Longtime readers probably remember a couple years ago, our host Dean Esmay got into it with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs ( I can’t link it because the tags here have all expired with the move, and I’m sure as hell not linking LGF).
At the time, mea culpa, I regarded the whole thing as unproductive and took no sides. While LGF was often unhelpfully Islamaphobic (mocking the “Allah fish” and other harmless superstitions common to all religion), I felt they were necessary in that the stories of violence LGF would highlight were ignored by the MSM, either through justified fear of violent retribution or general left-liberal xenophilia. While I’m still considerably less sanguine than Dean regarding Islam (without prejudice against any individual practitioners, a large majority of whom are good well-intentioned people, it is by far the most destructive major religion by any objective measure and badly needs a better, faster Enlightenment), I have to acknowledge that any defense I made of Charles Johnson seems rather foolish in retrospect, because since that time, Charles has gone off his meds or something.
I’m not sure what the hell happened over there, as I’m not a frequent LGFer, but the change is quite bizarre, bordering on schizophrenic. It appears 90% of what LGF does now is attack leading voices on the right, from Rush to HotAir to Ace of Spades to Glenn Beck. It’s almost enough to make one ask whether a large check from George Soros was involved, but I try to never attribute to malicious c0nspiracy what can be explained by lone craziness.
In addition to noting that Dean is apparently a better judge of character than myself, I will bid a sad farewell to the Charles Johnson of the Rathergate days, and best of hopes for his future psychiatric health.
{ 51 comments }
I’ve been pleased to hear he’s been taking a harder-line stance on the rampant Islamophobia that infects certain quarters of the right (which are very real I’m afraid), but I otherwise think something happened to him that happens to a lot of us: you blog long enough, and are visible enough, that one day you simply don’t have the energy to endlessly explain yourself anymore. Especially to endlessly repeat yourself.
So I take no position on any of this. The LGF that used to creep me out was the LGF that allowed just some of the most virulent stuff go in the comments. And a tendency to be blind to how certain elements on the Right were using this stuff to forward their own spiritual agenda. But whatever, I don’t read it anymore, don’t read Hot Air much either. ;-)
He’s still fine with the Islamophobia afaict. His bugaboo appears to be alleged racism, or extremism, or… something.
I’ve been following Charles’ decent for a while, and talking about it on some other blogs.
IMO, he went off the deep end when he was booted out of Pajamas Media.
He’s been on a rampage against anyone remotely related with PMJ ever since.
Hell hath no fury like a blogger scorned….
Haven’t a clue who Charles Johnson is.
LGF has never been more than a ten second link bypass.
I’ve been troubled by by the change in tone at LGF. He seems to be hostile towards almost everyone.
it is by far the most destructive major religion by any objective measure and badly needs a better, faster Enlightenment
kindly name a few such “objective measures”.
Aziz: LOL, are you actually challenging this?
I suppose you are going to say something like “You can’t blame all the terrorism, genocidal attacks, sharia law abuses, state-sponsored oppression and threats to wipe Israel off the map on Islam just because that’s all done by professed MUSLIMS!!!
Nah…. total coincidence. Total.
Charles Johnson isn’t much different than a whole host of pundits in the blogosphere, or other classes of human being: something ticks him off, and he goes after that which offends him with a vengeance. Problematically, folks sometimes let bias against whatever offends them eclipse inconvenient facts or detail that can undermine any particular angle being pursued. Again, this goes on *all the time,* on a lot of sites.
That doesn’t mean his recent critiques are without merit.
The entire shebang kicked off with Johnson pointing out several anti-Islam bloggers were keeping shady company by associating with Euro-supremecist groups on the old continent. This kicked off a backlash against Johnson, which in turn ticked him off, which has reached its inevitable conclusion as Johnson has turned his sights on a lot of the questionable tactics and associations within the right wing.
