pjMom
Zilla
backyardconservative
Carol
fuzislippers
iainswife
Obi's Sister
nicedeb
Pat Austin
Jill
Quite Rightly
retrieverheart
Sherry
just a conservative girl
Hey, Why Can’t WE be “Offended” Too?
Gates of Vienna addresses the insane practice of pressing criminal charges against people who say unflattering things about islam in Europe and Australia (and the way we get ostracized for doing it here in the U.S.) and suggests that perhaps it might be a good idea to take a cue from the islamic supremacist rage boys (and those who live in fear of hurting their feelings) and begin practicing some righteous indignation ourselves. Don’t WE have a right to be offended too?
EXCERPT:
Last night we discussed the case of an EDL member who was convicted and fined for saying things about Allah that might have offended a Muslim, if any had heard him. Earlier today we referred to the Australian government’s provisions for fighting “cyber racism”, in which anyone who feels offended by a “racist” website is encouraged to file an official complaint so that action can be taken against the offensive site.
As regular readers know, these laws against “hate speech” and “incitement to religious hatred” are almost universally used against people like us, who are labeled “racists”, “xenophobes”, and “Islamophobes” because we hold certain political opinions.
The recent EDL case is simply the most blatant example of what is happening to us. It’s becoming more and more apparent that causing a Muslim to feel offended — or even making a police officer think that a Muslim might possibly be offended — is enough to get a person arrested, convicted, fined, and possibly jailed.
But why do Muslims have a monopoly on being offended? Why don’t any other groups of people invoke their right never to feel offended, and file the appropriate complaints?
Part of the answer lies in the fact that Islam is considered a religion, and religions enjoy special privileges under most constitutions. Offending a Muslim means violating his right to free religious expression, and that is the basis for a lot of these pernicious laws. They work to the advantage of Muslims, because most Europeans (and many Americans and Australians as well) have fallen away from Christianity, and would be unable to file a credible religiously based counter-claim when Muslims chant “Death to infidels!”
Or they haven’t been able to make such claims up until now. But why shouldn’t they at least give it a try?
Atheism is, after all, a religion, despite what many of its adherents maintain. It has a creed and an orthodoxy. Its followers recite litanies and revere certain saints. They tend to impose severe punishments on those who deviate from atheist dogma. And, like devout Catholics or Salafist Muslims, they are absolutely certain about who made the world (no one) and what guides it now (nothing except the laws of physics).
So atheists, too, should have the right not to have their religious feelings offended. Their sensibilities should enjoy the same protections as those of any other believer.
Now consider what an atheist, especially a feminist atheist, would think of this:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.
The post then goes into specific detail for how Brits can fight back against the politically correct dhimmitude by using the very same tools that the foolish authorities have given to thin skinned muslims.
Due to the fact that Christianity appears to be the last acceptable group that is permitted to be openly mocked and attacked in the United States, maybe we should adopt a version of the suggested protest tactic to help prevent us from ending up under defacto sharia the way most of Europe is now – because we are halfway there already and it’s a slippery slope.
Potluck 
Yukio Ngaby 1:40 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Now, let me see if I understand this… We should indulge in the “insane practice” of putting out criminal charges against Muslims “who say unflattering things” for what purpose? We should encourage frivilous lawsuits that attempt to trample on the First Amendment to get back at Muslims? That doesn’t sound like a good idea to me…
“Preserving” free speech by arbitrarily attacking and restricting the speech of others seems problematic.
How is most of Europe under de facto Sharia law? How is the US halfway there and apparently sliding toward Sharia?
Europe is its own problem. European and American problems are not the same thing. Pretty much every European country isolated its Muslim immigrant population and refused to integrate– for various reasons their cultures resist the American idea of integration (which is NOT the same thing as multi-culturalism). Much of Europe’s Muslim problems stem from this reality.
And atheism is not a religion (I know you didn’t say that but Gates of Vienna did). A devotion to a belief is not the only aspect of a religion.
And please don’t get mad at me Zilla. I’m not picking on you.
fuzislippers 3:55 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Heh, trial by fire again, Yukio? Zilla seems to be discussing not a specific action but the plight in which we “the silent majority” find ourselves. Bullied, threatened, and/or ridiculed into silence regarding Islam and Muslim practices/holidays and into accepting bans on all Christian holidays and activities. Geez, even Halloween got mixed up in that this year, Halloween! So in a broader context, not just Christianity is under attack by the lunatic fringe on the far left (which includes many “moderate” Islamic groups) but our very society. We know this, Yukio. Or are you going to say that the bazillion “isolated” incidents regarding Islam and Sharia right here in America haven’t happened? And no, I’m not talking about terrorists right now, but about our courts (in 11 states at last count) taking Sharia law into account in their decisions, about Saudis keeping child sex slaves in their basement (defense? Islam says it’s okay), the ten or so “honor killings” that Muslims have engaged in here in America (it’s probably higher, but I don’t feel like googling it right now–Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs is a good site for such information, though, if you’ve a mind to go and check it out. And follow her links to the original news stories, if you don’t like her worldview–and you won’t), and the Saudi-American schools where kids are being taught to hate everyone who is not Muslim and even some Muslims, you know, if they’re gay or otherwise undesirable (I’m not sure that they are being trained in the delightful pastime of lopping off people’s limbs as they are in the U. K., but I wouldn’t be at all surprised).
And what on earth are you talking about with regards to American integration? We don’t have that anymore and haven’t for decades. Instead, we spend billions on ensuring that everything is written in multiple languages (even friggin’ ballots in American elections and the WH “Spanish” site, at least under President Bush, not sure if it’s still up, but it probably is . . . along with one for Muslim outreach (maybe NASA is managing that site as they’ve been charged with Muslim outreach these days).). Not to mention the millions that are being spent on teaching government workers to be translators for people who live here so they don’t have to learn English. Integration? We can’t get anyone to agree to that English is the official language of the United States, for God’s sake. And our own customs, culture, and religious underpinnings are under constant attack.
