to trouble.

Some catholic priests molest boys, does that mean that we should condemn catholicism for encouraging the molestation of boys?

I don't mean to be critical, TED, but I think this is a poor example. I don't know of anyone who makes the case that molestation of boys is a legitimate expression of Catholicism.

But they decided not to do so-- because "it would have looked bad" to fire one of the military's few Muslim officers, according to one participant.

Well, let's hope that attitude will now get a thorough vetting.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

I don't mean to be critical, TED, but I think this is a poor example. I don't know of anyone who makes the case that molestation of boys is a legitimate expression of Catholicism.

That's my entire point. I thought I made it pretty clear.

[solicitr]

Here is what you asked for

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOLdFaARCNI

Oh, fer Pete's sake. A clip of retired Special Forces officer Bill Peters telling O'Reilly that Ft Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism, and that's a "backlash"????

Gee I thought you might have come up with clips of enraged mobs beating hapless Muslim_Americans, or a mosque being vandalised.... and you instead define as "backlash" stating the obvious??? Sheesh.

If you really want cynical exploitation of a tragedy for political ends, here's the noxious Code Pink's 'Veterans' Day' fundraising letter:

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood and the resignation of top Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh demonstrate how even our military officers are opposed to US strategy in Afghanistan.

[sauronsfinger]

Solicitr - I think you are not seeing the point. If you go back and listen to that clip you will hear over and over and over again, both the interview subject as well as the interviewer, use phrases such as

Muslim fanatic
Islamic terrorist
Islamist
Rabid Muslim

and that is only in the opening minute. Where was the discussion of Nidal Hasan as an American? In fact, he was born in the USA and educated in your own state of Virginia. In some ways, he has far more in common with a home grown domestic terrorist like Timothy McVeigh than he does with someone born overseas and raised there.

Why is the entire picture being conveniently ignored by the right in favor of a highly selective partial picture?

Why is this being downplayed by FOX and the rightwing here in favor of painting the picture of Hasan as an Islamic terrorist? Because it serves the greater over all political imperative of the right.

Hasan may indeed be a terrorist. Just like McVeigh and others before him he is a domestic terrorist born in the USA and poisoned against the people and the country which spawned him.

I would urge you to someday visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. They have an amazing exhibit there on what happened to Jewish persons and other because of Nazism. the entire first part of the exhibit is dedicated to how the Nazi's took advantage of long standing hatred, bigotry and prejudice against Jews in Eastern Europe and exploited it through the use of language and demonization.

For some reason, many Americans on the right are now seeing fit to trod this same path and demonize the religion of Islam and its Muslim followers through language, media accounts, internet posts, and other devices.

This is the first step down a path that ends up with far more brutal and serious actions of the type you describe in saying....

I thought you might have come up with clips of enraged mobs beating hapless Muslim_Americans, or a mosque being vandalised

Muslims in America are well aware that both such things have happened in this country. When they see the spokespersons of the right wing given a wide berth to spread their hate on FOX, they have good reason to fear a backlash.

[solicitr]

"spokespersons of the right wing given a wide berth to spread their hate on FOX"

Hate? Hate????


"a highly selective partial picture?"
Are you seriously trying to claim that Hassan's actions had nothing to do with jihadism? Are you kidding??

I would urge you to someday visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC....

I call Godwin. Not only is that absurdly over the top, but it's frankly offensive to the memory of the Nazis' victims. (Incidentally, I've been to freakin' Dachau. And the mother of one of my good friends bore for life the scars from the medical 'experiments' that were done on her at Sachsenhausen. Don't try condescension with me, boy.)

[JewelSong]

OT.

You know, the Tol Eressëa forum is supposed to be a place "For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective."

I supposed the above exchanges are sorta-kinda-maybe-barely in that category (if you squint hard)...but it feels suspiciously close to a political argument to me.

I really wish these kinds of exchanges could be kept in Lasto, which is the forum designed for that sort of thing. Of course, I know that sf is banned from that forum, but...that was kind of the point, wasn't it?

[/OT]

[solicitr]

Right, JS. We were talking about whether it is possible to assert sufficient moral or ethical grounds to condemn a religious doctrine if it is, based on those grounds, heinous, or whether we have to accept any religious doctrine, no matter how extreme, because it's religious.

[JewelSong]

Right, JS. We were talking about whether it is possible to assert sufficient moral or ethical grounds to condemn a religious doctrine if it is, based on those grounds, heinous, or whether we have to accept any religious doctrine, no matter how extreme, because it's religious.

Oh, I know what you're talking about.

It's the way you are talking that is a bit...not really Tol Eressëa-like.

[sauronsfinger]

You still should visit the Holocaust Museum in DC. They do a excellent job documenting both the long existing hatred against Jews in Eastern Europe in the pre Nazi era and then they document how the Nazi propaganda machine built off this established base to enact their campaign of hate against a religion and a people who they scapegoated.

In that regard, it is inconsequential and unimportant if it was the Nazi's and the Jews or anyone else. the bigger point is that hatred against a religious group and a people is something that can be fertile ground to be exploited.

I would hope that we do get back - as Jewelsong point out - to a more religious based discussion and not use this as a forum for a political discussion. Obviously there is overlap and there will be overflow.

The vast vast majority of the one billion Muslims in this world are peaceful people and their religion is not any more loathsome or henious than most others.

[solicitr]

The vast vast majority of the one billion Muslims in this world are peaceful people and their religion is not any more loathsome or henious than most others.

Of course, and it's a strawman to assert that anyone's denying it.

However, it seems that a misguided worship of Tolerance has led many, including Maj Hassan's superiors, to ignore or pretend the nonexistence of that minority wing of Islam which is radical and, well, heinous. I believe that Tolerance does not extend so far. In fact, given that this wing/fringe/camp/movement calls openly for a second Holocaust, it's a bit ironic to use the first one in their defense.