You can't "Just kill them all"?

Davescot[t] is venting right now at Dembski's blog.

I'm as appalled by the noxious sentiments of Dembski and his minions as anyone else. I'm also mindful of the fact that Intelligent Design Creationism is, and always has been, cryptofascist politics masquerading as science, and that people on either side of the debate who deny this are deluding themselves.

But does this sort of non-science thing really belong on PT? It's just like the Dover defense oo-ing and ah-ing over Forrest's ACLU affiliations. SFW? If one wants to draw more concrete connections between Dembski's anti-science and his odious political views why not run a front-pager on the HIV/AIDS denial in Crux magazine? It seems like that would be far more relevant to the PT mission AIUI.

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated.

the NY metro region, where disgruntled ethnics tend to be coddled due to the local political climate.

Gary Hurd, that is all quite over the top, as is Red State Rabble's musings. Neither Dembski, nor Wretchard whom he excerpts, are fascists; at least not as demonstrated by that snippet. Or, if they are, then so am I and so are most of those with whom I live and work.

For you see, except for DaveScot's ranting, most of the comments at Dembski's site about Islam and Muslims reflect the dominant attitude in the U.S. We expect our Muslim citizens to assimilate. and join in -- yes -- our national identity; to buy into our civil religion as embodied in the Bill of Rights and our sloganeering about liberty and stuff. To accept our rule of law, both in its procedures and its substance. Most of us reject multi-cultural claim that assimilation is wrong or undesirable.

To the extent that Muslims insist on retaining primacy of commitment to a religious system that is as enlightened as Christian Reconstructionism, they should not be welcomed into any Western state. Every nasty (but appropriate) comment ever posted at PT about the Reconstructionists -- who lavishly fund DI -- applies equally to a large swathe of the Muslim culture. I would not want Reconstructionists in power in the U.S., and I do not welcome their Muslim counter-parts who will not adopt "our ways," where our ways are the morally superior bequest of the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment tamed Xianity in the West. Unfortunately, it passed by significant sectors of the Muslim world. Noting that fact does not constitute xenophobia, or bigotry, any more than does wringing ones hands over what the Reconstructionists would impose on us if they had the numbers and the power.

If Dembski is a Reconstructionist, he is a fascist. But he is not a fascist by dint of posting the always eloquent and reasonable Wretchard's rejection of anti-assimilationist multi-cultis vis-a-vis Muslims.

"Kill them all, God will know his own." [Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.]

— Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, Papal Legate to the Crusaders of Beziers

Mona, I don't think you know any actual muslims, and have no idea about Islam beyond scare-stories read on the intaweb. "Large swathes"? "Significant sectors"? This is vile rhetoric. Go away, and bring back some facts.

Actually, NelC, I was very close friends in college with an Iraqi-American woman whom I helped move out of her incredibly repressive home when she was 19. As a female she found life in a Muslim household nearly intolerable. Like me, she now is an atheist. (She could not grasp how her well-educated, biologist father could keep his mouth shut when it was taught at her mosque that eating pork turns women into lesbians. But I made her feel better by regaling her with tales of the inanity I was taught in an arch-conservative, Catholic home.)

Moreover, I know a reasonable amount about Islam, since I majored in religious studies as an undergrad. Additionally, I've just finished rereading Paul Johnson's History of the Jews which is most informative about Islam. While I do read some Internet sites on the subject of Muslims, I believe I sufficiently discriminate among them in terms of quality.

For example, I long ago stopped posting at Little Green Footballs because the comments section is a sewer. Many there delude themselves that Islam is inherently rancid and violent, when the fact is, much that they deplore about it is not that different from how Xians in some times and places carried on before the Enlightenment reined that religion in. I believe Islam should be no less amendable to such taming, but that such taming is well overdue.

In any event, I am rather amused that you think phrases like "huge swathes" or "significant sectors" constitute "vile rhetoric." I would caution you to avoid all comments at PT that address Xian fundamentalists; your head might explode if you think my rhetoric is vile.

Finally, google "Theo van Gogh" and "Salman Rushdie" for an introduction into how illiberal some sectors of Islam can be. Then move onto "female genital mutilation." Then try "stoning, women, adultery, Islam." I have more search term lists after you've done all that.

Mona, I find your reasoning a tad off. Just because you and most people think something doesn't make it true. If you and all your friends think that Muslims need to assimilate and loose their cultural identity, you may wish to consider the idea that you and all your friends are wrong.

At one time, the majority of white Americans believed that blacks were inferior. Anyway, you see where I am going with this.

To call DaveScott a dilettante would be a slur on dilettantes.

P.S. Edward Said is a good corrective to the tenets of Islamophobia.

"He [neurode] fails to say what the proper punishment is for being a 'disgruntled ethnic', or whether being a disgruntled white person is even an offense."

As it happens, there is no punishment for being a disgruntled ethnic (being disgruntled, unlike committing a crime, is merely state of mind). In fact, there may even be incentives for being a member of an ethnic or religious minority who voices his or her dissatisfaction in the right political circles, or in proximity to cameras and microphones. No problem there - I'm a strong supporter of anybody's right to be disgruntled and talk about it!

On the other hand, and somewhat asymmetrically, there are now substantial penalities for being a disgruntled member of the ethnic majority who imagines himself, rightly or wrongly, to be a victim of reverse discrimination. As we all know, majority citizens who voice such feelings tend to become targets of unpleasant liberal epithets like "racist", "hater", "supporter of hate", "cryptofascist"...even zingers like "IDiot slavering over the chance to kill!". Indeed, those majority citizens who become sufficiently disgruntled to return the ill sentiment in kind may even be incarcerated for committing a "bias crime", especially if they're not careful about who's in the room when they sound off.

Personally, I think this situation is discriminatory in its own right, and as a consequence, I think you people are reprehensible (even if you did get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning). But just to clarify matters, my main point over at Uncommon Descent was phrased rather clinically:

"Human nature inevitably leads to inequitable concentrations of wealth and power regardless of the system of government in place. This becomes a source of social stress, whence society comes to resemble a rock in a tightening vise. A solid rock, free of hairline fractures along its class divisions, can withstand a good amount of pressure. But cultural boundaries within society are like big, visible cracks in the rock, and when the pressure rises, the rock shatters ... To put it in a nutshell, multiculturalism is an oxymoron. Cultures are coherent social environments, whereas collections of microcultures are not; they decohere along the boundaries."

I do hope that you folks are capable of understanding that one can make this sort of neutral, factual observation without necessarily deserving to be tarred with the sort of nasty epithets you're throwing around here.

But if not, then why don't you go suck rocks?

Additionally, I've just finished rereading Paul Johnson's History of the Jews which is most informative about Islam.

I'm no huge fan of Islam, but then again I'm no more fond of Evangelical Christianity either. And I dare say that as an American, Conservative Christians are a much more realistic threat to my civil liberties than Moslems. Despite the fantasies of DaveScot and others on sites like LFG, I don't see American women being made to wear burkas. Ever. It's right up there with the Cold War fantasies those same guys had of Russians taking over America and forcing everyone to become atheists and turn in their parents to the police.

However, more to the point, I'm really put off by this whole rhetoric about how once you're in America you're obliged to assimilate as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Several questions come to mind: WHO are we all supposed to assimilate to? DaveScot? Neurode? Is being white a necessary part of the deal? Being a Christian? Being an Evangelical? Heterosexual? A Republican? I'm an umpteenth generation American, and I know for a fact that these people do not mean people like me when they go on about the wonderfulness of 'American culture'. They mean people like themselves. So what of us Americans who don't fit DaveScot's little mold? Do we get punished or forcibly assimilated in some way as well? Funny, people who seem to hate 'diversity' the most always manage to place themselves squarely into the mold of what people are All Supposed To Be Like. They always rig the game so they're on the winning side.

As for their ranting about immigrants not wanting to learn English, this just shows how willfully ignorant of history conservatives choose to be. This is a charge Americans have ALWAYS made against immigrants. Ask yourself how many Good Traditional Americans welcomed the Irish and their weird religion, or the Italians and their weird religion, or the Jews, or the Japanese, the Chinese, etc. They always received the same hate-wracked anti-immigrant rhetoric, and it always looked like it made sense at the time, but it was always just as nonsensical. Immigrants will learn English because if they don't their opportunities to make money here are vastly reduced. Immigrants' children always learn English because they grow up here. And their grandchildren seldom speak anything but English. People assimilate a whole hell of a lot naturally. Just not enough for the folks on UncommonDescent, I guess.

...this just shows how willfully ignorant of history conservatives choose to be.

I wonder if Johnson is any more reliable on Islam than he is on evolution.

Much of the blame lies with Richard Dawkins, head of the Darwinisn fundamentalists in the country, who has (it seems) indissolubly linked Darwin to the more extreme forms of atheism, and projected on to our senses a dismal world in which life has no purpose or meaning and a human being has no more significance than a piece of rock, being subject to the same blind processes of pitiless, unfeeling unthinking nature. The sheer moral, emotional and intellectual emptiness of the universe as seen by the Darwinian bigots is enough to make mere humans (as opposed to scientific high priests), and especially young ones, despair, and wonder what is the point of going on with existence in a world which is hard enough to endure even without the Darwinian nightmare.

neurode's obviously never lived in Toronto.

"Personally, I think this situation is discriminatory in its own right, and as a consequence, I think you people are reprehensible"

Don't take this the wrong way -- because there is only one way to take it -- but intolerance of intolerance is intelligence.