So, yeah, I’m with Zilla, let’s push the hell back. If the ground we’ve lost was in the courts, then to the courts we must go to regain it. If the ground we’ve lost is in our K-12 school system, then to the K-12 school system we must go to regain it. If the ground . . . well, you get the idea. It’s past time for us to start pushing back and defending our own culture, the only one not protected, funnily enough, by the multicultural nutcases. Darn straight we have a right to be offended, and the fact that we have been for a long time and have said nothing, is also an outrage. We’ve let this go on and on, inch by inch, until we’re here, on the brink of total social (and political and economic) collapse. Heck, I’m offended, Yukio, aren’t you?
Yukio Ngaby 7:10 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Oh, I am well acquainted with Pamela Geller and Atlas Shrugged. I am also amused that so many devout Christians cozy up to her since her website is named after a book written by a zealously anti-religious atheist. I have found no information on Pamela Geller’s beliefs herself…
There is a lot of violence in this world. Geller carefully picks and chooses stories from a particularly violent portion of the world and then uses this as “proof” toward a narrative that all Muslims are deceptive, evil, tyrannical, murderous beasts involved in an ongoing covert religious war to take over the West. If this were actually true, the world would be in the midst of a global war that would make WWII look like a skirmish.
As an example, Geller was all over the story about several Indonesian hard-line Muslims attacking Indonesian Christians in Sept. 2010(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/12/assailants-stab-beat-christian-worshippers-outside-indonesias-capital/?test=latestnews). Geller was not all over the story of Indonesian protesters demanding religious freedom and the arrest of assailants when they felt the govt. was moving too slowly (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/church-elder-stabbed-in-attack-on-christian-worshipers-in-bekasi/395641). Geller is, of course, against the GZM (as am I) and she reports all about it– except for surveys showing a majority of foreign Muslims are also against the GZM (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493711825224290.html?mod=rss_opinion_main).
This is typical. Geller is a very selective and ignores stuff that does not fit her agenda’s narrative.
But at least she doesn’t use her own posts as a source –*cough* Debbie Schlussel– and, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t just make up events. And she can hold her own against the Left on TV etc. However her stuff is so selective that it’s as skewed as the stuff coming out of the far Left.
There is violence in the Muslim world. I am not denying that. But the source and reasons for the violence are far different then Geller and others would have you believe.
You wrote: “And what on earth are you talking about with regards to American integration? We don’t have that anymore and haven’t for decades.”
The horribly mis-named “multi-culturalism” is a problem, but it’s doomed to fail– as it currently is doing in Europe.
We live in particularly polarized times as compared to the 80s. However, if integration is so passe then why are interracial marriages on the rise? How many legal, ethnically restricted neighborhoods do we have? Why are the about 5 million Muslims (the reported number varies greatly) in this country not in open revolt? Why are only a handful (far too many but still a fraction of 1%) of them engaging in terrorist activity? Are all the rest just part of the “creeping sharia”?
American culture has, since its inception, always been an amalgam of very diverse cultures. You can’t just turn off inter-cultural activity without vigorous efforts at ethnic isolation which the US does not engage in. Europe does.
Europe’s Muslim problems are distinctly European. It affects the US– and not in good ways– but it’s European to its core. Europe’s countries was culturally unprepared for the influx of Muslim immigrants that came due to Europe’s social welfare system creating massive needs for unskilled labor– and not to continue the Ottoman invasions as has been openly suggested by more than a few pundits and politicians.
You wrote: “It’s past time for us to start pushing back and defending our own culture, the only one not protected, funnily enough, by the multicultural nutcases.”
True enough– although multi-culturalism starts with the notion that values that are distinctly American are often thought of as universal, and elevates American culture to a privileged and very powerful position of the moral, though guilty, oppressor/redeemer (please, bless the poor, struggling and inferior minorities with benevolent White tolerance and generosity– that idea is so insulting). Yet, how do we go about this? By destroying the 1st Amendment. By challenging the Bill of Rights in court? This makes no sense. Using their tactics destroys American culture– the thing we’re supposed to be protecting.
You wrote: “Heck, I’m offended, Yukio, aren’t you?”
Sure I’m offended. But I’m not going to sue against the Bill of Rights or demand restrictions of free speech because I’m offended. Tit for tat is not going to work for this.
fuzislippers 8:06 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
“Oh, I am well acquainted with Pamela Geller and Atlas Shrugged. I am also amused that so many devout Christians cozy up to her since her website is named after a book written by a zealously anti-religious atheist.”
Seriously, Yukio? Christians should only ever read works written by and about Christians and Christianity? We should never entertain any art, music, literature, philosophy, or science by atheists? And according to this statement, we not only shouldn’t read or approve of anything written by atheists but also shouldn’t have anything to do with anything named after something written by an atheist? You can’t be serious.
Pamela Geller is not an atheist, by the way (as you should know as you read her site), and most likely chose the title based on the novel’s treatment of governments becoming fascist when they slip into socialism and from there into communism.
I’m not entirely sure though because I heard that Atlas was a Greek god, and as a Christian, I never read anything about that there nonsense.
Yukio Ngaby 8:53 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
You wrote: “Christians should only ever read works written by and about Christians and Christianity? We should never entertain any art, music, literature, philosophy, or science by atheists?”
Oh, please. Where did I suggest any of this in my statement?
I was referring to building political alliances of convenience– for instance an alliance between Christian conservatives and Ayn Rand devotees. They don’t get along in any way except in a shared disdian for socialism– or perhaps a shared disdain for Islam. The enemy of my enemy only makes a convenient ally.
And since when has Geller’s Atlas Shrugged become art?
And governments don’t become Fascist by way of Socialism to Communism to Fascism. They become totalitarian. Fascism is its own Hegellian political theory– totalitarian as well.
fuzislippers 8:58 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
You said you were amused that Christians “cozy up” to Geller’s site because it was named after a book written by an atheist. No?