Of course, now that the left is in power, some new crazy was bound to launch from the right, so in some ways this is a natural extension of his previous critiques. (moonbats, et al)
Sometimes his attacks are indeed weak and he buys and in turn peddles spin (like the fake Limbaugh quotes), other times his attacks are dead on. The only thing that bugs me as much as Johnson’s sometimes failure to retract or willingness to publish unverified claims in pursuit of his angle, is the right’s pretense that *none* of the stuff he’s criticizing is valid.
So, like Dean, I sort of don’t have a huge dog in this fight, though I agree with some of Johnson’s critiques, and some of the right’s critiques of Johnson.
Cosmic: No, but your examples are pretty much cherry-picked. You just can’t see it, apparently.
Dean: Don’t you talk to me about selective data gathering. If you are going to argue that other major religions of the world are remotely as prone to violence as Islam is TODAY, then I’m going to laugh out loud at you. When you add to that the incontrovertable FACT that THIS NATION has been attacked by Islamic jihadist/terrorists REPEATEDLY for DECADES, then it not only is an issue of whether violence is more prevalent IN GENERAL, but that the violence is SPECIFICALLY more targeted at ME and MY FAMILY.
You can stick your head in the ground and spew politically correct nonsense all you like if it makes you feel all sophisticated and tolerant Dean.
I don’t play that crap. I see the real world and deal with reality. The statement that was made is that Islam is badly in need of an enlightenment. I’ll ADD to that the statement that what Islam badly needs is an enlightenment that brings the BULK of the RANK AND FILE followers of the religion out of a medieval mindset and into the 21st century.
I don’t give a fig if you think that’s non-politically correct, or if it offends your desire to be Mr. Oh-so-tolerant.
Not. My. Deal.
Aziz,
It’s difficult to even name a major non-Islamic religious terrorist organization (ala AQ, Hamas, Hizbollah) or a repressive non-Islamic religious state or movement (such as SA, Taliban, Iran, etc).
Islam seems to be the common denominator in virtually every religious conflict involving a major religion. We don’t find Buddhists fighting Christians or Jews fighting Hindus. We do find Muslims fighting all of the above.
Islam’s peculiar vulnerability to violent demagogues stems from the fact that it was founded by a warrior and mostly spread by the sword. The other major religions were born inside empires and won most of their converts peacefully within that apparatus, and thus don’t generally have violence as an integral part of their heritage. That’s not to say Islam cannot become more enlightened, but it won’t get there traveling a river in Egypt.
He’s been on a rampage against anyone remotely related with PMJ ever since.
No, not really. I used to write for Pajamas Media and CJ has linked to my blogposts.
Of course, I stopped writing for PJ media because many of the commenters and one of the editors were objecting to the fact that I was criticizing fascist parties in Austria. Like CJ, I have to wonder what happened to the right. When did everyone decide to start chanting Ron Paul and Pat Buchanans originalist/constitutionalist mantra? When did weepy Glen Beck become an oracle? When did we stop liking democracy and when did we start demanding to be called a republic?
I used to be tuned into right wing issues. Did I miss a memo or was there no place in my tiny apartment to put the pods?
Both parties seem to go into a sort of automatic intellectual hibernation mode when they’re out of power. They don’t think, they just rage. It’s fairly consistent (like the Posse Comitatus group, localism and Clinton’s ‘imperial’ presidency) but it is distressing to see this happen to people whose opinions you’d previously respected. I’m not as concerned by extremism on the right as CJ is, but I can sympathize. I read LGF because of the news that the regular media doesn’t cover, like the growing influence of various fascist/authoritarian parties in Europe (and their fights with and/or alliances with various Islamist groups), but skip the articles that cover issues that are already being covered by many media outlets, or by ‘Hatewatch’ groups like the Southern Poverty Law center.
IMO, he went off the deep end when he was booted out of Pajamas Media
Interesting, I hadn’t followed that.
Hell hath no boldface fonts like a blogger scorned…
Of course, I stopped writing for PJ media because many of the commenters and one of the editors were objecting to the fact that I was criticizing fascist parties in Austria
A legitimate grievance on your part.