Well the whole problem with the LAME arguments from the Uncommon Descent set (a site that I am regularly cut off and all my posts removed) is that the riots are a DIRECT RESULT of "multiculturalism."

Like ALL riots this one started for one reason (the killing of too yoots , much like the beating of a black man and aquittal of the cops) and then escalated into something that has nothing to do with the original cause. People are coming out of the woodwork, yes, even white French kids, to either "join in the fun" of f-ing shit up, or to try to further their own agendas, whatever they may be.

There is little way to deal with this violence at this point that I can see except to respond with violence, unfortunately. It doesn't look like any of this is stopped until some of these rioters are gassed or shot. Hopefully no one will die, but the immediate response should be to provide a physical disincentive to continue rioting. Then, maybe, it can be found out if there can be a solution to this, if one exists.

Let me reemphasize and clarify. I think this whole thing started for a reason, but through mob psychology, it has escalated beyond having a "reason" or "root cause." It looks to me to now be just senseless violence, and any "root cause" has nothing to do with "multiculturalism." Like I posted at Demski's blog and has now likely been removed, I'm not making excuses for rioters, but they are using the riots as an excuse to be bigots.

Is it just me or did anyone else see the article Dembski posted about birth rates around the world? The one that ended with him insinuating something ominous about those people. I wonder why he pulled it.

Professional Christian apologist William Dembski's notorious penchant for deleting any post he finds offensive has shown him to be a supporter of hate.

His line on comments is "just don't bore me."
Interesting that he should find substantiative criticism "boring," and not fawning obsequiousness, but to each his own, I guess.

So, whether or not we can say he is "a supporter of hate," it is certain that he finds it at least entertaining.

"Professional Christian apologist William Dembski's notorious penchant for deleting any post he finds offensive has shown him to be a supporter of hate." Now I find this to be REALLY FUNNY!

Is this line of conversation going anywhere productive, and if so, will it have bugger all to do with intelligent design?

Anyone would think these fundies had had a bad week or something..

In America all we need is Super Bowl victory to touch off our powderkeg of multiculturalism.

Is this line of conversation going anywhere productive, and if so, will it have bugger all to do with intelligent design?

DaveScot is right - Islam is cancer. But so is any other conservative religion. Is DaveScot a fundy Xian? He should commit suicide then.

Well the whole problem with the LAME arguments from the Uncommon Descent set (a site that I am regularly cut off and all my posts removed) is that the riots are a DIRECT RESULT of "multiculturalism."

Which is, if you know anything about multiculturalism, is extremely laughable; a large component of the rioting comes from a) inability of the immigrants to JOIN the mainstream in ameaningful way, and b) concerted efforts to promote a single national character. This is A) the exact OPPOSITE of what multiculturalism is supposed to do, and B) way too similar to what nativists want to do in America.

In other words, these arguments are pig-ignorant, and, in fact, are self sabotaging.

Then again, what do we expect from folks who support creationism?

Well.. so this isn't really so much a creationist issue; it happens on both sides. For example, there is a really scary extreme LGF-head on talk.origins. The creationists don't at ALL have a monopoly on this kind of behavior.

But, it is very very telling to see how the differing communities react. These kinds of comments get encouraged on Dembski's blog and in fact to an extent echoed in the blog posts themselves, and this is without question a major pillar of the "ID" community, Dembski is one of the central media players in creationism. Talk.origins, meanwhile, though the resident islamophobe is tolerated in terms of presence and participates in the pro-evolution side of the discussion as generally an equal, the instant he starts dragging out his "america must be destroyed, it's our culture or theirs" crap he immediately has almost the entirety of talk.origins turning on him and arguing against him. Does this perhaps say something about prevailing attitudes in these two different communities?

But does this sort of non-science thing really belong on PT? It's just like the Dover defense oo-ing and ah-ing over Forrest's ACLU affiliations.

Finally, google "Theo van Gogh" and "Salman Rushdie" for an introduction into how illiberal some sectors of Islam can be. Then move onto "female genital mutilation."

fascism: 2) a system of government charaterized by a rigid suppression of opposition, private economic enteprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militerism. fascist: 2) a person who believes or practices fascism."

Bah... typo. In the above post, instead of:

"America must be destroyed, it's our culture or theirs"

I MEANT to say

"Islam must be destroyed, it's our culture or theirs"

Please excuse me. I'm very tired, and anyway, the America-hating Islamofascists and the Islam-hating American Fascists tend to act so similar most of the time that you can hardly blame me for getting them confused once in awhile.

With all due respect, it's highly unfair to tar all conservatives by association with the likes of DaveScot.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't a Muslim.

Well, I think Johnson's critique of Dawkins holds some merit, even tho I am quite an admirer of Dr. Dawkins. I attended a lecture of his a few years ago where he explicitly said he finds scientists who accept evolution yet who also believe in Xianity to be intellectually dishonest. So, I do not find what Johnson has to say in the quoted passage re: Dawkins far from the mark. Moreover, Johnson, whether one agrees with him on any particular issue or not, is nobody's fool. He has a prodigious command of history that leaves him with few peers.

In any event, Paul Johnson is not, by any stretch, my sole scholarly source on the subject of Islam. It just so happens that I have been currently rereading his tome on the Jews.

More pertinent to this thread, I do insist, as do most Americans, that immigrants assimilate to this nation's core values. To whatever extent that entails a loss of their culture, too bad. My Catholic forebears had to get over the illiberal condemnations emanating from the Vatican about the supposed ills of liberal democracy, and embrace freedom of religion and speech. To a very real degree, the American Catholic church, therefore, became distinguishable from the European brand; it was American first. That, to me, is a good thing.

Really, I am astonished, and even bemused, at all the lip service paid to the glories of '"culture" and the lamentation that any should expect immigrants to somewhat lose theirs. Look: we Americans have a culture, too, and it is critically important. Our civil society is rooted in classically liberal values that the vast majority endorse; the vast majority respect our legal and political institutions as legitimate. We are bound by patriotic sayings and mythology encapsulated in phrases such as "Give me liberty or give me death." I like my culture of individual liberty and its mythos, and welcome all who wish to join it, but not those who consider themselves its adversaries.

Unfortunately, many Muslims are opposed to accommodating secular, liberal political orders. If they will not assimilate to the American order, then I do not want a significant number of them in my country, any more than I want the place overrun by Xian Reconstructionists. I'm not amused that some Muslim schools in America are inculcating children with anti-American hatred and contempt for our secular govt. It is beyond rude to treat a host nation that way, it is disrespectful of our culture, and it is hardly surprising that the host objects and such objections are not driven by freakin' fascism.

Immigration is terrific; I have tended to advocate open borders and would let basically all the Mexicans who want to come here, come. Nor do I oppose Muslim immigration per se, provided only that I do insist that they assimilate. I would reject only those who adhere to beliefs that are as inimical to secular democracy as are the beliefs of Reconstructionists.

...my main point over at Uncommon Descent was phrased rather clinically:

"Human nature inevitably leads to inequitable concentrations of wealth and power regardless of the system of government in place. This becomes a source of social stress, whence society comes to resemble a rock in a tightening vise. A solid rock, free of hairline fractures along its class divisions, can withstand a good amount of pressure. But cultural boundaries within society are like big, visible cracks in the rock, and when the pressure rises, the rock shatters....etc., etc., yada yada, blah blah blah

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated. It's an ugly, dysfunctional belief system even in milder forms, that subjugates the female half of the population. However, since we can't just kill them all...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't a Muslim.

More pertinent to this thread, I do insist, as do most Americans, that immigrants assimilate to this nation's core values.

To whatever extent that entails a loss of their culture, too bad.

I want to apologize to neurode for my above comment; I erroneously combined his own quote and something said by davescot in a post where he adressed neurode. I didn't scroll down far enough to see davescot's name on the comment before going off half-cocked.

Again, sorry.

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated. It's an ugly, dysfunctional belief system even in milder forms, that subjugates the female half of the population. However, since we can't just kill them all...

Sounds pretty 'clinical,' ya racist, hating, supporter of hate. Like straight out of the Mengele clinic.

Mona:

I was about to respond to the thread in general, but you have articulated my thoughts perfectly.

Can anyone explain to me how the actions of a handful of disenfranchised French Muslims constitutes a "verdict of Islam?"

Please explain how their religion affects their participation in these violent acts, as opposed to the manner in which poor secular people riot.

I don't know if you Americans realize it yet but the Muslims horde is gathering at Ellis Island, poised to wrest control of your country from the sons of Jefferson, the law, history and tradition. DON'T PANIC! Mona's on the case.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't a Muslim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3322399.stm I left Somalia when I six-years-old. ... Somalia is made up of a population which is 100% Muslim.

More pertinent to this thread, I do insist, as do most Americans, that immigrants assimilate to this nation's core values.

I think this is a counterproductive line of inquiry, not because I am absolutely certain that Dembski is not a fascist, but because I don't see what it has to do with the merit of ID as science. Heck, Wernher von Braun was a card-carrying Nazi, but he was also arguably the world's leading expert on rocket propulsion. Shockley espoused "controversial racial theories" http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/nobel/1989/1989r.html but his brainchild, the transistor works as well as ever.

Dembski is a mathematician of average technical ability whose expertise lies in self-promotion and obfuscation. He could be the nicest guy in the world, but it wouldn't make CSI well-defined, and he could be a serial killer but if he'd apply the scientific method to at least one area, he might yet have a contribution to make.