As to the progression, it’s been at least 15 years since I read Atlas Shrugged, so I could be wrong there. Do note, of course, that I was referencing the BOOK (by the dreaded atheist) and not speaking generally about the myriad ways that governments digress into socialism, communism, fascism, or anything else.
Yukio Ngaby 9:04 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
I’m amused that Christians would cozy up to a website that attacks a religion that is named after a famously zealous atheist and whose web design harkens toward Randian avant garde aesthetic. What is not to be amused by this?
I have no idea of Rand’s progression in the book. I’ve been unable to finish that 1000 page monstrosity– and I read Tolstoy and Gibbon.
I have read lots of Rand’s work though– mostly her essays from the 60s such as “The Virtue of Selfishness,” “The Objectivist Ethics,” etc.
fuzislippers 9:08 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Really? I don’t remember it being difficult to read, but again, it’s been forever. I kind of like Tolstoy, though, don’t know what people complain about there. Here’s one I couldn’t slog through: Joyce’s Finnegans Wake. I swear he was already suffering syphilitic insanity when he wrote that one.
Yukio Ngaby 9:13 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
I love Tolstoy, but he is long. War and Peace was very long.
Yeah. I never liked Joyce much. I had Portrait of an Artist… assigned as reading four times in two years. Geez…
And wasn’t Ulysseus the one that ended with the protag’s wife on a toilet?
fuzislippers 9:17 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink
heh, probably, the man was fascinated by bodily functions. And teeth.
pjMom 11:15 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Finnegan’s Wake: Further proof that we were meant to be friends. And the whole bedwetting/wet dreams/dirty water from Portrait of an Artist still completely grosses me out. Or maybe it’s just the memory of an overzealous professor discussing bedwetting/wet dreams/dirty water in class. Repeatedly.
And I love War and Peace. Wicked long. But engaging throughout.
fuzislippers 6:54 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink
As if we needed more proof, but heh, I know what you mean. Joyce is pretty base. I often wondered why there was so little focus on his experimentation with American naturalism.
And I had a professor in grad school who would get very excited about various sexual images in literature. It was rather disgusting, actually, so I know what you mean.
pjMom 6:17 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink
LOL, you’re right, no further proof needed. And ick re the prof. I felt traumatized by the discussions of Portrait and how … animated he became. In addition to the fact that he routinely looked at students’ breasts rather than their faces. You know, it all comes with tenure ; )
Yukio Ngaby 8:18 AM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
Bet he had tenure.
Yukio Ngaby 10:58 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Randian avant garde– ack. I meant art deco design.
fuzislippers 6:55 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
I know what you meant, Yukio. ;)
fuzislippers 9:05 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
By the way, what on earth makes you think that Pamela Geller is “an Ayn Rand devotee”? Because she named her site after a popular novel? Good grief. So a site named “A Moveable Feast” must be run by a Hemingway devotee? Hmph.
Yukio Ngaby 9:08 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yeah. And a website called “Mein Kamph” probably wouldn’t be run by a Hitler devotee.
Rand is overtly political. Her work is propaganda promoting objectivism.
fuzislippers 9:14 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Mein Kamf was not a popular novel, though, it was the bizarre ravings of an egomanical freak disguised as autobiography. It was clearly about him. Atlas Shrugged was not nonfiction, not autobiographical . . . it was just a novel. A really really long novel Yes, it expressed her particular worldview, but most literature, good and bad, does that, no? Hemingway, for instance, supported fascism (Spanish-style) very enthusiastically, but a site named For Whom the Bell Tolls doesn’t necessarily mean it’s run by a rampant fascist, right? Maybe by a Donne enthusiast, and maybe by someone who likes bells. heh
Yukio Ngaby 9:17 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Rand and her work is inseperable from her objectivism. Her fiction was thinly-veiled lessons promoting her view. It was not a work of great literature.
Like Sartre, people know Rand for her views, not her works of fiction.
fuzislippers 9:19 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink
I’m not sure that’s true; I read it and had no idea about her views at that time. I can’t be the only person to ever pick up Atlas Shrugged not knowing anything at all about the writer or her philosophy.
Yukio Ngaby 9:24 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink
I really don’t want to go into a literary analysis of Atlas Shrugged. I guess you’ll just have to trust me or reject me on it.
fuzislippers 9:29 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink
It’s getting all scrunched up again. I don’t reject you (never!), but I don’t accept that a novel is only and solely an ideological treatise.
Yukio Ngaby 9:31 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink
What about Sartre’s Nausea? Camus’ The Stranger? What’s-his-name’s Waiting for Godot (a play, I know)?
Anonna 12:14 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
“True enough– although multi-culturalism starts with the notion that values that are distinctly American are often thought of as universal, and elevates “American culture to a privileged and very powerful position of the moral, though guilty, oppressor/redeemer (please, bless the poor, struggling and inferior minorities with benevolent White tolerance and generosity– that idea is so insulting).”
This statement is outdated and very insulting. American values are not about White tolerance and generosity. American values are, however, American and citizens have every right to want them expressed within our borders. PC and multiculturalism are attempts by those with political agendas to make Americans believe there is no over-arching American culture and many subcultures in our nation. Instead, we are to believe that myriad cultures, most of the foreign, bump against each other in a geographic region known as the US. This is not a statement of our situation, nor is it a desireable situation.
Also, playing the race card is juvenile. You might want to see if you can make your arguments without it.
Obi's Sister 3:07 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
+ + + + + + 100
Yukio Ngaby 8:04 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
Hmm. Let me see if I can address your assertions one at a time.
You wrote: “This statement is outdated and very insulting.”
Really? The American Left no longer believes in the concept of multi-culturalism? Hang out at any 4 year college campus, go through the curriculum and tell me multi-culturalism is dead. Have all the Black Studies/Chicano Studies/Pan-Asian Studies departments been wiped away? Well, I guess we’re behind the times where I live because all of my state’s schools still got them.
