The Difference
Ask anyone around the Sadly, No! offices: “What was so bad about the Nazis?” You’ll get your answer: “Gehfuckou’here, m’sleepin,'” followed by the sound of of an empty gin bottle whistling past your ear. But ask the question again after 2PM, and you’ll get a different answer: the Nazis were bad because they used violence, racism and propaganda to fuel the persecution of innocent minority groups for no other reason than their ethnic and religious status. Ask us if torture is wrong: We’ll say of course it is, under all circumstances, because the use of savagely inhumane treatment against other human beings is something that should be opposed even if it were effective, which it isn’t. Ask us why we hope to prevail against terrorism, and we’ll say, once we finish eating our brisket taco, because we believe that democracy, freedom and justice are values worth preserving — the very basis of our national identity, and to be defended fiercely against anyone who would take them away, whether an internal or external threat. We’re always saying high-minded shit like that.
Ask a lot of folks on the right what was so bad about the Nazis, though, and it seems pretty likely they’d say “They directed their tactics at the wrong people.” Ask if torture is wrong, and they’ll say “only if the other side uses it.” Ask why they hope to prevail against terrorism, and they’ll say “because we’re America, and they’re not.” It’s as simple as different names for sides with a lot of these people, which saves them all the messy trouble of deciding how far is too far, what threat is a legitimate threat, and whether it’s possible to err by adopting the methods of your enemies. (The answers, for those of you who haven’t been watching the G.O.P. debates, are “none too far”, “all of them” and “no”.)
Case in point: Crazy Pammy Oshry-Weingarten-Turnblad-Rebozo-Firefly over at Atlas Shrugs. As her latest spiced-rum-fueled blurtation indicates, she has no problem with infiltrating places of worship, spying on American citizens, terrorizing schoolchildren, criminalizing an entire religion, and generally behaving like Citizen Gestapo — just so long as it’s not her people who get targeted. For special bonus crazy-gravy, note that this project is being run by Dave Gaubatz, the professional crazy person who tromped around a couple of months ago claiming to have personally discovered WMDs in Iraq, only they got stoled by Syriranian terror killers and the President is too embarrassed to say anything about it. Super credible!
The only real difference between the Pam Oshrys of this world and the people they claim to despise is that they wear different hats. The most sophisticated principle they’re defending is “We’re the blue team and you’re the red team,’ and one day, they’re going to get confused about who they are, like Terry O’Quinn in The Stepfather, and beat the Constitution to death with a telephone.
Excellent, sir. Well done and said.
Hey, let’s not forget about the positive things the German Nazis have contributed to U.S. freedom.
In the U.S., you cannot win any arguments by logic. You have to invoke well-known and cherished anecdotes and biographies.
You cannot say X is wrong because of 1, 2, 3. You’ll get blank stares.
You have to say, X is wrong because Mr. Z did X 50 years ago, and we know that Z was / were bad guy(s), so we shouldn’t do X.
If it hadn’t been for the Nazis, then the only totalitarian government we could point to and say “Bad! Bad!” would be the Soviet one. And if that were true, then U.S. right wingers would have claimed to be immune from any charge of totalitarianism or evil on their part, because those things only happen on “the left”, and they were anti-Communists supreme, so there.
So since the U.S. government carried out a major mobilization of both war and propaganda against the Nazis, and against their racism and totalitarianism and their entire mythology, ever since we could use this example on the U.S. right as well.
Ever since WWII, then, when U.S. right wingers were getting out of hand and sliding straight toward their totalitarian fundamentalist goals, you could say, “Bad! Bad! Like Nazis! And Nazis Bad!” And at least then you could get somewhere in the audience.
Otherwise the only other resort, which is getting weaker and weaker, is to say that the Founding Fathers did something, and we should be like them. “Bad! Bad! Not like Founding Fathers! And Founding Fathers Good!”
Hey, if it wasn’t for the Nazis, nobody would remember who Godwin was…
Eventually, you just know that one of the wingnut powerhouses is going to come right out and say, “What was so bad about Hitler? He sure took care of those Jews and fags, right? We need a Hitler running America!”