It sounds like some of Dembski's supporters have extreme political views, but it's probably making a leap to infer much from Dembski's lack of deletions. A simpler explanation might just be that he doesn't want to annoy his fan base. His decision to delete may have as much to do with group loyalty as with actual posting content. To the extent that he cultivates this a band of "fascisti" he might qualify as a tin-horn academic thug, but not exactly Il Duce of Information Theory.

Asked about the scores of errors in the English edition of his book -- Johnson wrote, among other things, that Thomas Edison invented the telephone and that California was governed for years by ''Pete'' Brown -- Johnson professes no concern. ''The trouble with my kind of history is that it's very dense, it's full of facts,'' he says. ''You get a few of those wrong, but then you clear them up gradually. After a few impressions, it gets completely clean.'' In other words, a first edition is merely what in the software business is called a beta version: a test product to be debugged with the unpaid assistance of reviewers and readers.

More pertinent to this thread, I do insist, as do most Americans, that immigrants assimilate to this nation's core values.

I don't see what it has to do with the merit of ID as science.

To the extent that he cultivates this a band of "fascisti" he might qualify as a tin-horn academic thug, but not exactly Il Duce of Information Theory.

morbius:

We successfully assimilated millions of Irish, Italians, Japanese, Germans, Jews, Catholics, and dozens of other groups and nationalities through the early 20th century.

None of them completely lost their culture. Consider all the Chinatowns and Little Italies that remain in our cities, even decades after these groups originally came here.

morbius wrote [some valuable quality feedback]

Your quality feedback is important to us. If you would like a personal response, please stay on the line for the next available operator. "Someone left the cake out in the rain... "

It's a little-known fact that after 9/11, "peace-loving" American Muslims hit the streets of Brooklyn to howl, hoot and rejoice at our national expense. "Death to America!" they joyously screeched. "Death to Jews!" They obviously expected to get away with it due to "strange" American laws protecting their religious freedom, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, et cetera...laws that do not exist in the countries and culture to which they are actually loyal. But they were wrong. Aroused by the noise, a large group of indignant non-Muslims, Americans and Brooklynites to the bone, emerged and pounded several of them to a consistency approaching that of strawberry jam, which led to police intervention and a general dispersal.

— nerode

Il Duce of Information Theory.

That is worth the entire thread!

morbius: We successfully assimilated millions of Irish, Italians, Japanese, Germans, Jews, Catholics, and dozens of other groups and nationalities through the early 20th century. None of them completely lost their culture. Consider all the Chinatowns and Little Italies that remain in our cities, even decades after these groups originally came here.

— JoeBuck

moribus: I am well aware of the cultural and historical underpinnings of female genital mutilation. The practice pre-dates Islam, but is practiced today primarily in Islamic countries, and is found throughout the grossly misogynistic, Islamic Middle East. To excerpt from wikipedia (all emphasis mine):

Female genital cutting is today mainly practiced in African countries. It is common in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Somalia on the East coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south. In these regions, it is estimated that more than 95% of all women have undergone this procedure. It is also practiced by some groups in the Arabian peninsula [10], especially among a minority (20%) in Yemen.

The practice is known to exist throughout the Middle East, though it is veiled in secrecy, unlike in parts of Africa, where it is practiced relatively openly. The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan, and Iraq, and there is also circumstantial evidence to suggest it is present in Syria, western Iran, and among the Bedouin population of Israel.[11] In Oman a few communities still practice FGC; however, experts believed that the number of such cases was small and declining annually. In the United Arab Emirates and also Saudi Arabia, it's practiced among some foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley.

The practice can also be found among a few ethnic groups in South America, India and Malaysia. In Indonesia the practice is almost universal among the country's Muslim women; however, in contrast to Africa, almost all are Type I or Type IV (involving a symbolic prick to release blood) procedures.

The practice is particularly common in Somalia, followed by Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Mali. Among ethnic Somali women, infibulation is traditionally almost universal. In the Arab peninsula, sunna circumcision is usually performed, especially among Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation).

I submit to you that hatred of women and fear of female sexuality abounds in Islamic culture. The way women are forced to live in most Islamic cultures makes The Handmaid's Tale look like a gender-equality nirvana. And don't forget my other associated search terms, to wit: "stoning, women, adultery, Islam."

We can look at gays, next.

Well, there's a straw man if ever I saw one. Female genital mutilation is already quite illegal in America and no one is suggesting this be changed.

Gary Hurd waxes most unfairly: Mona, the "Some of my best friends are _ _ _ _ ers, so I can't be prejudiced," is a pathetic argument. I regected that sort of nonsence barely past puberty.

Will you please recall that I was responding to a post that asserted I did not know any Muslims? Or anything about Islam? My response was not in the vein of "some of my best friends are...," but rather was to set my accuser straight.

Thank you for your anticipated agreement that you have wrongly accused me of invoking a discredited cliche. Further, my friend long ago stopped practicing Islam, which she finds as oppressive as I did the arch-conservative Catholicism with which I was raised; the two of us bonded in large part due to our similar journeys out of oppressive religion.

And, to address some of your other points, I must go google for several articles I have read. Thus, more in due course.

"California has experienced a historically unprecedented episode of immigration. In my school, there are children sitting next to one another whose parents were at war mere months before. Out of necessity, we have taught tolerance and cooperation. But have we taught about being American? I don't think so. So, I propose to teach the three "Rs" with the three "Bs" that make us American; the Bill of Rights, the Blues, and Baseball. Since other works cover the first two, I'll address Baseball.

Muslims are one or two percent of the US population, the vast majority Aftican Americans going back for generations and wedded fully to liberal principles such separation of church and state. There are more white people that have converted to Islam than immigrants from countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Anyone who's worried the US is going Sharia lives in an alternate universe.

And if not, then what? Kill them?

— Morbius

I am well aware of the cultural and historical underpinnings of female genital mutilation.

The practice pre-dates Islam, but is practiced today primarily in Islamic countries

and is found throughout the grossly misogynistic, Islamic Middle East

And don't forget my other associated search terms, to wit: "stoning, women, adultery, Islam."

Gary Hurd admonishes: Regarding deadly violence, I agree that the "taliban" ie. students of scripture based schools, are dangerous. And so while you are googleing "Theo van Gogh" and "Salman Rushdie" be bloody (sic) sure you also google "Eric Robert Rudolph" and "James Kopp," "Terry Nichols" and "William Pierce."

I don't need to google them because I am well aware of them; I approve of the FBI infiltrating their murderous groups, and if they and the cesspools that produce them were foreign, I would restrict their immigration. But because they are domestic religious terrorists, we instead infiltrate, prosecute and lock them up.

Why should we invite large numbers of other religionists into our nation who subscribe to belief systems as odious and violent as those which produce Eric Robert Rudoplh?

Finally, I am mystified by this from you: And regarding the murder of Theo van Gogh, why do you disparage the presence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Beacuse that is what you do by reducing Islam to killers like Mohammed Bouyeri.

I greatly admire Hirsi Ali, and at no point mentioned her, much les disparaged her. She diagnoses the pathologies in Islam quite well, and has lived in that hell.

I have never "reduced Islam to killers like Mohammed Bouyeri." But the fact is, those like him, in the liberal Netherlands of all placres, have Hirsi Ali living in hiding and under armed guard, along with another member of the Dutch parliament. I don't want those kinds of Muslims in the U.S.

Frankly, I doubt your claim you are actually out of puberty. Grow up.

And if not, then what? Kill them? Deport them? One can "insist" upon a claim, but to "insist" upon an action requires coercion.

I don't need to google them because I am well aware of them; I approve of the FBI infiltrating their murderous groups... Why should we invite large numbers of other religionists into our nation who subscribe to belief systems as odious and violent as those which produce Eric Robert Rudoplh?... I have never "reduced Islam to killers like Mohammed Bouyeri."

Morbius wrote: And if not, then what? Kill them? Well if that isn't a classic example of an strawman argument then I don't know what is.

I thought you were smarter than that Morbius, guess not.

I have never "reduced Islam to killers like Mohammed Bouyeri." But the fact is, those like him

Why should we invite large numbers of other religionists into our nation who subscribe to belief systems as odious and violent as those which produce Eric Robert Rudoplh?

Gary Hurd admonishes: Regarding deadly violence, I agree that the "taliban" ie. students of scripture based schools, are dangerous. And so while you are googleing "Theo van Gogh" and "Salman Rushdie" be bloody (sic) sure you also google "Eric Robert Rudolph" and "James Kopp," "Terry Nichols" and "William Pierce." I don't need to google them because I am well aware of them; I approve of the FBI infiltrating their murderous groups, and if they and the cesspools that produce them were foreign, I would restrict their immigration.

Gary Hurd: I realize that frontpagemagazine is an organ of David Horowitz, and so anything found at that site is likely to cause a cessation of thought for many here rather than a willingness to consider the arguments presented. However, these two excerpts and links are to symposia conducted not by Horowitz, but rather by historian Jamie Glazov, who was reared in the USSR and lost family to Stalin. He is ardently pro-West, and among the many guests he has interviewed are the following two.

From Phyllis Chesler, an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies and the author of twelve books including the best-selling Women and Madness, who declares:

[feminist]Burkett is also right on target when she notes that feminist leaders and grassroots organizers do not hesitate to oppose fundamentalism in it's Christian and Jewish forms but not in it's Islamic (and far more dangerous) form. I am in favor of even-handed critiques, not multi-culturally "sensitive" ones.

