Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
Uncle Orson explains how freedom of religion is supposed to work
james_nicoll
"That's how a religion that is adjudged to be barbaric goes about civilizing itself to be worthy of the protection of the U.S. Constitution."

You know, Card was a good writer before the Brain Eater got him.

You know, just want, I want to see the threats posed by Salafi Islam discussed by people who are, well, not crazy. Is that so much to ask?


I completely agree. Wahhabism is a very real, and horrifically well-funded threat to world peace. OTOH, Card is an insamely yammering bigoted nutcase. I'd also like to see such a discussion, but being occasionally a somewhat mean-spirited individual, I'd almost settle for a cage-match between Card and King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, with the caveat that the survior be kept in the cage.

I would go further than that, and say that Mohammedanism is a very real, and horrifically well-funded threat to world peace. Have you read the Bukhari and Muslim hadith compilations and the Sirah Rasul Allah? Do you understand what the implications of these being the most accepted sources on the behavior of Mohammed are in the context of Muslims believing him to have been al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man who every male Muslim ought to emulate? Consider his example in having personally carried out the genocide of the Bani Quraiza Jews. That the pogroms so frequently carried out in Muslim-majority state with the encouragement of the ulema and government occasionally reach such scale as an estimated 2.4 million Hindus in 1971 is thus an inherent feature of the faith.

On the individual scale, there was of course Mohammed's sanctified example of having eight people assassinated for mocking Islam in verse, including a poetess, Asma bint Marwan, who was a nursing mother with five children at the time of her murder. The stock phrase that the large majority of Muslims are peaceful people is certainly true, but all indications are that it's because most human beings are too fundamentally decent to live up to Mohammed's example despite their upbringing.

If you feel the same way about Christianity, given the many modern examples of large and small scale Christian horrors, then you are merely significantly annoying. If you think that Islam is especially dangerous, then you are a bigot. By calling it Mohammedanism, you further reveal yourself to be an idiot, but that's hardly a surprise given the above response.

I could go on to discuss how there is nothing remotely resembling any sort of unified structure in Islam and so generalizations about the entire faith are often meaningless, but I can't imagine I'd make a dent in your bigotry. Go bother someone else.

If you feel the same way about Christianity, given the many modern examples of large and small scale Christian horrors, then you are merely significantly annoying.

Yes, Christians have carried out ethnic cleansing to advance their religion too. Indeed it was within living memory that the term Prussian was in common currency in the Anglosphere, a German population representing a successful ethnic cleansing of pagans.

If you think that Islam is especially dangerous, then you are a bigot.

There is no more logic in that claim than "If you think that Communism is especially dangerous (compared to other economic ideologies), then you are a bigot."</i>

By calling it Mohammedanism, you further reveal yourself to be an idiot, but that's hardly a surprise given the above response.

"... they [the Virginia legislature] meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination." Looks like Thomas Jefferson revealed himself to be an idiot in his autobiography.

they [the Virginia legislature] meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination." Looks like Thomas Jefferson revealed himself to be an idiot in his autobiography.

So, I presume that you also consider using the same language about race as was common in late 18th century discourse is acceptable or reasonable modern usage. Languages and ideas change a great deal in 200+ years, making ideas and terminology that was acceptable for the learned back then the mark of idiots today - idiots like you.



Sure. "Not very much." Although it claims universalism, its internal social dynamic is clearly that of an elect, and its appeal (outside of its well-funded heartland) is to the unemployed, rootless, male basement dweller with fantasies of violence.

You can see why Uncle Orson finds it threatening. It's competing for his readership.

The well-funded heartland part is disturbing, but the state with the funds will have to make some hard choices to keep the social peace within its own boundaries, given its population's growth rate and economic expectations, and the tight linkage between its ruling class and its religious policies.

One of the few truly good pieces of news out of Iraq has been the way that Al Qaeda in Iraq managed to thoroughly alienate the local populace where they'd taken control. This has some similarities to some of the reactions to the "arabs" in Afghanistan during the Taliban's time.

I had been unwilling to say before that the whole Wahhabi/Salafi package was pretty unattractive, since I'm not a conservative Muslim and the whole idea of having the state keep your kids from doing drugs/dressing indecently/embracing foreign values seems to have a fairly broad constituency in the human race at large.

but it's DIFFERENT when it's Christians doing it!

bellatrys

2007-11-10 04:20 pm (UTC)

You'd like it way, way better if it was good homegrown Heartland apple-pie theocratic puritanism banning our booze, making us cover, mandating heterosexuality and conformism of all kinds and prohibiting theological dissent, just trust Uncle Orson!