Of course, when that happens: (A) the media will start saying, “Some people say Hitler was good, but liberal Jew fags disagree”; (B) the wingnut powerhouse will immediately be given a show on CNN; and ( C) presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle will start competing to see who can praise Hitler the loudest, except for one sensible guy who’ll be relentlessly mocked.
Uh, Mr. Pierce, a question over here? I come to S,N! for snark. This isn’t snarky. I’m feeling a little bit woozy from snark deprivation.
OTOH, this was an excellent, if entirely too serious, analysis of the difference between the left and the right in this country. Well said.
Great post.
You’re either with us…
Brisket tacos? Really? Recipe, please.
It’s hard to be snarky after reading the chilling mission statement of the ironically named SANE. In this case, the Nazi analogy, so overused, is apt. It should be easy to dismiss these people as fringe nuts, but John Bolton gave an exclusive interview to this woman.
Hey! Don’t harsh on the Nazis! They gave us recording tape and Volkswagens!
Fine work, Mr Pierce. Most worthy work.
An unspoken sentiment –more of a vibe, really– I’m picking up from the mightisrightwing crowd: it isn’t racist to torture & kill ethnic groups that really do, in point of fact, suck. Or maybe it is being spoken and I just haven’t run across it yet.
If you ask El TIburon why he keeps coming back to Sadly, No,
he would say because it is some good shit.
First “jihoddler”; now “blurtation.” This site is a treasure trove of neologism, and, as an English teacher, I approve.
Everyone’s so hard on the Nazis, but come on– evil bastards as they were, they had style. Check their clothes– the suits, the dresses– those fuckers could dress.
Hell, Wehrmacht uniforms were very cool (who hasn’t wanted a floor-length glove-soft leather overcoat, hunh?)
Our fucking nazis don’t even have that. Old-style German Nazis at least had good looking hats.
FB
PS– about that brisket taco recipe…?
FB
“because we believe that democracy, freedom and justice are values worth preserving — the very basis of our national identity”
If I remember correctly the basis of your national identity was genocide and slavery with democracy, freedom and justice being the preserve of non-brown people. Perhaps the replacing phrase “the very basis of our national identity” with “the inalienable right of all people” would sound a bit less hypocritical and exceptionalist.
Holy Shit! I can’t believe that SANE shit is for reals!
Seriously? How can that be okay? Seriously.
That is straight up Brown Shirt Propaganda. I like the interpretation of Sharia law. “Don’t bother to look it up, we’ll tell you. See, Muslims are evil, and we are good. Get it? Muslims=Evil, We=Good Understand? Good, now put your hood on…”
I’m sure this type of thing was hard to find in the days of the Crusades. “We go to Arabia so we don’t have to fight them here, fair lady.”
What is totally twisted is how the interests of Israel and the interests of the Brown Shirts dovetail so conveniently. Ironic!
“Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”
FatBastard:
Yeah. That was the one other thing the Nazis had going for them — Hugo Boss designed all their duds.
I am completely incapable of understanding how anyone can encourage domestic spying of this kind with a straight face. Comparing that to the practices of Nazism isn’t facetious, or a weak argument, or hyperbole; it is like the Nazis, because that’s what the Nazis did. And the Soviets, for that matter…
I should clarify and say the interests of the War Monger crowd of Israel a la AIPAC.
Well, since you asked so nicely…
BRISKET TACO RECIPE
4 lbs. beef brisket, cut into two sections
2 tbsp. salt (coarse)
2 tsp. black pepper
2 tsp. chopped garlic
1 tsp. cayenne pepper
1 tsp. dried oregano
1 tsp. summer savory
1/2 tsp. cumin
1 onion, coarsely chopped
1 bottle of Mexican beer (Bohemia, Sol, etc.)
Brush brisket lightly with olive oil and coat with dry rub made from next seven ingredients; refrigerate overnight.
Combine in slow cooker with beer and onion and cook on low for 8-10 hours.
When meat has cooled slightly, shred into long, thin strips and serve on plain flour or corn tortillas with tomatillo salsa, onions, and cilantro.
And, as Pat Buchanan will tell you, they did a lot of good things for the German people, if you omit the minor fact that they forced the Russian army to thrust its musky paws into the body cavity of Germany herself, to crush her fetid heart.