When did everyone decide to start chanting Ron Paul and Pat Buchanans originalist/constitutionalist mantra?
They’re still the fringe afaict.
When did weepy Glen Beck become an oracle?
Beck is a showman, a clown. I don’t find him watchable or serious, but he did manage to take down an Obama official and I generally agree with him in terms of principle. Shrug. There are worse things than clowns.
Cosmic: I will talk to you about selective gathering of data all day and all night. When it comes to THIS subject, it’s about all you ever do.
Charles Johnson was epic for it, which is why those of us who noticed stopped reading his site some time ago.
You have habitually and repeatedly cherry-picked your data and laughed at anyone who called you out on it. You show a clear lack of interest in any data which runs past your preconceived agenda. And you go straight to name-calling and mocking any time someone dares challenge you on the facts.
It’s just what you do, especially on this subject. You aren’t siting any facts at all, just same vague assertions and some handwaving. It’s ridiculous. You were challenged to give facts, and you did it again: mocked and waved your arms, offering no hard data whatsoever.
I well remember you trying to defend the “France is burning” idiocy. Who was the one who came up with hard numbers on that? Oh, right, me. All you could do was stand by mutely while I did so.
Why don’t you for once offer some hard data? I’ve done it many times, only to have it ignored anyway.
Dean: I don’t have to “give facts” when someone says “the sky is green.”
I can simply say “Look out the damn window.”
So go take a look.
Also, you can pull your revisionist crap all you like Dean. On the France is burning issue I kicked your ass and provided direct links to stories from France on the subject. You seem to be channeling some alternate reality. Even Aziz had to admit that my statistics and comments on France burning were accurate.
Actually your complete separation from reality on the France is burning issue is pretty relevant since it mirrors your complete separation from reality on this issue as well.
Islam’s peculiar vulnerability to violent demagogues stems from the fact that it was founded by a warrior and mostly spread by the sword.
of course, the first statement is utterly false, and the second is true of every single religious empire.
The other major religions were born inside empires and won most of their converts peacefully within that apparatus.. violence integral to their
amazing.
ok I guess we arent even going to come close to agreement here so i withdraw.
Aziz: Hmm… I would have to say that according to most reasonable definitions of “warrior” the prophet Muhammed definitely qualified. Simply leading an army into battle ONCE would qualify, much less leading multiple armies on multiple campaigns. I’m not sure how you can suggest Muhammed was not a “warrior” with a straight face. Sure he may well have been MORE than a warrior, but warrior he most assuredly was.
As far as other major religions being born inside empires, that’s also mostly a factually accurate statement. However, I don’t think you can extrapolate from that any convincing argument that such a beginning makes them more or less disposed to violence.
Christianity, in fact, has a long and bloody history of violence. Not so much in the past few centuries, but plenty enough to suggest that Christianity spread quite well at the point of a sword. Or a gun.
My issue is not whether Islam of 2009 is more or less violent than Christianity of 1459, but rather whether Islam of 2009 is more or less violent than Christianity (or Buddhism or Judaism) of 2009. In that analysis I think the answer is blindingly obvious, so much so that anyone who doesn’t see it must be actively in denial of basic, obvious reality.
Aziz,
That’s just silly. Hinduism is polytheist, syncretic and has never been very expansionist. Buddhism and Christianity were founded by pacificists. Muhammad was definitely not a pacifist.
The early Christian conversions were generally carried out by missionaries, without bringing an army to the gates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsacid_Dynasty_of_Armenia#Christianization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksumite_Empire#Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Georgia_(country)#Adoption_of_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Christianity
Mecca, OTOH, was conquered by an army led by Mohammad, and later expansion was a mix of military conquest and some proselytization.
So where you have Buddhist and Christian “fundamentalists” they tend to be extreme pacifists like the Amish, the Quakers, or peaceful samadhi-seeking monks, while Islamic fundamentalists are overly enamored of violent means.