Let me suggest that American feminists who have, correctly, demanded police intervention for battered women and criminal penalties for those who batter them may have failed to grasp the importance of military intervention when terrorism becomes battery writ large. Feminists know that you can't reason with or appease a batterer. Feminists may need to apply this way of thinking to Islamo-fascist terrorists who are not freedom fighters seeking justice for their people. The other day, an Iranian judge hung a sixteen year old girl for having addressed the court with "a sharp tongue." Although America can't intervene everywhere, do feminists believe that such state-sanctioned extremist misogyny can be reasoned with or should be appeased? How do feminists think the Arab ethnic Muslim Janjaweed who are enforcing a state-sanctioned policy of genocide and mass rape in Sudan against black Christians, Muslims, and animists should be stopped? Do feminist rights stop at our own national doors or do feminists have a responsibility to at least conceive of such rights as global?

Rest here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14838

From Kamal Nawash, the Founder and President of The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, which denounces all forms of fundamentalist Islamic terror and advocates an American no-tolerance stance on terrorism, and who calls for Islamic reformation;

I can easily agree with most of the statements made by Walid Shoebat and Prof. Khaleel Mohammed. However, they both make a crucial mistake that is made by most intellectuals who tackle the issue of Islamic reformation. Both rely on the Koran and other Islamic religious text to justify their conclusions. This is not a formula for success and will always fail. The fact is, the Koran, similar to the Bible and the Torah, says what ever the reader wants it to say. Thus, in his interpreting of Islamic text, I have no doubt that Mr. Mohammed is sincere in interpreting Islam as a peaceful, loving religion. I also believe that Mr. Shoebat is sincere and justified in interpreting Islam as an evil religion. The Koran has many verses that can justify both interpretations.

In light of this, all who are interested in Islamic reformation must begin with the belief that Islam is no innocent bystander in the violence perpetrated by Muslims. Just as moderate Christians and Jews acknowledged the nasty side of their holy texts, modern Muslims must acknowledge that the Koran can easily be used to justify terror and evil. It is not sufficient for moderate Muslims to argue that certain passages in the Koran are being politically exploited. Muslims must realize that the passages would not be exploited if they didn't exist.

As to whether we need an Islamic reformation, the answer is YES. If Islamic society is to become prosperous, free and democratic, a true reformation must take place within the Arab and Muslim nations. The governments of the Muslim world must remove theocratic Islam as the most dynamic force within their borders. Secularization, respect for other faiths and self-criticism must be achieved in order to attain Islamic reformation and the elimination of the daily violence resulting from a plausible interpretation of Islam.

The key to Islamic reformation is the promotion of secularism which will lead to the rationalism that is, unfortunately, rejected by most Muslims today. Secularism and rationalism is how Christians and Jews reformed their religions. For example, in Europe, rationalism lead to scientific discoveries that undermined the Aristotelian physics upon which the church had built its view of the universe. These discoveries ultimately discredited the church as the giver of the only truth about everything and relegated religion in the Western world to a personal relationship between an individual and his Lord. This is what is needed in Islam today. We need to slowly remove religion from public life and relegate it to a personal relationship between the individual and his Lord.

As to why we don't have attempts at reformation, self-criticism and self-questioning, it is dangerous to do so. The Muslim religious establishment immediately labels anyone who seeks reform as an infidel, anti-Muslim or agents of the Mossad and CIA. Moreover, even "secular" governments such as Egypt prosecute people who seek reform in order to appease the religious establishment and their ignorant Muslim followers who regard such calls for reformation to be so offensive as to justify violent retribution.

Rest here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14639

--Mona--

But does this sort of non-science thing really belong on PT?

Dave Unscot said:
DaveScot is right - Islam is cancer. But so is any other conservative religion. Is DaveScot a fundy Xian? He should commit suicide then.

Problem is, cancer is a bunch of cells that forgot how to kill themselves

For you see, except for DaveScot's ranting, most of the comments at Dembski's site about Islam and Muslims reflect the dominant attitude in the U.S.

Neither Dembski, nor Wretchard whom he excerpts, are fascists; at least not as demonstrated by that snippet. Or, if they are, then so am I and so are most of those with whom I live and work.

Which core values are these? Who gets to decide?

— Arden Chatfield

Since Gary Hurd raised the subject of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I enthusiastically offer more info about this brave woman who pointedly is an ex-Muslim, opne who has received death threats for aiding in the production of Theo van Gogh's film about the hell women suffer in Muslim cultures. Van Gogh was brutally murdered by an offended Muslim, in the Netherlands; Hirsi Ali, a feminist, remains in the Dutch parliament, but in hiding and under guard. She is avidly pro-assimilation. Excerpt and link:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, now 33, was born in the Somali capital Mogadishu. The daughter of a Somali politician, she grew up as a typical Muslim girl. In her infant years, she underwent the traditional local ritual of genital mutilation. When Somalia was plunged into turmoil, the family moved to Saudi Arabia, where she was forced to wear a veil and stay indoors.

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/ned030110.html

Posted by johnpiippo on November 7, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)

Wow, none of the IDers here seem to want to talk about their, uh, performance at Dover, but hey, give them a chance to tell you all about their nutty rightwing political crap, and they ALL come crawling out from under the tree bark.

You're absolutely right! It would be terrible of us to insist that immigrants who want to become part of American society swear to uphold its values. It's a good thing we don't make new citizens take any sort of oath or anything.

Just a general note, fatwa's have been pronounced on the riots in France by Muslim leaders.

On another note, Mona, that has nothing to do with Islam. I could recall large tales of Muslim liberalism in the past, but it's not something you are probably unfamiliar with. The truth is of course that most of the Islamic world nowadays is very conservative, going medieval in some places. But this is not islam's fault, but your remark of "I don't want those muslims" should be increased in scope to "I don't want those people."

Really, it;'s not about islam, it's about people. A religion is not inherently wrong because there is an infinite amount of interpretations to it. It is the interpreters that can be wrong and bad. People often forget to make this distinction and when they do, bad things happen.

If we focus narrowly on ID as "science" (or not), and miss the larger picture, we do a disservice to everyone (including ourselves). This fight is not, and has never been, about science. And we will not beat ID by treating it as science (or science-wanna-be). Instead, we must face it for what it is ---- a theocratic political program akin to the Taliban and Iranian ayatollahs.

To the extent that Muslims insist on retaining primacy of commitment to a religious system that is as enlightened as Christian Reconstructionism, they should not be welcomed into any Western state.

I enthusiastically offer more info about this brave woman who pointedly is an ex-Muslim

[feminist]Burkett is also right on target when she notes that feminist leaders and grassroots organizers do not hesitate to oppose fundamentalism in it's Christian and Jewish forms but not in it's Islamic (and far more dangerous) form. I am in favor of even-handed critiques, not multi-culturally "sensitive" ones.

— Mona

Since they do take the oath, there's nothing further for Mona to insist upon, right?

— morbius

Lenny, much of what you say does not contradict my points; indeed, it restates them.

But it still does not follow that because all ID is cryptofascist politics (which it is) that all cryptofascist politics is ID, and I remain unconvinced of the relevance of this particular instance of Dembski's knuckledragging racism to the Panda's Thumb. Hell, even Dembski headlined his original post as "Off-topic", which indeed it was and continues to be.

The welcome to PT reads:

"The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

When and if I want to read takedowns of racist fundie garbage from human scum like Dembski, I'll troll in Freeperville or browse the comments in Kos-town. I can only assume people come to PT because its subject matter is what it says on the tin, and it would be a shame if it just became one more of a million sites where people scream insults at each other about genital mutilation and immigration policy. How boring.

Um, Mona, you DO understand that Islam, like Christianity, is a very diverse and widespread religion with a whole bunch of competing (and contradictory) interpretations. You DO understand that Muslims are not a monolithic groupthink (just like the Commies weren't). You DO understand that most Muslims oppose terrorism and theocracy, just as most Christians oppose Reconstructionism. Right?

Mona wrote: [feminist]Burkett is also right on target when she notes that feminist leaders and grassroots organizers do not hesitate to oppose fundamentalism in it's Christian and Jewish forms but not in it's Islamic (and far more dangerous) form. I am in favor of even-handed critiques, not multi-culturally "sensitive" ones.

Well, I can think of one more tiny thing: that they abide by it.

And for what it's worth, I agree with Mona at least this far: if anyone - be they Christian, Muslim, atheist or anything else - comes to this country with no intent other than to overthrow the Constitution and substitute in its place the theocratic system of their choice, then they have no business being here and should go seek a dictatorship elsewhere in the world more congenial to their beliefs. There's no shortage of those, for people who want them; but America was conceived and founded in liberty, and I for one would like it to stay that way.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." George Bush, December 18, 2000 "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." George Bush, July 30, 2001

Ebonmuse: The immigration authorities are already empowered to deport aliens for all kinds of reasons and already do so. Entering with "no intent other than to overthow" the US government is most certainly among them. Even if you were coming just to sample the sushi and got the idea of overthrow on the flight over, they could kick you out for it.

The usual reasons are far more pedestrian, mind you, such as having overstayed a past visa. They have even more power to refuse entry. For instance, a visitor from a country requiring a visa is assumed to be planning to immigrate and has the burden of proving otherwise. What additional restrictions were you proposing?

What do you say about Christian theocrats who were born and raised here, but still just don't "get it" when it comes to the constitution. Do they have "business being here"? Sadly, the same constitution makes it difficult to deport them. It sounds like a far thornier policy issue to me.