“Arabs, Christians, and Jews?” WTF? What exactly is the “Arab” religion? Islam? Christianity? Druze? Yazidi? All of the above? None of the above?
And if that were true, then U.S. right wingers would have claimed to be immune from any charge of totalitarianism or evil on their part, because those things only happen on “the left�,
What’s the word “if” doing in that statement? Wingers already claim to be immune from any charge of totalitarianism or evil on their part. Remember, in Wingnutville, Nazis = leftists. It’s true–the word “socialist” is right there in the full name of the Nazi party! What more proof do you need?!?
How would you respond to the following argument that a wingnut might employ?
“Islam is the most tenacious ideology that has ever existed. No population, once converted to Islam has ever abandoned it no matter how badly they were persecuted (Spain and Portugal were only de-Islamicized by outright ethnic cleansing). Because Muslims also have a higher birth rate than non-Muslims, any Western society which totally renounces ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is dooming itself to the jackboot of Shari’ah law.”
Would anyone here agree with the statement “better dhimmi than genocidist?” I’m tempted myself – thinking that committing genocide is only justifiable in order to avoid extermination or outright slavery (and the Jews of 8th century Spain demonstrated that there is a considerable distance between a dhimmi and a slave).
I’m fascinated by the Mapping Shari’a site that SANE runs. They want to visit 2300+ Islamic sites in America over the course of ten months, gather information, then run it through their Islamofascitron(tm) to demonstrate empirically that any adherence to Islamic law is treasonous. How are they going to get this information? By dropping in “as guests, invitees and members of the public.”
I don’t know, but I think that once you put up a website that tells Muslims in America that you want to make part of their religious identity a capital crime, they might stop returning your calls, and after you’ve gone to a hundred mosques in two weeks, they’ll start claiming to be Shriners just to get you off their doorstep.
(Bonus gem from the site: “In an effort to join forces with those who might take up this challenge, Mr. Yerushalmi began to canvas organizations that understood the evil design of Islam (i.e., to destroy America and to create a world-wide Islamic Caliphate), and its convergence with liberalism (also bent on the destruction of America as America and the establishment of a world state). Surprisingly, he found none.” In related news, neither could he find anyone to who shared his innate understanding of the language of both Chia Pets and Fig Newtons.)
Mr. Yerushalmi began to canvas organizations that understood the evil design of Islam … Surprisingly, he found none.
Typical wingnutty bad approach, that. Wrapping the damn places in sailcloth won’t help them see the light.
Would anyone here agree with the statement “better dhimmi than genocidist?�
Why would we agree to pretend that those are our choices? I will answer your question if you first tell me whether you’d rather be a stick of gum or a breath mint.
I mentioned in my first message why wingnuts would believe that those are our only choices. Which part of the wingnuts’ argument do you think is wrong?
1. That highly religious people in general and Muslims in particular have higher birth rates than secular people?
2. That once a Muslim, always a Muslim?
3. That once Muslims become a majority they will impose Shari’ah via the ballot box (currently about 70% of Muslims support Shari’ah*)?
* Sources: Revisiting the Arab Street, Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda
George, you didn’t answer my question but instead came back with three more questions loaded with presumptions that you say some theoretical wingnut not named George Carty might ask us one day. But if you want me to play the Fallacy of Many Questions game with you you’re going to have either get me stoned first or answer my new question:
Would you rather be Satan or a Cabbage Patch Doll?
Fair enough correction.
I meant to stress that their claims of immunity from totalitarianism would play better with the public without having had the public already trained to recognize right wing Nazi policies as bad.
Which is essentially one reason why the wingnuts are so desperate to associate Nazism and fascism with “the left”, so that they can then publicly claim that it’s therefore logically impossible for right wingers to be totalitarian, because, well, they use the word Freedom a lot.
I still think that historically, though, it hasn’t worked as well for the right wing as they wish. I think the public’s awareness of Nazis and that the Nazis were Bad! Bad! have historically helped in saying Bad! Bad! with regard to totalitarian policies and ideologies of US right wingers.
Extremism in defense of vice is no liberty.
Hey, man, I’ll get you stoned….
Live anywheres near Seattle?