This explains again, why:
If you have a better explanation, I am all ears…
… speaking of “ears” I can’t help but get an image of Dean and Aziz with fingers firmly plugged into theirs while chanting “la la la la I’m not listening, la la la…”
Guys. Seriously. It takes an incredible amount of almost willful ignorance to believe that Christianity was founded by a pacifist (Jesus was no such thing) or that it was not spread by the sword (it most certainly was). And Hinduism has a *huge* history of violence including advocacy of same–they even have Gods of War for goodness sakes, and much to say on the subject. Once again, it takes not just ignorance, but *willful* ignorance to maintain these assertions in the face of the overwhelming *facts* to the contrary.
And I won’t even go into all the people slaughtered by atheists in the 20th Century.
If you want to even look at *recent* history: we’ve spoken recently of Bill Clinton’s efforts in the Balkans. I am not the first to point this out, but, in that case, we were going there to protect *muslims* who were being slaughtered by *christians.*
That’s just the facts guys. And it gets really tiresome for some of us to repeat these facts over and over again and then be patted on the head and lectured for not addressing the facts. It is ridiculous. Once again, I’m accusing Dave Price and Cosmic Conservative of not just ignorance, but *willful* ignorance, INTENTIONAL ignorance, going out of their way to *avoid* facts, to *run away* from facts. It’s maddening. I don’t see how the two of you can stand it. But it’s when faced with this sort of willful, almost aggressive ignorance, that I generally lose my patience and refuse to discuss anymore.
You guys _seriously_ need to educate yourselves. You’re just a frustration to talk to on this.
Dean,
Jesus is generally considered a pacifist (love and forgiveness are the essential practical doctrines of Christianity), as is Siddarta Guatama. Neither was an absolute pacifist, but it’s inconceivable either would have showed up at a city with an army at his back demanding conversion a la Muhammad.
No one argues any major religion has been completely nonviolent; that would indeed be ignorant. But Islam has definitely been more violent than the others right from its inception, and is indisputably the most violently xenophobic of the religions around today. Those are just facts.
I don’t think it’s productive for people to make excuses like “Well, other major religions were also violent in the past.” Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism have all arrived at the principles of secular humanism by their own paths. Islam is on the same path, but needs to be encouraged to move faster and further.
And Cosmic: Here is the “Is France On Fire” discussion.
Mary and I were the only ones who brought any facts, figures, or math to that discussion at all. You brought *nothing* but handwaving generalizations and provided no hard data of any kind whatsoever.
Face it. It’s true. The discussion is right there.
You really should recuse yourself from further discussion of these issues, as you have *embarrassed* yourself on this topic. You aren’t about *data* here at all.
Jesus is generally considered a pacifist (love and forgiveness are the essential practical doctrines of Christianity), as is Siddarta Guatama.
On Wikipedia, that is what we would call “weasel wording.”
“Is generally considered” by whom? Not by most Christians. So, by whom?
Neither was an absolute pacifist, but it’s inconceivable either would have showed up at a city with an army at his back demanding conversion a la Muhammad.
Leaving aside why that’s inconceivable–I haven’t the foggiest idea why–it’s also prejudicial. It ignores the history of *why* Muhammed did that. As I have certainly pointed out enough times, Moses was a warrior and in fact ordered widespread slaughter of an entire people, and Moses is upheld by Jews as their greatest prophet (and as a Saint by Christians). Does that make Judaism inherently violent?
No one argues any major religion has been completely nonviolent; that would indeed be ignorant. But Islam has definitely been more violent than the others right from its inception…
Indisputable by whom? Based on what actual hard evidence? You’ve been asked for some and only laughed. No one disputes the military history, but so what? That’s just cherry picking. And it’s prejudicial.
.. and is indisputably the most violently xenophobic of the religions around today. Those are just facts.
No, those are your opinions. I fracking dispute these facts as non-factual, prejudicial nonsense, so clearly there is something “refutable” here.
I don’t know how to get past this, I really don’t. Simply picking up a newspaper or reading a blog and finding examples of Muslims being violent isn’t hard. Finding military history involving Muslims and war is also not hard. But this is where the discussion is supposed to *begin,* and instead guys like you seem to make to want the discussion to *end* there. That’s not really a discussion. It really isn’t.