[feminist]Burkett is also right on target when she notes that feminist leaders and grassroots organizers do not hesitate to oppose fundamentalism in it's Christian and Jewish forms but not in it's Islamic (and far more dangerous) form. I am in favor of even-handed critiques, not multi-culturally "sensitive" ones.

I agree with Mona at least this far: if anyone - be they Christian, Muslim, atheist or anything else - comes to this country with no intent other than to overthrow the Constitution and substitute in its place the theocratic system of their choice, then they have no business being here and should go seek a dictatorship elsewhere in the world more congenial to their beliefs.

But it still does not follow that because all ID is cryptofascist politics (which it is) that all cryptofascist politics is ID, and I remain unconvinced of the relevance of this particular instance of Dembski's knuckledragging racism to the Panda's Thumb.

moribus quotes me:

More pertinent to this thread, I do insist, as do most Americans, that immigrants assimilate to this nation's core values.

And then asks:

And if not, then what? Kill them? Deport them? One can "insist" upon a claim, but to "insist" upon an action requires coercion. Are you sure you aren't a fascist?

That is pretty low, and I expect a more civil and reasonable tone at a site where well-educated and intelligent people participate.

But yes, I am certain that I am not a fascist. Kill them? No. Deport them? Yes, if they are not naturalized. And by "them" I mean Wahhabi (sp?) or other Muslims who try to settle here and who preach anti-Americanism, we are the Great Satan, killing infidels is way cool & etc. Because we have a culture too, and if you want to live here, you will not advocate war against it. Rather, you will assimilate to its classically liberal values.

As has famously been noted, our liberal polity and the Bill of Rights are not a suicide pact. Rejecting those who reject these things, and who advocate war on them, is prudent and moral.

That is pretty low, and I expect a more civil and reasonable tone at a site where well-educated and intelligent people participate.

Because we have a culture too, and if you want to live here, you will not advocate war against it.

Because we have a culture too, and if you want to live here, you will not advocate war against it.

Ok, then it's time to start deporting a lot of evangelicals, and a good chunk of the Republican Party.

— morbius

What do you say about Christian theocrats who were born and raised here, but still just don't "get it" when it comes to the constitution. Do they have "business being here"? Sadly, the same constitution makes it difficult to deport them. It sounds like a far thornier policy issue to me.

— PaulC

Or are you under the silly delusion that ALL Muslims, absolutely every single one of them, are theocrat-wanna-be's?

Lenny Flank leaves me red in the face: Mona, Mona, Mona ---- if you are going to lob softballs like THIS towards me, you'll just take all the fun right out of it ... . .

(big fat evil grin)

Er, um... yeah, I can see what an opening that was, and I can only stand in awe of your restraint. ;)

However, and wrt the poster who found my comments about the problems in some sectors of Islam "vile," I almost went to the trouble of linking to Lenny Flank posts about fundamentalists. Cuz yanno, Lenny Flank doesn't pull his "vile" punches about that crowd, so my critic had better avoid Lenny lest the poster swoon from "vileness" overdose. :)

You're absolutely right! It would be terrible of us to insist that immigrants who want to become part of American society swear to uphold its values. It's a good thing we don't make new citizens take any sort of oath or anything.

Ok, then it's time to start deporting a lot of evangelicals, and a good chunk of the Republican Party. Insofar as those people want to destroy the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy, I agree.

The culture, as enshrined in our Constitution, expressly forbids the sort of prior restraint and enforcement of thought patterns that you advocate.

— morbius

I see4 a lot of writing in this thread, but damned little reading.

RBH

I see a lot of writing in this thread, but damned little reading.

RBH

(mumble swear cursed no late edit!)

Oh wonderful! You must know what 'America's values' are. Articulate them, please.

— Arden Chatfield

Then tell me, are there native-born Americans who fail to share these values?

If so, what do you propose doing about it?

About Hirsi Ali's religious views today-- Hans H.J. Labohm is a senior visiting fellow at the Nederlands Instituut voor Internationale Betrekkingen Clingendael. He writes in 2004 of Hirsi Ali (emphasis mine):

She was raised as a Muslim but has recently become agnostic. She has an incredible command of the Dutch langue and is a sharp debater. She abhors woolly, placating rhetoric, which is so typical of Dutch politics. According to a recent poll she ranks second among the most popular politicians in Holland. And her political star is still rising. Yet her political message stirs a lot of controversy, especially among Muslim radicals.

It was the criticism by the late Pim Fortuyn (the Dutch politician who was killed by an animal rights activists) of the impact of Islam on Dutch society which sharpened her awareness of the threat of Muslim radicalism. Fortuyn openly qualified the Islam as a backward religion and Ayaan Hirsi Ali shares this view. When she was still in the socialist party she wanted to put the issue high on the political agenda. But the party did not support her view, because it was afraid that it would play into Fortuyn's hands. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is especially critical of the lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions among Muslims, as well as their oppression of women.

Rest here:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/biolabohmhans.html

Except that the Constitution does allow for prior restraint of speech in certain areas. For example, if a speaker says the following: ... then we can most certainly restrict his speech in advance, or prosecute him afterwards

She was raised as a Muslim but has recently become agnostic.

If so, what do you propose doing about it? See my answer to PaulC earlier in the thread.

in practice the best solution is probably the one we've been living by already: let them participate in our democracy just like anyone else, and work to defeat them at the voting booth.

Still, I think, in an ideal world the right to participate in democracy would be contingent on the willingness to extend the same right to others.

moribus astonishes with: Now, can we get back to those immigration restrictions Mona was talking about that would keep out folks like Terry Nichols?

So, uh, if Terry Nichols was a foreign national seeking to immigrate here, you'd say: "Terry! Come on down!"

You are beyond reason.

Look, everybody, I cannot keep up with every post addressed to me. But in sum, I do not think it is misguided for a liberal, secular democracy to exclude would-be immigrants who make the DI crowd look like models of secular virtue.And the fact is, leftists have long been giving a pass to Islamic misogyny, withholding the kind of firepower they aim at domestic Xians. And if I am blinded by ideology like Phyllis Chesler purportedly is, I hope never to see.

Gary Hurd: "+Death to America! + Death to Jews! + New York failed to produce any results other than ultraright wing hate groups."

How very special ... an authority on just about everything, apparently, who disbelieves whatever he doesn't read on google! (One is never disappointed by the high level of intellect regularly displayed by the pundits here at the Panda's Thumb.)

But of course, I did say that it was a little known fact, didn't I. You see, I was in Brooklyn during the week of 9/11, and I heard all about it from the locals themselves. It's only natural that it wasn't picked up by the media, since at the time it occurred, every reporter in New York was pointing a camera at the smoking ruins of the former twin towers.

Practically everybody in Brooklyn knows the score about radical Muslims in their neighborhoods. But I'll tell you what, Gary. If you're so sure it's all a big lie, then why don't you wander on down to Brooklyn, go to (say) the al Farouq mosque, and share a few of your warm, fuzzy, multicultural aspirations with all of the wonderful, diversity-loving people you meet there?

Who knows? You may even learn something new about the consistency of strawberry jam.

moribus astonishes with: Now, can we get back to those immigration restrictions Mona was talking about that would keep out folks like Terry Nichols? So, uh, if Terry Nichols was a foreign national seeking to immigrate here, you'd say: "Terry! Come on down!" You are beyond reason.

I do not think it is misguided for a liberal, secular democracy to exclude would-be immigrants who make the DI crowd look like models of secular virtue.

No, if we really must establish this, I don't believe that all Muslims are in favor of theocracy. I don't believe that they're all terrorists, either. But for the ones that are, I think we're fully within our rights to exclude them from membership in our society.

For you see, except for DaveScot's ranting, most of the comments at Dembski's site about Islam and Muslims reflect the dominant attitude in the U.S. We expect our Muslim citizens to assimilate. and join in --- yes --- our national identity; to buy into our civil religion as embodied in the Bill of Rights and our sloganeering about liberty and stuff. To accept our rule of law, both in its procedures and its substance. Most of us reject multi-cultural claim that assimilation is wrong or undesirable.

But of course, I did say that it was a little known fact, didn't I. You see, I was in Brooklyn during the week of 9/11, and I heard all about it from the locals themselves. It's only natural that it wasn't picked up by the media, since at the time it occurred, every reporter in New York was pointing a camera at the smoking ruins of the former twin towers.

And the fact is, leftists have long been giving a pass to Islamic misogyny

Then you agree with something I don't believe, and with something that would in fact signal destruction of the Constitution.

— morbius

Still, I think, in an ideal world the right to participate in democracy would be contingent on the willingness to extend the same right to others.

Then you agree with something I don't believe, and with something that would in fact signal destruction of the Constitution. It would destroy the Constitution to deny entrance into our society to people who want to destroy it?

Allow me to suggest a thought experiment.

Let's say we have a person who wants to enter America and be naturalized as a citizen. Let's also say that this person has publicly declared that he is forever opposed to everything the Constitution stands for, and that if he becomes a citizen he will make it his lifelong mission to overthrow the Constitution, annul all the rights it guarantees, and in its place create a theocracy where holders of belief systems other than his own will be banned from speaking their minds.

Ebenmuse has already said that s/he thinks that Ahmanson should be deported, and that doing so would not signal destruction of the Constitution.

It would destroy the Constitution to deny entrance into our society to people who want to destroy it?