You wrote: “American values are not about White tolerance and generosity.”
I was not claiming this to be the case in my statement– yet in a bizarre way they are. The Left would have you believe that America’s legacy of slavery, imperialism (Mexican-American War, Westward expansion, etc.), racism (legalized racial segregation, etc.) forces America to offer special programs (affirmative action, welfare, and such), powered by White guilt, to make up for past injustices. Such programs are designed to show how really sorry White people actually are over these historical injustices– a position based on a moral belief.
Yet, the fact that these programs are offered up as recompense presumes (among other things) that America is essentially White– for conventional wisdom would suggest that Blacks have no need to apologize to Blacks for slavery, etc. It also suggests that racial minorities are now welcomed (White tolerance) and that White people are now moral enough to offer these special prizes to racial minorities (White generosity). Both of which you claim to be insulting, outdated and not American. It may be insulting, but they’re very much here and very much American– this isn’t happening in Japan, Singapore, Mali, China, Russia, Uganda, Mexico, etc.
Essentially these “moral programs” work to reaffirm how wonderful Leftist White people believe themselves to be– they “bravely” acknowledge the injustices of the past, show themselves to no longer be unjust in that way, and confirm that White people are still in authority since they have the power to generously offer tolerance and these massively expensive govt. programs. These programs are also based around the assumption that a person who is a racial minority in America cannot do things for themselves and are essentially inferior. After all, a person who is not inferior to an equivalent White person would not need racial preferences such as boosts on their test scores and racial quotas to get into colleges or acquire a job in the current US.
You wrote: “American values are, however, American and citizens have every right to want them expressed within our borders.”
And the sky is blue. Although based on your statement that “American values are not about White tolerance and generosity” I would be willing to wager that what you believe to be “American values” are actually only the values of which you approve, and not the myriad of values (good and bad) that are actually part of America.
You wrote: “PC and multiculturalism are attempts by those with political agendas to make Americans believe there is no over-arching American culture and many subcultures in our nation.”
I cannot see how PC does this. PC, more then anything, makes us dance around subjects having to do with race and attempts to bully us into silence (as do silly claims of playing the race card– but more on that in a moment). It also makes us conform to using long-winded terminology according to an accepted etiquette (“persons of color” “African-American” “Native American” “differently-abled” “differently gendered” [and yes, I have heard that one] etc.).
Perhaps what you are claiming is one result of multi-culturalism, though I don’t believe that it is an attempt to deny American culture. It may be briefly exploited that way, but most multi-culturalists I know do not deny American culture (after all, what enslaved Black Americans and stole the Native Americans’ land if not American culture?), although they do claim that it is White.
You wrote: “Instead, we are to believe that myriad cultures, most of the foreign, bump against each other in a geographic region known as the US. This is not a statement of our situation, nor is it a desireable situation.”
There are a couple of implications (none of them racist, lest you think I am might play a race card again) in this statement which would be interesting to follow up on, but I could be wrong about what you are implying. And frankly, I don’t think you know what multi-culturalism is. After all, you do seem to be (mistakenly) claiming that I’m a proponent of it.
You wrote: “Also, playing the race card is juvenile. You might want to see if you can make your arguments without it.”
I find this statement particularly amusing for various reasons. Exactly how did I play the race card? Because I mentioned race? Well guess what, when discussing cultural issues, and especially American multi-culturalism, race might come up. Shh, don’t tell anyone, but it’s true. I’m sorry that it apparently makes you uncomfortable or something. And to me, being uncomfortable with the subject seems a little juvenile.
Exactly how was I exploiting or expecting racial guilt (which is really what you’re talking about) to back up my arguments (both in this statement [what you cherry-picked was an aside anyway] and the rest of my comments) as you claim I have done? Where have I accused anyone I’ve been exchanging with as being racist? Where have I appealed to White guilt? Where have I attempted to cut off the conversation by saying it’s a race thing? Please elaborate and give specific examples. If you can.
fuzislippers 3:36 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
I think, Yukio, that you are being too dismissive here. Anonna raises a really interesting point (one you even agree is interesting before dismissing it and saying she doesn’t know what multiculturalism is, thereby dismissing her).
While the “goal” of multiculturalism may not be the destruction of American culture (and that is certainly arguable), the results most certainly are destroying American culture. We see this in every removal of the word “Christmas,” every assault on our flag, every attack on Christianity. Our culture is definitely rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage and in our keen sense of patriotism (which, as you know, is NOT the rabid nationalism the lefties pretend that it is), so removing Christianity (to make other religions feel welcome and unthreatened) and patriotism (so immigrants don’t feel like their home country isn’t important) is absolutely a violation of our culture and our heritage.
Annona’s image of various cultures bumping into one another on a land mass that happens to be America is a good one, and definitely one that warrants some thought. After all, isn’t that in fact what we have these days with multiculturalism and exactly why Europe (France and Germany, anyway) are trying to rectify their mistake of embracing “multiculturalism” at the expense of their own culture/s? Opting for “multiculturalism” over assimilation has hurt the “home cultures” and devalued the national culture of every country that experiments with it. I don’t know about you, but I find this line of thought incredibly interesting.
Yukio Ngaby 3:50 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
I dismiss her because she claims I am a blind, race-baiting, multi-culturalist spouting Leftist memes.
Fuzzy, have we not discussed this before? I thought we had.
In a bid to be “inclusive” American multi-culturalism creates a bland every-culture based in American values thought of as universal. Obama’s “nowruz is just like Christmas” speech being an example of the results of multi-culturalism.
Other countries’ multi-culturalism basically do the same thing, assuming the dominant country’s values (watered-down) as universal and then pruning the other cultures down until it conforms to some sort of perceived balance– nowruz is like Christmas. This does not deny the dominant culture’s culture– such as America.