And I can show you how easy it is to do this to any group, any race, any religion of comparable size. When I’ve done so, all I’ve been accused of is “attacking” those faiths. The irony is simply ridiculous.
I suppose the entire discussion proves that even trying to discuss this is pointless. Some people have already reached their conclusions, data doesn’t matter, history doesn’t matter, fairness doesn’t matter, reason doesn’t matter. We’ve just got some inflammatory news stories and some lopsided history, and that’s all we need to go on.
Aziz is quitting for a while. I’m close to it. It’s why I’ve thought for some time that actually *banning* this discussion entirely from DW might be good. Because history shows time and again it goes nowhere.
Dean: So go read the damn thread.
YOU said that burnings were all but over. I said no they aren’t, in fact they are growing.
I said: “In all of 2008, OFFICIAL figures from France are roughly 40,000 cars burned during the year. That’s more than 100 PER DAY.” (data I quoted but admittedly did not link, it was accurate nonetheless and was linked by Mary in a subsequent comment.)
I also said that the number had GROWN from 2007 to 2008. Mary’s link PROVED I WAS RIGHT.
You and others on the thread tried some hilarious effort to show how small a fraction of cars that was, as if that somehow was even remotely RELEVANT.
You said the burnings were basically over. You were wrong.
I said the burning was continuing. I was right.
In fact EVERY STATEMENT I MADE WAS ACCURATE.
Your little self-congratulatory analysis of how small a portion of burned cars compared to the overall car population in France was, frankly, so bizarre and irrelevant that I simply IGNORED IT, since my argument was that IT WAS STILL HAPPENING (it was) when you said it wasn’t.
The fact that you think your silly mathematical exercise calculating the total number of cars in France vs how many were burned was even remotely relevant to the question of ARE THEY STILL FRICKING BURNING CARS IN FRANCE just shows how totally divorced from reality you are, how desperate you are to come up with ANY bizarre rationalization for your defense of violence, and how totally irrational you are when you accuse me of things that are manifestly untrue.
And Dean, yes there is manifestly a huge amount of willful ignorance and denial going on on this subject.
You just can’t recognize where it is coming from.
It’s coming from YOU.
Banning subject matter may have an effect on the eye candy but it will have little effect on human nature.
On the other hand, cosmic intellectual apes will still be swinging in the trees.
All right guys, let’s try to be calm. Deep breaths, soothing mantras, moment of quiet reflection, etc.
On Wikipedia, that is what we would call “weasel wording.”
No, that’s what called a “generally accepted definition.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacificist
Pacificism is the general ethical opposition to war or violence, except in cases where force is deemed absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace.
Leaving aside why that’s inconceivable–I haven’t the foggiest idea why
Because they were pacifists, of course.
Moses was a warrior and in fact ordered widespread slaughter of an entire people, and Moses is upheld by Jews as their greatest prophet (and as a Saint by Christians). Does that make Judaism inherently violent?
Yes, Judaism has quite a violent history, but it’s also quite old, long persecuted, and recently somewhat Christianized. Jews generally co-exist reasonably well with other religions. Islam would probably look similar to Judaism in this regard had they suffered what the Jews have.
Indisputable by whom? Based on what actual hard evidence?
We can argue over the relative proportion of historical violence in Islam versus other major religions (I believe a thorough analysis will come out heavily in favor of my claim, but I will stipulate it’s at least possible I’m wrong), but the current situation is fairly self-evident.
Chechnya, Nigeria, Kashmir, Sudan, Israel, China, Yugoslavia, the Philippines, Lebanon… it’s hard to think of any major modern religious violence that does not involve Muslims, or any oppressive religious-based state that isn’t Islamic (e.g. Iran, SA, etc). Can you think of any? Or do you concede that at least at the moment, Islam has a somewhat unique problem with violence?