1. That highly religious people in general and Muslims in particular have higher birth rates than secular people?
2. That once a Muslim, always a Muslim?
3. That once Muslims become a majority they will impose Shari’ah via the ballot box (currently about 70% of Muslims support Shari’ah*)?
I’d really like to understand this dood’s definition of the word “Muslim”. Is it anybody who says their religion is Islam? No matter how devout the might or might not be? Or do they have to come from some hot place, have a brown complection and be some kind of fundamentalist whack job?
I know American guys who have converted to Islam. Some of them are VERY religious, in that they pray all the time, but they aren’t at all concerned about getting me or anyone else to believe as they do. Others are more casual, don’t go to Mosque, don’t pray most days at all, like a lot of your typical Americans who self-identify as Christian but never go to church and only pray when they have a problem.
I think that, because what they really want is war for war’s sake, they are trying to sell the idea that a Muslim is a bad, dangerous creature because a tiny percentage of people who profess the Islamic faith are radicalized and a threat. It’s patently crazy. A larger percentage of Mexicans have robbed convenience stores. Should we put ALL Mexicans in jail because of the actions of a tiny percentage? Of course not. This is stupid, and inhuman…
mikey
Well, George, why not play?
Point by point:
1. Sounds like an excellent argument for rounding up Jesus freaks. How many Eric Rudolphs must we witness before we recognize the evil plans of the Dominionists? How much difference is there between Qutb and Rushdoony?
2. True of most religions. Amazing thing: As material conditions in a society improve, and fear of manufactured boogymen allowed to subside, religious people become increasingly secular. Also, Muslim does not equal Jihadi, dude. You might want to check out Turkey one of these days.
3. See above regarding Dominionists. Also see above regarding increasing secularism in peaceful and affluent societies.
See, George, it’s not just Islam. All religion makes people do very bad things. All religion makes people stupid. Check the stats on teen pregnancy in the areas most self-identified as “Christian” in the US: check those same areas for violent crimes per capita. If we oppose Islam, we should at the very least be sure not to create a power vaccuum into which other religious fanatics can then step.
Live anywheres near Seattle?
No but that’s mighty kind of you and I’ll try to remember your offer next time I’m out there.
Hey, I live in North Seattle…shall we meet at Magnuson Park and toke a doobie?
رضا پهلوی
But I saw your crypt in a mosque in Egypt!
Sorry, that was my father..the ‘former’ Shah.
All Hail Me!
Lawnguy- The offer stands
Some Other Dude with a Name that Invokes Fear in the White Part of My Brain- I am scared by your jihadi looking name. I read somewhere that when you see funny letters, you should fear teh terrurists. I live in constant fear of the color brown (Yes, I hate Fall), and am paralyzed by the willies if I even as much as see a world map.
Magnuson Park? You mean the Sound Garden? Maybe Chris Cornell will show up for a sesh…
I’m a White Center guy (Represent!) So maybe we’d have to work out a more mutually acceptable locale.
I find myself at Mineral Springs (Northpark) park from time to time, throwing discs…
And would someone please tell me why this site is on German time? Please?
“The only real difference between the Pam Oshrys of this world and the people they claim to despise is that they wear different hats.”
No kidding. They were supposed to be GREEN.
“And would someone please tell me why this site is on German time? Please?”
The server’s in Germany.
And they can’t use the intertoobz to change it? Weird.
See, George, it’s not just Islam. All religion makes people do very bad things. All religion makes people stupid. Check the stats on teen pregnancy in the areas most self-identified as “Christian� in the US: check those same areas for violent crimes per capita.
Cough.
I’m just going to point out that ‘all’ is a fallacy.
There’s some religious thoughts that combined with idiots results in bad things.
You know, just like anything combined with idiots.
But hey, let’s reduce all people following a religion to a ridiculous caricature that expresses our resentment and hatred for a faceless Other. There’s certainly no political party taking advantage of that behavior to perform atrocities because a whole bunch of morons fall for it every single time.
Others are more casual, don’t go to Mosque, don’t pray most days at all, like a lot of your typical Americans who self-identify as Christian but never go to church and only pray when they have a problem.