You keep using the word assimilation. It is almost always more of an integration. The host culture changes.
fuzislippers 4:01 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
We may have, but I simply don’t agree with your assessment of the effects of multiculturalism here. You seem to be assuming that the American culture is dominant simply because it was “here” first, but that’s not what multiculturalism does in reality. It restricts our cultural practices and beliefs by forcing those of immigrants to the fore, we cede our rights constantly to “embrace” this new culture or that. We are called racist, Islamophobic, and any number of other epithets for sticking up for our own culture in our own country. So your idea of a “bland every-culture” is fundamentally flawed: there is not an “every-culture” (bland or otherwise), only isolated communities, all of whom WE are supposed to bend over backwards to accommodate and coddle . . . at the cost of our own values, beliefs, and culture.
fuzislippers 4:09 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Btw, Yukio, we all KNOW that you’re not a multicultural meme-spouting, race-baiting leftist (or whatever), so don’t worry about that stuff.
Yukio Ngaby 4:11 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Oh, but I *love* being called it.
fuzislippers 4:13 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink
Too bad, because you’re not. So there. :p
Yukio Ngaby 4:16 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Fuzzy, this really isn’t the place to talk about this, because the subject ends up being frightfully complicated and abstract requiring a lot of examples and analogies.
It’s something either to write a book about (literally), or discuss vocally without the need to write long diatribes.
fuzislippers 4:18 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Agreed. So let’s write that book. heh
Yukio Ngaby 4:19 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink
I like writing fiction better.
zillaoftheresistance 1:55 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yukio, in England, non-muslims get arrested for saying things that offend muslims, they are being arrested if they say something that somebody thinks MIGHT offend muslims. Because of that, I 100% support the idea put forth by Gates of Vienna of non-muslims also pressing charges every single time a muslim says something offensive to them, like “behead non-muslims” and such.
Now we aren’t being arrested for saying that “allah is mohammed’s imaginary friend” or anything yet here, but we are daily made to conform to islamist’s wishes rather than them attempting to assimilate into our society. There is now muslim female only segregated swimming at George Washington University, businesses are being sued for asking muslims to comply with safety regulations, and a woman had to abandon her entire life and identity & go into hiding for suggesting “everybody draw mohammed day” because a fatwa has been issued ordering her death (there are a lot more similar examples but I don’t have the energy to post them all at the moment). Attacks against Christianity in our country are rampant to the point where store employees can’t even wish shoppers a “Merry Christmas”, taxpayer dollars are used to support “art”such as the recent ant covered Christ at the Smithonian, and a football player is being penalized for “unsportsmanlike conduct” because he dared to take a knee and point to the heavens after scoring in a game – just to name a few examples. Why is it that muslims are permitted to make all kinds of demands for special treatment and we’re not supposed to say a word about it but it’s accepted and even encouraged to denigrate Christianity? Why are WE not supposed to complain?
Mosques in America preach anti-American rhetoric daily and nobody says a word, even when followers take that rhetoric to the next level and plot to kill us.
I find chants of “death to America”, and “behead non-muslims” to be personally offensive, why are no lawyers offering to help sue the islamic supremacists who say such vile things but have no problem filing suit on behalf of perpetually offended thin-skinned muslims?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and rules need to apply equally to everybody or not apply at all. That’s pretty much the gist of what I was trying to say with the post above.
fuzislippers 7:03 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Good points, Zilla. And let’s not forget that the true Islamophobes are the apologists, the ones who are afraid to critique Islam and its violence (which seems to follow Muslims everywhere they go, probably just a coincidence, though–uh huh), the ones who pull episodes of television shows, magazine articles, and leave out important elements of news reporting (like that someone who wanders into Times Square to set off a bomb is a Muslim or that the Fort Hood terrorist was Muslim–how long before that was even reported? And then as an afterthought or as on MSNBC to make excuses for their behavior–someone made fun of them. Or something.). This is the true fall-out of Islamic terrorism: fear of Islam and its adherents who might sue or kill in the name of Islam; thereby laying the path wide open for (yes, Yukio) creeping Sharia.
Yukio Ngaby 9:36 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yup. The moral relativity and moral cowardice of the Left is the fault of Muslims. “Creeping Sharia” in action.
fuzislippers 11:05 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
heh, no, but Muslims are exploiting “multiculturalism” and the pass they are given in the name of “equality” (or whatever). And they aren’t shy about it. There’s a reason they dared apply for 9/11 taxpayer funds to build their triumphal Cordoba House mosque on the site of their greatest victory over the American infidel. Opportunists, sure. They fit right in with the left. For now. But as the Democratic Party is finding out the hard way, getting in bed with dangerous elements (sprogs) has dangerous repercussions.
As I’ve told you before, I’m not going to debate this whole Islam / creeping Sharia thing with you, Yukio. I know exactly what you think/feel because I was there, too. Until I wasn’t.
Yukio Ngaby 11:38 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Opportunism is hardly something exclusive to the Left.
You wrote: “As I’ve told you before, I’m not going to debate this whole Islam / creeping Sharia thing with you, Yukio. I know exactly what you think/feel because I was there, too. Until I wasn’t.”
I guess you’re just above me then. Maybe some day I’ll be as smart as you. ; )
fuzislippers 11:45 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Heh, maybe. One day. :p
Yukio Ngaby 9:33 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
And in the UK a man (former soldier) was jailed for picking up a stray gun and bringing it to the police rather then leaving lying in the street for kids to pick up. The UK has to deal with the UK’s social problems. Saying what happened there could happen here is an error. Britain’s culture is not the US’s, their laws are not ours, and they say lorries instead of trucks. Social problems are specific to the cultures in which they take place and unless that culture is understood intimately the problems are not understood.
Going down the path of litigously eroding away personal liberties isn’t the way fight political correctness. Do you believe it’s the Muslims’ fault that store employees say “Happy Holidays,” or that the National Endowment for the Arts throws money at bad art, or that the NFL penalized a guy?