And McK anti-intellectual apes will still be hurling peanuts and poo.
Once again, one need merely read the thread. Two people were busy providing facts, figures, and math. You weren’t one of them, Cosmic.
And when challenged to come up with something *other* than France’s serious–above average for a developed nation–rate of car arson to demonstrate France’s current condition of burning as a nation, of course nothing more was heard from you.
Vague, arm-waving generalizations. Cherry-picked data. That’s all you’ve ever got. It’s tiresome.
Dean:
I was the first one in the thread to provide facts and figures Dean. You apparently simply cannot read. I don’t know what else to say.
I even REQUOTED the damn facts and figures in my last comment, so apparently you didn’t read that one either.
You made a statement. I rebutted it. I quoted facts and figures. You responded with a bizarre comment after I said that 40,000 cars had been burned that a little New Year’s revelry can’t be that big of a deal. So I REPEATED the 40,000 figure and pointed out that was more than 100 cars PER DAY.
That’s when you went off on your bizarre “well, what fraction of total cars in France is that?”
Even Mary said “Dean! Geez, even with YOUR approach, France is burning 100 TIMES AS MANY cars as in America.”
As I said Dean, there is some manifest inability to accept reality here.
But it’s not mine.
CC,
In fairness, they also could have been radical environmentalists trying to reduce France’s carbon footprint.
Hmmm. Al Gore did grow a beard, in keeping with prophetic tradition…
Dave:
That’s a strange definition of pacifism, and one I’ve never heard. I’m a Wikipedia fan, but, really?
Here’s what the American Heritage dictionary gives as the primary definition:
1) Opposition to war or violence of any kind.
The Cultural Dictionary gives it as:
“The view that war is morally unacceptable and never justified”
The history of pacifism includes people like the Quakers and Gandhi and others who refused even to countenance war even after you’d been invaded. In extreme cases, like Gandhi, even when everyone around you was being slaughtered and you yourself were about to be slaughtered.
If you want to take a definition of “pacifism” that’s much more flexible than that, such as Wikipedia’s statement:
“Pacificism is the general ethical opposition to war or violence, except in cases where force is deemed absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace.”
In that case, then you damned well *can* call Muhammed a pacifist. In fact, you should, as history quite arguably shows him to be one. According to most histories I know, avoiding warfare was generally first on Muhammed’s agenda, and he and the early Muslims only made war when they felt they were forced to by those persecuting them or who had betrayed them. Even then, Muhammed expended enormous rules on when it was and was not permissible to make war, placing stringent limits on the practice.
Where you would go for discussions of this would be to actual Muslims–like, perhaps, Aziz (although I don’t blame him for being exhausted) or those over at Talk Islam and ask *THEM* whether they think their religion’s founder was a pacifist. I think that they’ll all have their own opinions, being individuals, but I’d wager most of them would say “well no not a pacifist, unless by that you mean, only advocating war when necessary to forward the cause of peace or justice.”
As for examples of wars around the world not involving Muslims: Gee, that’s more weasel wording. Did I not mention that we went to war in the Balkans to prevent Christians from slaughtering Muslims a mere 10 years ago or so? I guess you can weasel that into “Muslims being involved,” in the same way that a murder victim is “involved” in a murder. But pretty much every major humanitarian intervention the US involved itself in in the 1990s involved going somewhere to stop Muslims from being persecuted, not to stop them from persecuting. And that’s just one example. I’ve given countless other examples in earlier threads you were part of, where the heck were you? I can point you to the Christian Phelangists or the IRA again, but why, when apparently my having done so so many times before results in no dent whatsoever?
Cosmic: To “provide a fact or figure,” one needs to give a and/or provide some math. You did neither. There were two of us busy in that thread providing facts and figures. You were not one of us.
You know, I am getting a lot of people asking me lately why I bother to comment here with Dean’s manifest dislike of conservatives in general and his constant personal attacks on me.
Up until now I’ve more or less considered it to be good-natured disagreements. But I’m starting to realize that I have been a little optimistic in my evaluation.