I never advocated deportation of any specific individual, and in fact I explicitly said that for those people who were born here and already live here, the best solution is to let them remain and defeat them at the ballot box. If you don't agree with my position, that's fine, but I'd prefer it if you could actually represent it fairly.

But Mona isn't talking about "keeping out terrorists". She's talking about keeping out a particular group of people of a particular religion that she doesn't like.

— Lenny Flank

Cuz yanno, Lenny Flank doesn't pull his "vile" punches about that crowd

I never advocated deportation of any specific individual

I explicitly said that for those people who were born here and already live here, the best solution is to let them remain and defeat them at the ballot box.

If you don't agree with my position, that's fine, but I'd prefer it if you could actually represent it fairly.

Kiss my ass.

What I truly find hilarious is the fact that only one person called for killing muslims, and I assume he didn't mean it literally. I'm not fan of Islam myself, but I get mentioned in the post as someone who called for killing muslims. That's REALLY odd considering my SOLE comment in the thread was the following reply to a joke someone said about wanting to sell a French rifle, and that it had only been dropped once:

""It's never been fired and only been dropped once"

lol. nice.

Comment by jboze3131 --- November 4, 2005 @ 3:11 pm "

I'd suggest you check your facts before you go off accusing people of calling for murder like a fool. Then again, you claim that Bill himself was fascist in some manner, tho all he did was quote another blog that mentioned the fact that refusing to assimilate into the culture was part of the problem- GASP!! WHAT FASCISM!

Somehow, tho I never called for anything to be done or commented on the situation in any manner, I'm a murderer-wannabe and an "IDiot." When you have to call names like this, especially when you seem to have reading comprehension problems- you're probably in deep shit...as in, you've no clue as to what you're talking about.

Dishonesty from PT? No way! I'm completely shocked!

Thanks for the quality feedback, morbius. I like the way you address specific misstatements and avoid making the discussion personal.

There is an excellent book recently published, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris.

A great many here, Lenny in particular, badly need to read it.

Mona does not.

BTW, it is a crying shame that Mona could put as much effort as she does in to writing clearly and concisely, only to see so many here toss their reading comprehension right out the window.

Her point about the American Civil Religion is absolutely appropriate, and it is the one thing separating us from the current French hell.

Odd, isn't it, that this is precisely the same argument used by southerners against the civil rights movement and its "outside communist agitators". Plus ca change, and all that. I'm curious, Mona ------ back in the 60's, were you one of the people who argued that Martin Luther King was a commie? In the 80's, were you one of the people who argued that if we didn't support the apartheid regime in South Africa then that commie Mandela would take over?

Your meta-quality feedback is even more valuable to us than your quality feeback. Please stay on the line. "... and I doubt if I can take it cause it took so long to bake it and ..."

I'm now done responding to you, morbius.

I appreciate your support, PaulC. In case anyone's still confused, let me say again, for the record, that I do not support deporting any people who are already citizens merely for their ideas. I do support denying citizenship to people who are not already citizens and who expressly advocate the overthrow of the American democratic system. And I do, also, support deporting people, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, who have participated in actions grossly incompatible with American constitutional ideals. (In other words, I fully support the stripping of citizenship and deportation of people who were once Nazi prison guards, for example.) As I have said, American citizenship is not a freely available privilege.

I'd still like to know, Lenny: What did Mona say that caused you to believe she was opposed to Muslim immigration in general?

By the way, Gary...since you use the fallacy of guilt by association with Dembski (and use that fallacy to claim he preaches hate), I guess we can discount everything on PT since they allow a bald faced liar like you to post...yes? I've seen posts by Nick Matske as well, a man who couldn't be honest to save his own life. I guess if you're going to use such fallacies, they should be available to the rest of us.

Pathetic.

Lenny, this is f*cking ridiculous: But Mona isn't talking about "keeping out terrorists". She's talking about keeping out a particular group of people of a particular religion that she doesn't like.

And talk like that makes me reach for my gun.

I never said, or even implied such a thing. Many Muslims are fine by me. But the fact is, 19 of them flew airplanes into one of our centers of commerce and The Pentagon, and hoped for more carnage. That same cohort had tried in '93 to blow up the WTC. They behead journalists, UN personnel, and any Westerner they can grab.

Behead, Lenny. And then they show the film on the Internet.

Throughout the Middle East, when 9/11 happened, Muslims rejoiced in the streets.

I don't fear Wiccans, or Buddhists. They haven't tried to blow up my nation's buildings and I have not seen large numbers of them glory when their confreres have done so. Which is to say, there is a difference betrween Wiccans and Buddhists on the one hand, and many Muslims on the other. Really, really bright people can discern this difference, Lenny.

You get quite unhinged by Xian fundies who want to impose ID in the public schools -- your rhetoric about those religionists is, to say the least, acerbic. Well, Lenny, I submit to you that some religionists do worse things, and we should not welcome them into the country. Call it a self-preservation and sanity thing.

I ardently oppose ID in the public school classroom, but I also have some perspective. The DI didn't fly fuel-laden ariplanes into the Twin Towers, and there is little evidence their co-religionists would wish them well in such endeavors.

By the way, a delightful woman named Mona is waging a nearly single handed battle against the the misogynist apologistas at Panda's Thumb. Damn, what a woman! And an agnostic too. I border on infatuation...

— DaveScot

Gladly. Here are some: government by democratic republic, separation of powers, right to vote, checks and balances, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and more. Read the Constitution for the full list.

I don't fear Wiccans, or Buddhists. They haven't tried to blow up my nation's buildings and I have not seen large numbers of them glory when their confreres have done so. Which is to say, there is a difference betrween Wiccans and Buddhists on the one hand, and many Muslims on the other. Really, really bright people can discern this difference, Lenny.

By the way, a delightful woman named Mona is waging a nearly single handed battle against the the misogynist apologistas at Panda's Thumb. Damn, what a woman! And an agnostic too. I border on infatuation...

Ebonmuse: I wouldn't so far as saying I support your position, because I don't know it. My point was that everything you seemed to be suggesting for non-citizens is already enforceable under existing immigration law. In fact, I think that immigration is already difficult and making it more difficult would be a disaster for the US considering how many scientists and engineers come from abroad. I'm just as interested as anyone in keeping out those planning to hurt US interests in any way, but that is not a significant component of immigrants.

Geesh, I go to the doctor's office and a bookstore and there are like 100 new posts.

I am closing this for just a while so I can catch up.

I suggest that you all take a few deep breaths, and drink a glass of water (or a glass of something).

I'm now done responding to you, morbius.

I never advocated deportation of any specific individual, and in fact I explicitly said that for those people who were born here and already live here, the best solution is to let them remain and defeat them at the ballot box. If you don't agree with my position, that's fine, but I'd prefer it if you could actually represent it fairly.

Ok, then it's time to start deporting a lot of evangelicals, and a good chunk of the Republican Party.

— morbius

Insofar as those people want to destroy the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy, I agree. (We can start with those Christian Exodus folks who want to take over South Carolina, secede from the Union and turn it into an Old Testament-style theocracy.) Of course, as PaulC's comment mentions, deciding what to do about homegrown Taliban-wannabes who have no other country to return to is a far more difficult matter.

I'd still like to know, Lenny: What did Mona say that caused you to believe she was opposed to Muslim immigration in general?

Unfortunately, many Muslims are opposed to accommodating secular, liberal political orders. If they will not assimilate to the American order, then I do not want a significant number of them in my country

I think this is a counterproductive line of inquiry, not because I am absolutely certain that Dembski is not a fascist, but because I don't see what it has to do with the merit of ID as science.

"The practice {female genital mutilation} pre-dates Islam, but is practiced today primarily in Islamic countries, and is found throughout the grossly misogynistic, Islamic Middle East.

"I agree that it's a mistake to focus narrowly on science, but it's overstating the case to call Dembski a fascist based on the evidence presented so far."

...if anyone - be they Christian, Muslim, atheist or anything else - comes to this country with no intent other than to overthrow the Constitution and substitute in its place the theocratic system of their choice, then they have no business being here and should go seek a dictatorship elsewhere in the world more congenial to their beliefs.

She's talking about keeping out a particular group of people of a particular religion that she doesn't like.

Shortly after this thread was closed, I turned on CSPAN and heard a great talk that Phil Donahue gave at Stony Brook, in which he covered every issue mentioned here, including a very sharp attack on ID. One of the first things I heard him say when I turned it on was "We believe in due process for every man, unless his name is Mohammed". It's almost as if he had been here.

I mostly just find this discussion odd in terms of people who repeatedly deny they are saying certain things in the same post/breath that they reaffirm these same things.

Yeah, its open again.

I have only so much time for this, and I do have the responsibility for the content in this thread, ethically if not legally.

I needed to take a "time out" to read the large number of comments.

I expect that I'll need to do the same in the morning, but these arguments seem to die eventually on their own.

True, many of the comments have been directed "inwardly" which is a characteristic of good people- those able to examine their own motives and not blinded merely by common politics. If not taken too far it is even a strength.

Throughout the Middle East, when 9/11 happened, Muslims rejoiced in the streets.

Maybe you're not "really, really bright". Or maybe you're really, really, really bright, bright enough to understand why, in "there is a difference Wiccans and Buddhists on the one hand, and many Muslims on the other", only one of the groups has a weasel adjective attached that, objectively, makes the comparison incoherent.

