Insulting Islam
It doesn’t happen often. It’s a very rare event. But yes, there is a new article on The Hittman Chronicle. It’s titled “Insulting Islam,” and has the audacity to suggest that when it comes to Islamic demands on Western Society we need less tolerance, not more.
It’s also available as a podcast.
This post is to provide a place for public comments. E-Mails are also welcome, of course.
could not agree more. i have zero patience for ANYONE who tells me some invisible voice told them such and shit. normally we show pity on those so dellusional and assist them with drugs and psychotherapy. god doesn’t tell anyone anything… so called preists, prophets, sharmans tell the ignorant what will keep said “seers” in power, affluence and influence while the sheep claim their “relgion” or “insight” are more “truer” than the others and so the others are not “special”. religion is NOT “the opium of the masses”. it has been used throughout history to keep the masses compliant..do so and so ,miss out on the pleasure of heaven , spend eternity in the pain of hell!was it hobbs that said “life is nasty, brutal and short”? and life was.. and is. on the subject of islamism..they wish to live in the 7th century, yet 21st century technology is used to spread the ideology.islam is no region of peace or tolerance:apostates die. mohammad uses the sword.
Comment by mikej | 05.6.2008 | 6:48 am
That was one of the best podcasts you have ever done hands down and I agree with you 100%. It’s great to finally hear someone saying the things I’ve been thinking for a long time.
Comment by asdf | 05.6.2008 | 1:53 pm
I agree with a lot of what you say in this article. That said,
When fundamentalist Muslims do something, you say Islam is bad. When fundamentalist Christians do something, you say “fundys” are bad. Christianity isn’t generally as violent or misogynistic as Islam, and probably a smaller proportion of its adherents are fundamentalists, but it’s still intolerant and dangerous when taken too seriously — this blog provides plenty of examples of that.
And in pretty well every one, you say “fundys” rather than “Christians”. Doesn’t that seem like a double standard? It does to me, especially given the kind of ridiculous pro-Christian legislation that gets passed routinely in America’s supposedly “secular” democracy. If Christianity is a harmless religion with a few fundamentalists, then do the moderate Christians just never vote or something?
Comment by Andrew | 05.6.2008 | 7:19 pm
I think all religion is dangerous, but it is a matter of degree. I’m not afraid that the garden variety non-fundy Christian is going to be doing lots of evil in the name of their god, but they still make bad decisions based on their belief. The biggest religious danger we have in the US is fundy Christians - they have an inordinate amount of political power. Since they’re the most dangerous, they’re the ones that require the most opposition, and deserve the most derision and ridicule. Non fundy Christians deserve it too, but not nearly as much.
I prefer “fundys” to “Christian” for two reasons. I try to use it accurately, only against real fundamentalists. I define fundamentalists by their behavior, not necessarily their theology. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, are not technically fundamentalist per their doctrine. They don’t believe in hell, the trinity or being born again. If you call them fundamentalists they’ll lecture you on your error. However, their *behavior,* the techniques they use to control their members, and their uncompromising faith in {their version of} The Bible, makes them fundies in my book.
I do try to use the term accurately - for instance, I don’t refer to Catholics as fundys, even though a very few Catholic sects are. They are in the minority, a trivial few. Che number of lives their pedophile priests ruined with the help and wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude of the regular church proves it’s not necessary to be a fundy to be an evil Christian.
I also use the term because it’s demeaning and insulting, which is in keeping with the theme of the article. I try to be an equal opportunity offender.
Far too many of them vote based on their religious beliefs. The percentage of them who would vote for an atheist, no matter how well qualified he was, is so low it’s within the range of polling error. So sure, there’s plenty of vileness to go around, even among moderate Christians. But when talking about moderate Christians I don’t feel the need to put the word in quotes, like I do whenever I’m writing about Muslims.
Comment by Hittman | 05.6.2008 | 9:13 pm
I’m with Andrew on this one. Also, “It is based, at its core, on murder, terrorism, extreme racism, extreme misogyny, incredible intolerance, and a willingness to use brutal violence to spread their beliefs world wide” is a hard one to justify. Very few muslims that I know hold this at the core of their beliefs. My wife’s family is muslim and they are progressive. I’ve never met anybody in her family or her community who have this at the core of their beliefs. Their beliefs are centered mainly around charity, education, and similar values. There are a few crackpots, but they don’t seem out of proportion to the Xian crackpots who think Jesus is coming in ten years (and they don’t get invited to a lot of parties). It’s important to distinguish the crackpots from the moderates/progressives. Dave, you should go out and meet some muslims instead of just watching TV about it. Since you’re convinced Islam is not a religion of peace, they probably won’t change your mind on that, but it might at least demonstrate that you need to separate the radical views.
Even if you disagree, I hope this helps you at least understand another’s point of view. Smartenizing is a two-way street.
Comment by Dan Pearson | 05.7.2008 | 9:45 am
Dan:
My wife is from Indonesia, and most her friends and family are also Muslim. While I wouldn’t call most of them “progressive,” none of them have expressed any desire to try to force anyone to believe as they do. Maybe I’m just naive, but all too often what I’ve seen on TV and what I’ve witnessed in real life are two different things. Yes, there have been horrible acts commited in the name of Islam. Yes, this must change if Islam is to survive at all. But there are many within the Islamic world working hard for this change. They understand that, like any other religion, Islam must adapt or die.
Dave:
I get confused when you say that Islam is racist. Care to elaborate? Intolerant? misogynistic? OK, I can understand that point of view, if not fully agree. I’ve seen the inside of a mosque, though, and I’ve seen people there from across the racial spectrum. Perhaps there is a passage in the Koran that elevates one skin color over another that I missed?
Comment by Tim Sivert | 05.8.2008 | 2:45 pm
Dan, have you asked any of them what they believe happened to the 9/11 highjackers when they died? I’d be interested in their responses.
Yes, there are Muslims who are regular, everyday people who don’t harbor ill will and hatred toward unbelievers. Lots of them. But I’m not convinced they’re in the majority.
Tim, what do they think of the Jews? The entire second book of the Koran, The Cow, is a long list of why Jews suck, and an exhortation to kill them. That sounds pretty racist to me.
Comment by Dave Hitt | 05.8.2008 | 11:38 pm