My partner’s stepfather is exactly that way. Vaguely Christian, enough to disapprove of his dating choices, but not enough to, y’know, take on any responsibility like going to church on a regular basis.
I think that is, in some ways, worse than the 28-percent-mouth-breather set in that he believes in a lot of their ideology but is also just damn lazy on top of that.
Hyperbole used to ridicule a silly argument is fine. Hyperbole to goad a nation into war/genocide/ is not.
Very nicely put. I can respect conservatives who are willing to condemn Bush and honestly talk about the problems right now, but I can’t have any for the diehard authoritarians.
Sometimes I think it must be nice to be mentally ill. I know a schizophrenic who is having a passionate online love affair with Thom Yorke, who’s pretending to be a talentless musician in Florida she met in a chat room. She KNOWS he’s Thom, and wrote him an 11 page letter. (Which, hilariously, she addressed to Thom Yorke, Oxford, United Kingdom.)
On the other hand, reality is interesting, too. And it has people in it. I wish we lived in a society where people like Pam were handled such that they weren’t a danger to themselves and others.
Dominionists are every bit as evil as the late unlamented al-Zarqawi and other Takfiri terrorists – the fact that they have the murderous intolerance of all those who do not believe as they do (like pre-Enlightenment Christians) makes them worse than your run-of-the-mill Islamist.
Then again, I’m sure that there are only a few thousand true-believing Dominionists, at most. By contrast, there are about 1.4 billion Muslims, of whom about 1 billion are Islamists (if we define “Islamist” as “supporter of Shari’ah law”, and if we take the samples from the two sources I mentioned in my earlier post as representative).
If that’s the case why are Muslims in the West becoming more religious, not less (eg Muslim girls wearing the hijab when their mothers didn’t)?
Turkey is a special case – Ataturk was able to push through his secularization policies because of the prestige he gained by defeating an attempted Greek invasion of Turkey in the early ’20s…
If that’s the case, why is Western Muslim religiosity increasing? Is it because they feel persecuted due to the “War on Terror” and are “circling the wagons” in defense of Islam?
I suspect that the reason for high southern violent crime rates is a culture of violence resulting from a) slavery, and b) the warrior culture brought over by the Scotch-Irish.
Oops, missed that. But I’m not talking about terrorism here at all. I’m – wondering how the right-wing “Eurabia” propaganda from the likes of Mark Steyn (Muslims outbreed whites and are thus able to impose Shari’ah by elections) can be countered.
The vast majority of Muslims are against terrorism (at least, terrorism against targets other than Israel). That doesn’t mean they’re not for Shari’ah law though, as the two sources I cited demonstrate.
3. That once Muslims become a majority they will impose Shari’ah via the ballot box (currently about 70% of Muslims support Shari’ah*)?
Gee, George, you didn’t mention most of the findings of the study you cited. (Thanks for the link.)
Here’s what the study really says (based on interviews in four Islamic countries — Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia):
Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their countries—consistent with the goals of al Qaeda—but also express an openness to outside cultural influences. Large majorities in most countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state. On the other hand, majorities in all countries regard the increasing interconnection of the world through trade and communication as positive and strongly support democracy and religious freedom. Majorities or pluralities also reject the idea that violent conflict between Muslim and Western culture is inevitable and say that it is possible to find common ground.
(Emphasis added.)
There’s nothing in the report you linked to that suggests these four countries represent all Muslims — certainly nothing to indicate they represent the views of American Muslims or of Muslims who have immigrated to the United States. Nothing to suggest they support expanding or exporting Islam to non-Islamic countries. Keep in mind, too, that this conclusion concerns only one of eleven sets of questions Muslims in those four countries were asked, primarily addressing their attitudes toward the United States and its foreign policies.
These are not the justifications for genocide you’re looking for.