GWU now has a segregated swimming time? Are women and men never allowed to swim together, or are there just certain female only times– one hour a week, if reports are correct. In many gyms in California, Washington, Oregon and Texas (states that I personally know of this happening) there are female only hours because some women (very few if any of them Muslim) feel uncomfortable working out around men. Should this be abolished? Should I sue over this? It seems that all that has to happen is for the word Muslim or Islam to be connected to something and then everyone suddenly loses their minds and it’s all part of a takeover.
You wrote: “businesses are being sued for asking muslims to comply with safety regulations” Yeah, that’s a problem but I’m not willing to throw away the 1st Amendment over this issue. And I also have a real problem with believing this is evidence of “creeping Sharia” eroding away our rights and Constitution.
You wrote: “a woman had to abandon her entire life and identity & go into hiding for suggesting “everybody draw mohammed day” because a fatwa has been issued ordering her death”
Yes. That is a problem. There are segments of the Muslim world which are abhorrent– Pakistan’s executing Asia Bibi another example. My point is not, nor has it ever been, that all Muslims are simply misunderstood and need a big group hug to be nice. My point has always been that writing off all 1.57+ billion Muslims in the world as being terrorists and extremists is wrong, foolish, and creates needless animosity and enemies. It is important to know who, specifically, is your enemy. About 5 million Muslims live in the US– how many of those issued a fatwa against this woman? How many of the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world agreed with it? Every single one?
You wrote: “Mosques in America preach anti-American rhetoric daily and nobody says a word.” Anti-American rhetoric like “Goddamn America!” Rev. Wright preached his racially divisive garbage weekly for how many years? Roman Catholic Pfleger backs him up saying that Wright is the greatest theologian of our times… yet, you only single out Muslim mosques. And I assure that not every Muslim mosque preaches hatred for America. Right now Muslims are the Left’s pet cause. This is factor that needs to be considered when talking about this issue.
You wrote: “we are daily made to conform to islamist’s wishes rather than them attempting to assimilate into our society.” It’s not assimilation, it’s integration. Integration is not a one-way street, nor is it accomplished over the course of a single generation. Look at the Irish immigations, the Italian and Baltic immigrations (Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues being the lowest values property on the Monopoly set), the Japanese and Chinese, look at the course of integration of Black Americans into mainstream American society. There are many more. It took time and society changed significantly because of each integration. Let me repeat that– society changed significantly.This sort of societal change is inevitable with integration, and not all part of a massive (10s of millions involved) “creeping Sharia” plot.
The question is not how do we stop these changes (because that is doomed to failure), but how these changes will fall together in the US. For that reason, it is really important that the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain supreme in American law. Lawsuits questioning challenging the Bill of Rights to allow Christians access to the vaunted privileges of “societal victim” is silly.
BTW, why would anyone want to do that? Because it worked so well for the American Black community? But that’s another discussion…
Anonna 12:20 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
“You wrote: “businesses are being sued for asking muslims to comply with safety regulations” Yeah, that’s a problem but I’m not willing to throw away the 1st Amendment over this issue. And I also have a real problem with believing this is evidence of “creeping Sharia” eroding away our rights and Constitution.”
A religion is using the legal system to restructure traditional ways of working so as to accommodate THEIR prayer schedule, etc. That doesn’t seem like a forcing creeping muslimization of our culture? What other religion uses our laws to impose the conditions required by their religious law?
If muslims want prayer time, they can get a job that allows that. If they don’t want to touch pork, don’t work in the food industry, etc. That is American freedom of choice. But what they want is a muslim world — and they are willing to lie to get it — a muslim can save up prayers and say them all after the workday, there is no prohibition against touching pork. Yes, this is the increasing alteration of our land to match muslim expectations.
Yukio Ngaby 11:16 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
Anonna = anonymous?
You wrote: “A religion is using the legal system to restructure traditional ways of working so as to accommodate THEIR prayer schedule, etc. That doesn’t seem like a forcing creeping muslimization of our culture?”
Yes, any attempt to make things more convenient for Muslims is evidence of creeping Sharia and an attempt to change the fundamental systems of our culture, law, and govt. You’ve convinced me. It’s all part of a master plan hatched by the Moors, continued by the Ottomans, and now implemented by… well… any Muslim really… all of whom are part of the masterplan to take over the world. (BTW, all of this snark is DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY AT ANONNA who has in her comments accused of me of playing the race card instead of debating and has derisively said that I am blind, and at no one else on this site).
“What other religion uses our laws to impose the conditions required by their religious law?”
Off the top of my head, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers, Wiccans and very recently the Church of Body-piercing or some such nonsense. Historically, the Mormons did as well. It’s very common.
“But what they want is a muslim world — and they are willing to lie to get it”
Yes. Only Muslims lie to get what they want. Christians, Jews, White people, American Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. all never lie. At least not to get what they want. Right? Never. No, not ever…
Quite Rightly 1:34 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
You’re missing the point, Yukio, which is not that Christians, Jews, etc. never lie. The point is that, when they do lie, it is in violation of their religious precepts, whereas Islam elevates deception under certain circumstances to a virtue. Here’s a quiet, restrained, article about taqiyya, but there are many others, including many written by Muslim clerics.
Yukio Ngaby 2:56 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Thanks for the link. I am aware of taqiyya although this had some very interesting info, and the site your link was linked to also had some good info.
I see nothing in there that suggests Muslims lie any more than anyone else. The religion simply formalized specific excuses for lying– war, self-protection, good works, etc.– giving specifics to what constitutes a “white lie.” Western philosophers have asked many of the same questions and offered similar conclusions when in comes to ethics, going back even farther than Plato and his “noble lie” that he based his ideal state around.
I suppose the members of the CIA, military, black ops, etc. never lie, especially not during a war (which is what taqiyya partially covers)– or if they do it’s for a good cause. Which is what taqiyya essentially does, formalizes what is a good cause.