Awesome, one post at Dembski's and I've already been deleted. What a complete tool that man is. So it's actually true that everything that remains on his blog should be considered to have met his approval.

The gist of my post:

The riots in France have nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim culture. The situation of poor, jobless, and discriminated-against North & West Africans in France is exactly like that of the Irish in 1800s America; in fact, the (mostly Irish) New York Draft Riots during the Civil War claimed 100s of lives, while the current (mostly Muslim) riots in France just had their first fatality.

Pretty objectionable stuff, right?

Now to pile on Dembski, since he's revealed his true colors:

Today he puts up a link on his blog titled "Theory Change in Science --- Could This Be a Case in Point?"

This refers to the "hydrino" free energy claims of the Blacklight Power company, which has been sending out press releases for five years now with nothing to show for it.

Did he ever have a scientific BS detector?

It doesn't matter who the speaker is or who their target is, faction scapegoating always works the exact same way.

Plenty of reasons on this thread why I've decided anyone who says they are both "conservative" and "American" is not to be taken seriously about any non-technical subject that they have shown proven knowledge in: they are 1] vain blowhards (this thread presents classic example of this, mostly harmless and silly, group); 2] cowards who constantly propose absurdly harsh or openly repressive measures on one "them" or another, but using someone else's blood and gold (Xians almost entirely fit into this gutless group, generically known as "chickenhawks" in politics); or 3] the potentially dangerous and/or kooks (very, very few, as this requires putting something of your own at risk, and it is the rare Bu--sh--loving "con" who even offers an IOU).

Until the late 90's, I was never ashamed of this nation. Now I am rarely proud of it.

Man, that is one scary article --- the Archdiocese of Denver promoting Richard's Thompson's views, such as that the ACLU is an enemy of freedom. I thought that there was a bigger division between the Catholic Church and the radical Christian right, but that piece makes me wonder.

"Has anyone been seen here apologizing for misogynists? I don't think even Mona would go that far --- she only makes the false charge of "giving a pass"."

an apologist is a defender of something. You see, back in ancient greece the word "apology" meant "defence".

That's odd. Every source I have indicates that she thinks she is. Are you a better authority?

— Gary Hurd

Oh, really?

— morbius

If coming from a Muslim country makes one a Muslim, then fair enough. But by that definition, I would have to be a Christian - and I'm not.

"Has anyone been seen here apologizing for misogynists? I don't think even Mona would go that far --- she only makes the false charge of "giving a pass"." an apologist is a defender of something. You see, back in ancient greece the word "apology" meant "defence".

2. To make a formal defense or justification in speech or writing.

I apologise, Mona. You do know a muslim, and you studied some facts about Islam. I stand corrected.

My main problem with your original post, and with your subsequent ones, is your willingness to tar all muslims with the same brush. You began by talking of "great swathes" and "significant sectors" of Islam. You then cut back to talking of "some" muslims. Some posts after that you wrote about particular terrorist actions -- and then immediately afterwards switched back to writing about "many" muslims.

It is my impression from your posts that you condemn the whole of Islam for the actions of some. The only muslim it seems you approve of is your college friend, who is now in fact an ex-muslim. You seem, therefore, to be pushing for an exclusion of all muslims from the USA, on the shaky basis that every muslim is a potential enemy of democracy, unless they become apostate.

If my impression is mistaken, then please feel free to correct me.

Odd, isn't it, that this is precisely the same argument used by southerners against the civil rights movement and its "outside communist agitators". Plus ca change, and all that. I'm curious, Mona ------ back in the 60's, were you one of the people who argued that Martin Luther King was a commie? In the 80's, were you one of the people who argued that if we didn't support the apartheid regime in South Africa then that commie Mandela would take over?

Sorry Lenny, that tired hippie wheeze doesn't scare anyone anymore.

And by the way, I wouldn't bring up post-apartheid South Africa if I were you, especially if you're holding court around literate people - an admittedly rare state of affairs in liberal circles. Peddle your moonshine elsewhere; it's killed too many around these parts.

19 year old Allen Foster's crime? - a Black accused of assaulting a White woman. Sadly Mona, the Taliban have no "advantage" on us for brutal killing under the guise of law, just maybe a better camera.

"I have mightily encouraged by the victories of the Taliban Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, which promised to upset the Greater Russian imperialists and bring an American pipeline project one step closer to reality. As we go to press the Talibans have suffered a reverse, but don't give up on them yet." -John Dizard, National Review (6/16/97) "The Taliban, who are the Islamic militants, are not the anti-American Shi'ite variety you get across the border in Iran. They are much closer to the Sunni Islamic fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia, with whom the U.S. has been able to deal quite satisfactorily over the years. Taliban are unpopular with the urbanites of Kabul and with the New York Times, and with feminists, who don't like their admitted repressive strictures on women. But the areas outside Kabul controlled by the Taliban are a lot more peaceful than when they were controlled by bandit groups." -John Dizard, National Review (11/25/96)

Kerry says `science under attack' from right-wing `ideologues' Sen. John Kerry, dedicating a new brain research center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Friday "science itself is under attack today" by right-wing ideologues and the Bush administration. The Massachusetts Democrat declared: "We see it in the casual dismissal of Socratic inquiry and peer-reviewed and evidence-driven analysis. We see it in the rigid refusal to listen to what the Earth is trying to tell us about the condition of the air and water and land that surround us and sustain us. We see it in as federal science and research boards are being stacked with partisans and ideologues." "Today a group of ideologues are treating science as if it was one great big Midgley experiment," Kerry said. "And the result is a shortsighted period in the American experience where support for science is withheld and facts are ignored and obscured and distorted." He added: "When so many Americans worry that we have become a nation of moral relativists, there are too few Americans who are worrying that we are becoming a nation of factual relativists."

Salman Rusdie, interviewed in Reason magazine, describes how a fatwa nearly destroyed his life, and why the West is right to worry about Islam. Excerpt and link, emphasis mine:

Reason: You wrote an essay criticizing President Bush and other Western leaders for claiming after 9/11 that "this is not about Islam." In what way is this about Islam?

Rushdie: Well, you know, that was said for good reasons. It was said to minimize the backlash against Muslims. But just in terms of actual fact, it is absurd. It is not about football.

The fact that it is about a particular idea of Islam that many Muslims would reject does not mean it is not about Islam. The Christian Coalition is still about Christianity, even if it's an idea of Christianity that many Christians might not go along with.

Reason: What they mean is that it is not about Islam properly understood. That it is about certain extreme followers of Islam who might not be interpreting the religion correctly.

Rushdie: Yes, but Wahhabi Islam is becoming very powerful these days. To say that it is not about Islam is to not take the world as it really is.

Reason: They are trying to make sure that Islam does not become synonymous with terrorism in the public mind.

Rushdie: Of course, there is nothing intrinsic linking any religion with any act of violence. The crusades don't prove that Christianity was violent. The Inquisition doesn't prove that Christianity tortures people. But that Christianity did torture people. This Islam did carry out this attack.

I think there is a desire, for virtuous reasons, to make this disassociation. You can respect those reasons, but there is a problem of truth. It reminds me a little bit of what Western socialists used to say during the worst excesses of the Soviet Union. They would say that that's not really socialism. There is a real socialism that is about liberty, social justice, and so on, but that tyrannical regime over there which was actually existing socialism is not really Marxism. The problem was that that's what there was. When that fell, in a way that whole intellectual construct of socialism fell with it. It became very difficult to ignore all these people coming out of the Soviet Union who detested the term socialism, because to them it meant tyranny. I think there is beginning to be that kind of disconnect in the discourse about Islam. There is an actually existing Islam which is not at all likeable.

http://www.reason.com/0508/fe.sd.the.shtml

--Mona--

Gary Hurd, puh-leeze. Allen Foster, was not merely "accused" of "assaulting" a white woman. Rather, he was sentenced to death in Hoke County NC for murder, and was executed in the state's gas chamber on January 24, 1936.

1936, Gary. I'm certainly not going to argue that black defendants in 1936 America were often, or even usually, given a full measure of justice in our legal system. But however imperfect, Mr. Allen was accorded due process of law and was executed after a trial for *murder.*

In any event, if you see no difference between the rule of law in the United States on the one hand, and religious zealots who kidnap innocent people and slowly behead them and gleefully post the atrocity on the Internet on the other, then we lack common grounds for meaningful discussion. You will find your POV is repugnant to most of your fellow citizens, and you might ponder why the left keeps losing elections. As well as why people like me, who do not love all things about George Bush, would never vote for the Democratic candidates your side of the aisle offers us. You basically hate your own culture and cannot find it to be better even than the Taliban! Amazing.

This refers to the "hydrino" free energy claims of the Blacklight Power company, which has been sending out press releases for five years now with nothing to show for it. Did he ever have a scientific BS detector?

BTW, my data on Foster comes from the North Carolina Dept. of Corrections. The LA Times piece has Foster convicted of merely raping at knife-point. But again, this was 1936, and there was a trial and *conviction.* Here is the NC DOC site:

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/DOP/deathpenalty/DPhistory.htm

Gary Hurd: "The only comment I was tempted to delete was by neurode but it was just trivial lies and nonsense. Let it stand as is."

How big of Gary. And yet, for the second time, Gary calls me a liar. (And I'm not even counting his opening post, wherein he called me and others "supporters of hate" and "IDiots slavering over the chance to kill".) Then he reminds us that it is within his power to delete any response that anybody might make in rebuttal to his accusations. How egalitarian of him.