Note, also nothing to indicate they represent Muslims in Western societies, either.
what exactly do we mean by “sharia” in this context. its not a very specific term, so saying “70 percent of muslims support Shariah” is meaningless.
if 80 odd percent of pakistanis support “sharia” in the scary fundamentalist sense why do the islamist parties get fuck all votes? there are certainly lots of muslims who would welcome enforcement of a strict socially authoritarian version of islam, but there are also large numbers who would associate Islamic Law with social justice, freedom and an end to corruption, rather than ultra-right fundamentalism. the report itself says “It should be noted that there is no Islamic equivalent to the Roman Catholic papacy. No single religious leader or institution in the Islamic world has the authority to define sharia.” so it’s difficult to tell exactly what these polls mean, specially as the pollsters themselves dont go into much detail.
if you asked left-wing christians in the US (or anywhere) whether they’d like to see governments run on christian principles a lot of them would say yes, because their interpretation of christian principles would be along the lines of “help the poor, stand up for the weak, rule with love and compassion” rather than “kill the gays, get the wimmin back in the kitchen and god bless ronnie reagan.” they would however still be in the “yes” category with the fundies
“I’m a White Center guy (Represent!) So maybe we’d have to work out a more mutually acceptable locale.”
Maybe we can call up Sir Mix-a-lot and hang out at Dicks…
Heh…..the best photographer I’ve ever known was schizophrenic. Her medication kept her stable enough to stay out of the hospital, and she had family to live with, so her situation, all things considered, wasn’t too bad. And she was an amazing artist.
She was also convinced she was having an affair with Robert Mapplethorpe. Despite his being, y’know, gay. And dead. But he gave her fabulous advice on her photography, so who am I to judge?
George–
“Supporter of Shari’ah law” for most Muslims is like keeping Kosher (or Halal, as th’ case may be). That is, they support Shari’ah law–for Muslims, to regulate daily religious conduct. Most Muslims are like most Christians–they really have bigger things to think about than whether their neighbors are praying properly. Most Muslims live in secular states, and see the benefits of secular government.
Patkin–
Yeah, *all* religion. There are Buddhist terrorists in the world, for Christ’s sake. Religious people in general aren’t necessarily destructive, but areas of high religious observance famously play host to high levels of destructive behavior. I suppose it has something to do with encouraging irrationality…
The right wingers on TV and radio only bad-mouth Nazi-ism because it isn’t popular enough to endorse. So they espouse the tactics of the Nazis but still claim that Nazi’s are bad.
Go read any pundit on the right, from the ‘president’ on down, they all demand the same things, the creation of a totalitarian state where neighbors turn in neighbors for being ‘liberals’. Look at the list of people the Nazi’s rounded up and slaughtered. It’s the exact same list that the right-wing pundits use as their enemies.
I long for the day when they stop pretending they aren’t really Nazi’s, when Michele Malkin finished one of her screeds with, “Hitler was right!” (which actually is the sub-title of her book defencing concentration camps).
On the topic of Sharia Law, I would like to add that in Arabic and other related languages (Swahili, for example) the word “sharia” actually means “law” generally and not specifically religious law. This just adds to ichomobothogogus’s point that it is hard to know how the survey respondent interprets a question about whether they support “Sharia in the United States.”
You could call me up and ask me if I support the “rule of law,” but the fact that I say yes certainly dosen’t mean that I think women should be stoned to death for being raped or any crazy shite like that.
Does anybody use the word “hooey” anymore? That’s how I would define George Carty”s theorizings.
George, you’re flailing around. This Muslim problem of yours isn’t going to go away just because you and a bunch of other frightened westerners reach a satisfactory definition of Islam for yourselves.
My advice: read some colonial history and, if you can, go befriend a couple of Muslims.
Karl Rove II: Is Dicks still there on Broadway? Are the burgers as awful as they were 40 yrs. ago? (Is nostalgia pathetic or what?)
For comparison:
The Latter-day Saints Church is the most tenacious ideology that has ever existed. No population, once converted to Mormonism has ever abandoned it no matter how badly they were persecuted. Because Mormons also have a higher birth rate than non-Mormons, any Western society which totally renounces ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is dooming itself to the jackboot of polygamy.
…No, that doesn’t make much sense either.
But I’m not talking about terrorism here at all. I’m – wondering how the right-wing “Eurabiaâ€? propaganda from the likes of Mark Steyn (Muslims outbreed whites and are thus able to impose Shari’ah by elections) can be countered.
By pointing out it is bollocks, perhaps?
Thanks for playing, now away back to LGF.