I’m starting to ask myself the same thing. Dean obviously is doing all he can to make posting here unpleasant for me personally, and for conservatives in general. We’ve already seen a number of his regular posters either leave or simply stop posting.
Perhaps it’s time for me to reconsider whether it’s worth my time to frequent this blog any longer. When the host of the blog habitually lies about me, misrepresents my arguments, personally attacks my motivations, and says I don’t provide facts and data when I JUST POSTED facts and data, well, I suppose even I have my limits to abuse.
Dean: OK, let’s go by your “definition” of facts:
40,000 cars burned, over 100 per day. (Oh, need some math to qualify…. ) OK, 2+2 = 4.
Go fuck yourself Dean.
I’m done.
Regardless of semantics or mitigating circumstances, Mohammad was militarist in a way Siddartha and Jesus were not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
I don’t say this is a character flaw of Mohammad, merely that it influenced the religion he founded.
It’s a fair point about Muslims not being culpable in Yugoslavia (and Kosovars are in fact a relatively pacifist, liberal group of Muslims), but what about all the other examples? And why aren’t Christians fighting Buddhists, etc? It’s hard to accept, empirically, that Islam is just coincidentally involved in virtually all major cases of religious violence.
The IRA would be a fair example, except that that’s pretty much over (though I suppose one could perhaps say the same of the Balkans). But even stipulating that, it’s impossible to deny Islam is disproportionately involved in such conflicts, vastly so.
One does not wish to change the subject but the IRA is not a very fair example … in the context you presuppose.
The IRA is a perfectly good example of exactly what I was talking about. So are a host of other non-Muslim terrorist groups.
I’m done with this conversation. Take it to Talk Islam, folks. Seriously. Then maybe you’ll have to have this discussion with some actual Muslims who actually know something about their own religion’s history. Bringing Aziz here obviously wasn’t good enough, so I urge you to go over there.
I’m done. Nothing more to say here.
U2 – Bloody Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFM7Ty1EEvs
Dave, if you want to edit and polish your argument into one pra (instead of it being strug out over several commens here in this thread) then i will give you privs to post it at Talk Islam as a guest. I will also personally prune the thread that develops to remove iunsults and anythig other than respectful dialogue.
deleted
Oh, man.
Well.
First of all, anyone who thinks the IRA is, or was, primarily religious in nature is, in my view, mistaken. It fundamentally was a nationalist / fascist movement that hid behind religious affiliation — but, Dean, not behind religion.
Arguments about the ancient origins of religions are irrelevant to criticism of present-day Islamic regime and sentiment, in my view. But it is worth noting that Moses was not a “warrior,” he was a prophet. If you accept the Bible’s narrative accounts for purposes of judging people and their actions, you must accept the Bible’s description of Moses as acting on God’s word only, which makes moral condemnation, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, of any act by Moses axiomatically impossible. Subsequent Jewish regimes, headed by leaders who were less close to God than Moses, were surely more human and more damnably violent but, again, this has little to do with Judaism — which if you know your Bible was not typically, in the post-Joshua era, the basis of violence or warfare — and much to do with national and tribal ambition.
I think this does differ significantly from certain strains, and not necessarily fringe strains, in Islamic thought and statecraft today — but would note that no small amount of mindless violence associated with Islam is the result of the violent, largely bankrupt culture and feeling of impotence in much of the Arab world.
I was also utterly confused by LGF recently and thought I must have completely misremembered what that site had been about.
I have also gone almost completely off politics because of what has happened to the right, largely in the blogosphere, but elsewhere too.
First of all, anyone who thinks the IRA is, or was, primarily religious in nature is, in my view, mistaken. It fundamentally was a nationalist / fascist movement that hid behind religious affiliation — but, Dean, not behind religion.
From 1919-21 the IRA was a traditional freedom-fighting, revolutionary guerilla army that waged a successful campaign against British rule in Ireland. Led by Michael Collins, they sought to establish a unified, democratic Irish state.