All cultures I am familiar with, including our own, has elevated deceit to a virtue under certain circumstances. Is it not considered virtuous for the CIA to spread misinformation to the KGB/Soviets during the Cold War? Is it not considered virtuous for the British to deceive the Nazis during WWII? If it wasn’t they sure did it enough. Or did all the people involved have to ask for God’s forgiveness and then serve some sort of penance because of their sins? And even if they did (which I can’t believe any did because it is a basic practicality of war to deceive) how does this make a more honest society? You could argue that at least Islam spells out to anyone willing to read their texts the terms that it finds okay to be pragmatically deceitful.
I take no solace in the fact that when a Christian (as an example) lies to me, he/she is breaking their religions precepts and will (if this person even bothers) have to ask for forgiveness later.
Quite Rightly 9:07 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Yukio– You and I certainly want to live in two different worlds. I deliberately seek to deal with honest people whose word I can depend on, even if we have little else on which we agree. I can make all kinds of dependable social contracts with such people, from setting meeting times to making financial bargains. Honest people, while they might skip an appointment at times or fail to make the occasional payment when they would have liked to, will show up at appointments, pay bills, and provide services they claim they will provide. Whatever honest people tell you, you can reasonably depend on, making their advice instructive and their spiritual comfort healing. And I can tell you from huge experience that you do not want to be relying for any vital information (say the findings of medical research) on someone whose culture takes the concept of honesty lightly.
My work brings me routinely into close working relationships with people of many foreign cultures. No one culture, religion, or ideology produces 100% honest, forthright people, but some do produce an overwhelming proportion of respectful people who will meet their obligations and make “positive” contributions to their neighbors as a matter of training and habit. In my opinion based on personal experience, Judeo-Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, and a number of non-Islamic African religions produce people who make good neighbors.
Quite Rightly 7:07 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Hey Zilla–
I’m with you. Push back. While it’s still our country.
Of course, this is what compliant “freedom of religion,” “Of course we will install footbaths in public places for you at our expense” and “You want time out to pray several times a day inside our NYC public schools, no problem, here’s a classroom set aside for ‘mosque’ purposes,” and “Hey, some other cabbie will pick up that blind guy with the seeing eye dog” and “Sorry, we really don’t have to sell bacon in our chain store,” and “Let’s teach little Jewish boys how to pray in a Boston mosque while their parents aren’t looking” non-pushback looks like to some guy called Mohamed O. Mohamud. (Cell phone video).
Yukio Ngaby 10:00 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
You wrote: “Of course we will install footbaths in public places for you at our expense”
All religions are at the government teat– why wouldn’t they be when the fed is throwing out money? It’s a problem. Yet, it’s not a specifically Muslim problem.
You wrote: “You want time out to pray several times a day inside our NYC public schools, no problem, here’s a classroom set aside for ‘mosque’ purposes”
So Muslim children should not have the right to pray during school hours? Are you against school prayer? Why should Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindis, etc. not have the right to pray in school? Why are we not working to promote that?
You wrote: “Let’s teach little Jewish boys how to pray in a Boston mosque while their parents aren’t looking”
A bad field trip to a mosque full of American converts… what could possibly go wrong? Yet, the bad field trip is not enough for me to demand that the First Amendment be scrapped. And seriously what was the net result of this? Some kids foolishly prayed at a mosque once…
You wrote: “non-pushback looks like to some guy called Mohamed O. Mohamud.” That’s very unfair QR. I’ve been following the Mohamud case and he seems to have been superficially motivated because he felt alienated and victimized– that’s no excuse, and frankly he appears to me to be a product of America’s decades old entitlement culture. Push back would’ve been nothing for him. He made a video in which he attacked his parents for not being truly Muslim– but maybe that was just part of the tricky “creeping Sharia” plot.
Push back prevents integration and erodes the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why do you want to follow the failed lead of Europe in this?
Quite Rightly 11:41 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yukio, Islam did not invent prayer time at set times of the day. Both Jews and Christians have long had set prayer times at certain hours of the day, and church bells were used to remind Christians of these times. I have no doubt that similar prayer rituals exist in other religions as well. You may have noticed that public schools did not set aside prayer rooms for Jewish and Christian children to retire from class to pray at those times and this custom is no longer observed in America. Families interested in incorporating prayer into their children’s school hours set up private religious schools at their own expense, while at the same time paying school taxes for others. Interestingly, only Muslim children use taxpayer supported “separated from Church” facilities for their prayer rooms and are excused from class to use those facilities. That is unfair and you know why.
I am not demanding that the first amendment be scrapped. Not at all. However, if little Jewish boys are to be taught how to pray in mosques during public school trips (to teach non-hate, as I was told by one of the teachers in that area), I think that little Muslim boys should be taught to pray in Jewish temples, don’t you? Wouldn’t that also be a lesson in non-hate? Or would it be extremely dangerous to the students, teachers, schools, and cities? By the way, is there any particular reason why Jewish and Christian little girls (and their female teachers) need to be taught to wait at the back of the mosque? Is that teaching non-hate too?
My point about Mohamed O. Mohamud is that he thinks that Americans have nothing better to do than pick on Muslims. His remark about what American men want to do to Muslim women has no relationship to reality. He’s just another spoiled Muslim boy (from being treated like a king for no particular reason other than his gender) who picked up somewhere (maybe from the air?) that Americans are “out to get” Muslims. While going to school on in-state tuition.
I don’t believe that push back prevents integration. Historically, there has plenty of push back on every immigrating group this country has ever seen up until recent decades. Ask anyone. What push back does prevent is some bully thinking he has just encountered another sap that he can roll right over at their expense.
Yukio Ngaby 12:33 AM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
You wrote: “You may have noticed that public schools did not set aside prayer rooms for Jewish and Christian children to retire from class to pray at those times and this custom is no longer observed in America.”
So for Muslims to have access to public schools, they need to change their customs of prayer just like the Christians and Jews did. Is this essentially what you’re saying?
How is this not discriminatory toward religion and the free exercise thereof. Get with the program or no public schooling for you– but you still gotta pay the taxes for it. Just because many Christians abandoned their prayer customs doesn’t mean we should expect everyone else to sacrifice their beliefs on the altar US secularism. Should religious beliefs that don’t involve human sacrifice and such not be protected from government regulation? Or is mutiple calls for prayer actually the cause of Islamic terrorism?