I’m not really a Muslim-hater at all, just playing the role of OPFOR because people like Mark Steyn scare the shit out of me and I’m not sure how to refute them.
(Screaming “fascist bastards!” at them is very satisfying, but it isn’t a refutation of their arguments.)
Yeah, *all* religion. There are Buddhist terrorists in the world, for Christ’s sake. Religious people in general aren’t necessarily destructive, but areas of high religious observance famously play host to high levels of destructive behavior. I suppose it has something to do with encouraging irrationality…
Right.
And I’m sure the aspects of politics, nationalism, racism, and all the various other gags people use to get people to kill other people for not being their kind of people has no relationship whatsoever to it.
It’s all religion’s fault! Religion is irrational and bad! It made me do terrible things! Religion is somehow its own entity that leaves people as people completely blameless for their own behavior! Save me from religion’s grasp, because the entire source of irrationality in humanity is religious in nature!
Bull and shit, Doc. Was the Vietnam War declared over religious reasons? How about WW1? Or, say, the Spanish civil war, or the American civil war? What was the religious conflict of the Armenian or Rwandan genocides?
People are fucking irrational beings who’ll kill each other over freckles vs. not-freckles if given the chance.
Here’s how you refute their argument. Point out that what they have is not in fact an argument, but a load of xenophobic hooey. Then call them fascists.
Anything else is buying into their bullshit.
Clever analogy. In fact there are striking similarities between Islam and Mormonism – evangelical Christians even had a book published entitled “Mormonism the Islam of America“.
I know that Yusuf Smith, one of the Muslims bloggers I follow, was actually humorously referred to on another blog as “Latter-Day Shahid”, because his name resembled that of Mormonism’s founder.
I think the issue is that there are a lot more Muslims than there are Mormons.
One could conceivably argue that the decline of religion was partially responsible then, by paving the way for the rise of Social Darwinism.
It’s not MY hooey – I’m just repeating what the wingnuts say. I’d like nothing better than to be presented with a coherent argument which proves that it’s hooey!
I already frequent quite a few Muslim blogs and forums, and several times I posted outrageous anti-Muslim quotes from the author SM Stirling, with the enjoinder “don’t buy this man’s books!”. If you search under “joatsimeon” (which SM Stirling often uses as his online nickname), you’ll find some more scary stuff…
SM Stirling, one of the wingnuts I want to learn how to refute, once said “A people without any xenophobia would be like an individual whose immune system has been destroyed by HIV — defenseless.“
And that’s bullshit. It is a bullshit analogy. It is a self-serving xenophobic lie.
You’re not going to get careful, play-by-play handbooks on how to refute the bullshit that fuckwit is going to spout because it’s just blatant bullshit. Pointing it out as bullshit is frankly as best you can do.
It is bullshit. Calling it so is the way in which to refute it.
In case you don’t get the gist of my last post. That is bullshit. Stop treating it like it’s a respectable argument because it is not.
M. Bouffant said,
June 13, 2007 at 6:01
Karl Rove II: Is Dicks still there on Broadway? Are the burgers as awful as they were 40 yrs. ago? (Is nostalgia pathetic or what?)
Yup, all five locations are still open…
http://www.ddir.com
Awful? I love them late at night after drinking/other things..the fries are floppy but fresh cut.
Were you a UofW student?
Patkin–
The existence of other destructive ideologies in no way makes religion any less destructive. You can look for economic, racial, or freckle-based causes underlying conflicts, and they will doubtless be there, but the trend remains: the more religion in an area, the more violence.
The more political extremism in an area, the more violence. The more racial extremism in an area, the more violence.
And this is about religious extremism. Tell me the Amish or Mennonites are violent and ignorant. Let’s talk about liberal/progressive Christians or Jews who’re out protesting the war and the Bush administration. Let’s talk about any religious member who, y’know, actually follows the dictates of a religion instead of swings around a AK-47 and makes lip service, if that, towards a religion that is so irrelevent to their daily lives that it’s basically interchangeable with whatever extremist is on the opposite side of the barrel.
Extremism is the problem, not what the extremist is extreme about.
[…] Most of us don’t like the Nazis for what they did, but for others it’s more a matter of who they did it to. […]