Following the 1921 signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty, the IRA split into 2 groups – members who supported the treaty formed the National Army – members who opposed the treaty fought the National Army, lost, and kept the IRA name and goals.
The Provisional IRA emerged out of the 1969 split of the IRA. This organization was also nationalist, but it was also influenced by the same whifty terrorist-inspired interpretations of Marxism that infected politically violent European groups at the time. As the IRA and their Unionist opposition gained power, they saw the benefits of a life of crime, and they became mobsters with a cause.
The only real religious influence is found in Irish history, and the hundreds of years of British oppression. The Irish residents, who lost all rights under British rule were Catholic, and the British settlers, who gained all rights and property under British rule, were protestant. But hatred of the British, not religion, motivated most of the Irish rebels. If hatred of the British as a result of hundreds of years of oppression is fascism, then most of the world’s formerly Brit-colonized population (including our own) was fascist.
Aziz,
Thanks for the offer. If I get the time I may put together a “Does Islam Have A Unique Problem With Violence Today, And If So Why?” post, but the notion of researching and linking all the major current religious conflicts and determining proportionality just to restate the obvious sounds exhausting, and I’m not sure how much I really care. It’s not really a huge deal to me, and I’m familiar with the various apologia.
I’m a Deist, so this isn’t a “which is the one true religion” debate, but just an empirical observation in search of an explanation.
Ron/Mary,
Ehhh… I don’t like that argument at all. Yes, the IRA was a nationalist organization… but so is Iran’s regime, the Taliban, the Chechens, even arguably Al Qaeda. The nationalism in all these cases is being driven at least partly by a religious identity.
the IRA was a nationalist organization… but so is Iran’s regime, the Taliban, the Chechens, even arguably Al Qaeda. The nationalism in all these cases is being driven at least partly by a religious identity
But if we look at just the religious aspects of all of these groups, we lose focus on the real forces that motivate them – politics, power and money.
Religion and nationalist identity is a recruitment tool for all of these groups, but so are drugs, status and lots of cash.
The provisional IRA and other Euro-terrorist organizations differ from Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Tamil tigers in other ways. The IRA, the Unionists, the Basque ETA, etc. weren’t primarily supported by states, and they weren’t being used as proxies to fight large scale wars.
The Euro-terrorists also got some support from individuals, and they got some support from some of the locals. Although they also intimidated the locals, they couldn’t have survived without some cooperation, because they didn’t have enough money or influence to work alone.
In contrast, most Islamist terrorist groups, like the Tamil Tigers are funded by powerful politicians and faraway billionaires. They don’t need any support from the locals, and they are powerful and influential enough to rule through intimidation. That is why current terrorist groups are willing to murder thousands of their own people, in addition to killing ‘enemies’. It’s why modern terrorism is so dangerous.
Reading the bible and the koran tells you nothing about the power structure that enables these groups, or about their weaknesses.
Seems alot like John Cole and Balloon Juice part 2. Both went off the deep end because Republicans done them wrong or something and have really nothing positive to say about Democrats, but focus on the misdeeds of the right.
Seriously, go check it out. Right now the top 2 stories on the now all liberal, all the time Balloon Juice are: Wall Street = Bad and Fox News = Bad. Liberals ? Their positives ? Eh, nobody knows with these people.
Whatever
Maybe this is the problem:
The thing is this post by Mary and a good 50% of those at LGF read like this is central tenant of conservatism and the Republican party and frankly, that is flat out NUTS. Everyone is chanting like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan ??? Really ? When you say everyone, you really mean “almost nobody”, right ?
Wow. I can see why you want to quit Dean, though I have to say you are at least partly to blame.
I am not going to read any long winded accusations or defenses of the whole idea of “Jesus is or isn’t a pacifist”. I don’t consider myself religious at all, but I’m about 99% sure you will find that it is generally accepted that Jesus was, in fact, a pacifist. It was Thomas Jefferson that called his teachings in the bible “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man”.
I think you are pushing a little too far on this one.
Comments on this entry are closed.