You wrote: “However, if little Jewish boys are to be taught how to pray in mosques during public school trips (to teach non-hate, as I was told by one of the teachers in that area), I think that little Muslim boys should be taught to pray in Jewish temples, don’t you?”
So now we need a fairness doctrine in bad field trips? This is degrading into Leftist equivalency. No, I don’t think anyone needs to go on field trips to church’s or mosques or synagogues or whatever.
You wrote: “He’s just another spoiled Muslim boy (from being treated like a king for no particular reason other than his gender) who picked up somewhere (maybe from the air?) that Americans are ‘out to get’ Muslims.”
Out of thin air? Or maybe he read Atlas shrugged. Or maybe BigPeace.com where commenters routinely say that Islam needs to be wiped out– in between saying that Muslims are all pedophiles. Or perhaps this site where commenters have said Islam is pure evil.
I do not, in any way, condone or excuse his actions. But you’re saying it happened simply because he’s a spoiled Muslim (as is typical among Muslim men according to your statements). That’s ludicrous. And NO, Iam not saying it happened simply because of Atlas Shrugged or some other nonsense. He was trying to be a mass-killer. That just doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t happen just because he’s Muslim. Again, how many American Muslims have tried to commit terrorist attacks in this country out of about 5 million? How many Muslims out 1.57+ billion have commited terrorist attacks in the world?
fuzislippers 2:26 AM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
“Or perhaps this site where commenters have said Islam is pure evil.”
What I said, and I believe the others said, is that executing the Christian woman in the posted video, a mother of five, for doing nothing more than “blaspheming” Islam is evil. It is. I stand by that, and I’d appreciate–if you are going to quote me–that you provide the original context of my comment to avoid misrepresenting my words/ideas as you have so clearly done here.
If you read about this story, it all began because the Muslim women refused to drink from a water pail brought to them by a Christian woman (religion of tolerance!!). It escalated until they wanted the poor woman executed for blaspheming Islam (religion of peace!!). I’m not sure what you’d call evil, but that, to me, is evil. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8164979/The-Christian-woman-facing-death-over-a-work-squabble.html
Yukio Ngaby 2:55 AM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
So a Muslim cleric saying that the killing of this woman is the happiest day of his life, isn’t evil? And since many on this site refuse to acknowledge that different beliefs and schools in Islam affect behavior/beliefs/attitudes/morals, how is it unfair to say that what I said?
You see I believe that what that cleric said is evil. But I don’t believe that every Muslim is evil because of it. I also understand that this is rural Pakistan.
I have repeatedly said do not generalize Muslims for which four people have argued against me. You yourself have asked for a list of Muslim countries that don’t chop off arms and think of women as property. (“Which Muslim state or country doesn’t lop off hands, feet, heads for punishment and doesn’t deem women as property? Seriously, which one?”) The obvious implication is that every Muslim country does this– thus this is a Muslim practice. Am I to believe that you don’t believe that these are evil practices?
fuzislippers 3:04 AM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
Yukio, well, which Muslim country doesn’t lop hands, feet, and /or heads off as a matter of law, as punishment for crimes? Which one doesn’t deem women as property? I’m not aware of any, if you are, just answer.
As to your being so worried about generalizations: you took a comment I made, specific to one post–one situation, and YOU drew a larger conclusion based on that. You generalized, not me. Calm down. We can all agree to disagree on this one . . . right?
Yukio Ngaby 3:33 AM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
I’m not upset Fuzzy. I’m harried. : )
Fuzzy, since we are now playing by the card, the question of women as property is a loaded one. So I will say that there are very few countries that allow people to own other people– female or male. There are also very few countries (Muslim or otherwise) that share the American ideal of sexual equality. And any country I say, someone could say “but women are treated deplorably in that country” and I’m not playing that game.
Off the top of my head, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kosovo, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, are Muslim countries that do not do cut off people’s limbs for stealing– although I am not sure about the decapitations, but remember that before France outlawed capital punishment their method of execution was still the guillotine.
I am against the death penalty, but if you’re going to have one, I would much rather see or be killed with decapitations then the American gas chambers. That is ghastly.
And of course we can disagree.
Anonna 12:24 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
If a musilm misses a prayer, he is allowed to make it up and reciting it just before the next prayer time. Or a musilm can if needed save up all the prayers and say them at the end of the day.
So this whole “freedom of worship” meme that you’re promoting is based in incorrect information. Muslims do not HAVE to pray at certain times of the day. Islam itself has made a way for a muslim who misses prayers to correct the situation with no penalty or wrong-doing.
Back to the kids leaving class to pray, only Muslim kids, if you don’t see that as islamization of our schools then you must be blind.
zillaoftheresistance 7:59 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
Well said, Anonna, thank you.
Yukio Ngaby 12:14 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
You wrote: “If a musilm misses a prayer, he is allowed to make it up and reciting it just before the next prayer time. Or a musilm can if needed save up all the prayers and say them at the end of the day.”
You have this one point which you keep repeating, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I am talking about which is the free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights.
You wrote: “So this whole ‘freedom of worship’ meme that you’re promoting is based in incorrect information.”
Really? My freedom of worship “meme” (and it’s an argument not a meme BTW) is based solely on the information that Muslims must pray multiple times during the day. I guess when I wrote “Why should Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindis, etc. not have the right to pray in school? Why are we not working to promote that?” (which I would call a freedom or worship argument) that it was specifically based on the need for Muslims to pray multiple times during the day. Right? Oh, wait. No it’s not.
Thursday (already?!) laundry « Politicaljunkie Mom 11:52 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
[…] over to the Potluck to give a rousing welcome to a new addition to the gang of conservative gals, Zilla of the Resistance. Yukio headed up the Welcome Committee with gusto, but feel free to add […]