Gary's reminder proves my worst suspicions correct: the Panda's Thumb is presided over by twisted liberal creampuffs whose burkhas, donned in sweet surrender to all of those radical Muslim "freedom-fighters" at war against the evil Western Establishment, barely conceal the bones through their noses.

What a shame for Gary. Among all of the self-hating multiculturalists and addlepated self-immolating liberals wasting their Godforsaken lives at the Panda's Thumb, Gary is perhaps the one most in need of a brain transplant. One minute he wants to expunge Christianity, which tolerates him and his ilk because it somewhat overoptimistically regards their souls as redeemable; the next, he wants to open wide the doors of the greatest democracy on earth to hordes of rabid Muslim fanatics who ardently desire to put all of them, pampered infidel yapdogs of the Great Satan, to ignominious death by public beheading for what one can only assume woud be their principled refusal to convert to the One True Faith (along with many other potential victims who, in apparent contrast, would rather take measures to avoid it).

In response, Gary offers - what? - a seductive wink, a coy flip of his burkha, and a lascivious nod to millions of alien suitors inflamed by the sweet promise of a global orgy of bloodletting - jihad! - for the prospect of which we possess a mountain of ironclad empirical evidence in the form of dead and dismembered infidels.

Yes, because of a terrible miscarriage of justice in which a young black man - ever so much more important, apparently, than a mere oppression-mongering white man! - was executed by the state for murdering a white woman - ever so much more expendable, it seems, than a woman of exotic allure! - Gary wants to hand the keys of the country over to legions of implacable misogynistic killers.

The bottom line appears inescapable: to protect his self-contemptuous-liberal, unrequited-student-radical sensibilities, Gary feels that the safety and welfare of his fellow (non-Muslim) Americans is a very small price to pay.

What a fine, upstanding individual is Gary Hurd!

What part of "100%" don't you understand?

— morbius

The fact is that she was a Muslim through at least November of 2002, which is enough to make Gary's point valid.

BTW, my data on Foster comes from the North Carolina Dept. of Corrections. The LA Times piece has Foster convicted of merely raping at knife-point. But again, this was 1936, and there was a trial and *conviction.* Here is the NC DOC site:

In any event, if you see no difference between the rule of law in the United States on the one hand, and religious zealots who kidnap innocent people and slowly behead them and gleefully post the atrocity on the Internet on the other, then we lack common grounds for meaningful discussion.

"PS: My wife wants to know if you will deport the Amish and Mennonites for their refusal to assimilate?"

You may want to mention to your wife that the Mennonites and Amish abide in peaceful coexistence with the surrounding culture, make no attempt to convert the unwilling, and do not engage in jihad. Even if you personally are too "upstanding" to recognize these important distinctions, perhaps she can.

Neurode, I would urge you to go do something else the rest of today. Take a nap, go shopping, have a beer, whatever. I think you're a bit too into yourself to realize it, but you sound like an unhinged lunatic. Your attempts at irony aren't working. You're probably even embarrassing Mona.

I find it hilarious that conspiracy nut Gary here seems to keep saying everyone is lying, yet this entire post is a lie, as no one at UD proposed murdering muslims. DaveScot said one thing about that, but I assumed he didn't mean it literally.

I pointed out the libelous claim in the post that I supported murder of muslims (something I never did), yet no reply to that, just Gary equating the US with terrorists and attacking everyone else for supposedly lying themselves.

By the way...I think Gary needs to look up the term "libel" and "attorney."

Well, Arden, that would be fine, except that I've been heavily impugned in this thread and in the post that started it all. So even though you'd no doubt find it convenient, in a tried-and-true PT divide-and-conquer sort of way, to peel me off and let Mona fend for herself, I'm afraid I'm going to be checking in on you anyway (even if Mona would prefer to deal with you wiley coyotes alone, which might well be the case).

Hope you don't mind too much, but you people have made this bed for yourselves. So why not follow your own well-meaning advice and take a nap on it?

I wonder if Billy D is feeling vulnerable and exposed, what with his honor guard off on a crusade.

I guess he's got DaveScot to keep him warm... *shudder*

I find it hilarious that conspiracy nut Gary here seems to keep saying everyone is lying, yet this entire post is a lie, as no one at UD proposed murdering muslims.

How could you tell, given the heavy editing that's par for the course there?

The Reverend Jim sulked: So civil rights and ending apartheid are "hippie wheeze" ...? Interesting. What about all that "all men are created equal" stuff. Is that just "hippie wheeze" too?

OK, so you are one of those people who thought King was a commie, and that we should have supported apartheid because otherwise that commie Mandela would take over. By the way, I happen to know people who live in South Africa (black, and white). Do you? As I've always said, despite all its talk, America hates democracy, fears it, and doesn't want it.

I find it hilarious that conspiracy nut Gary here seems to keep saying everyone is lying, yet this entire post is a lie, as no one at UD proposed murdering muslims.

DaveScot said one thing about that, but I assumed he didn't mean it literally.

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated.

By the way...I think Gary needs to look up the term "libel" and "attorney."

I don't fear Wiccans, or Buddhists. They haven't tried to blow up my nation's buildings and I have not seen large numbers of them glory when their confreres have done so. Which is to say, there is a difference betrween Wiccans and Buddhists on the one hand, and many Muslims on the other. Really, really bright people can discern this difference, Lenny.

Time to do some revision on the respective merits of God and Allah I think... try this test from the Landover Baptist Church:
Whose God is more vicious?

"When so many Americans worry that we have become a nation of moral relativists, there are too few Americans who are worrying that we are becoming a nation of factual relativists."

The Christian Coalition is still about Christianity, even if it's an idea of Christianity that many Christians might not go along with.

Mona stressed out:

"There is an actually existing Islam which is not at all likeable."

I could just as easily substitute any form of religious or political extremeism, including Christianity, in that sentence and have it be just as factually correct.

In any event, if you see no difference between the rule of law in the United States on the one hand, and religious zealots who kidnap innocent people and slowly behead them and gleefully post the atrocity on the Internet on the other

You may want to mention to your wife that the Mennonites and Amish abide in peaceful coexistence with the surrounding culture, make no attempt to convert the unwilling, and do not engage in jihad

To answer many critics: I am not a "McCarthy apologist." Rather, I am well versed in the history of the Communist Party USA and thus aware that the many highly-placed, domestic Stalinist spies who were claimed not to exist, did. But they were not identified by Joseph McCarthy, who was a blowhard and buffoon.

As for those who wonder whether I would deport the Amish. They are citizens and cannot be deported. More importantly, they are pacific people and no threat to me and mine at all. Human beings have a right to withdraw into segregated communities if they choose; and the U.S. has the right to deport non-citizens who do so and who promote vile rhetoric about their host country. We do not welcome you if you create an anti-American sub-culture where you teach your children that they are living in the midst of the Great Satan. Go self-segregate and peddle your viciousness elsewhere -- we won't host you.

Gary Hurd, you insist on depicting Wahhabi Islam as being the moral equivalent of the United States. You simply cannot countenance any discussion that a non-Western culture has serious pathologies without energetically waving your hands about American racial sins. Wahhabism is dangerous, violent and in unremitting hostility to modern, liberal democracies. Racism and related hostility to The Other is as old as human history, is no particular sin of the U.S., and is no reason to avoid a Rushdie-like, clear-headed look at those who want you -- and black Americans -- dead.

Then there is the point about domestic Xian terrorists, such as those who murder abortionists. For god's sake, our FBI infiltrates those zealots, arrests them, and we lock them up or execute them. (Deportation is not an option, for the obvious reason that these freaks are citizens.) Ditto for eco-terrorists.

So, too, should the FBI infiltrate mosques and keep track of Muslim terrorists and those who encourage and create them -- any members of those mosques who promote or endorse Wahhabism and/or vicious anti-Americanism should be deported. We have no obligation to host non-citizens who hate us, and who wish us harm.

This is such basic, common sense, I cannot fathom how a thinking person cannot see it. If people hate you and want you dead, you should not welcome them into your home. Duh.

As I have said earlier, I take a position that is currently quite unpopular with both left and right: I favor nearly unrestricted immigration for Mexicans. Except for those corrupted by our preposterous drug policy, they are peaceful people who work hard and want the benefits of secular, liberal democracy. I say, let them come.

But I also say no to people who preach that this nation is evil to its core and that death to the infidels (us) is a jolly good idea.

Human beings have a right to withdraw into segregated communities if they choose;

Joseph McCarthy, who was a blowhard and buffoon

We do not welcome you if you create an anti-American sub-culture where you teach your children that they are living in the midst of the Great Satan.

Then there is the point about domestic Xian terrorists, such as those who murder abortionists. For god's sake, our FBI infiltrates those zealots, arrests them, and we lock them up or execute them.

This is such basic, common sense, I cannot fathom how a thinking person cannot see it.

Sir TJ claims: Mona stressed out:

"There is an actually existing Islam which is not at all likeable."

I could just as easily substitute any form of religious or political extremeism, including Christianity, in that sentence and have it be just as factually correct.

Those words you quote are not mine; they are those of a former Muslim and celebrated Western novelist who had a bounty placed on his head by Muslim theocrats who deem that he insulted their holy book. Do follow my link to the entire interview w/ Mr. Rushdie -- his life was seriously derailed by Muslims and he, not I, has indeed been "stressed."

If Xian Reconstructionists were seeking immigration into the U.S. in significant numbers, I would oppose admitting them. But the current immigration threat is from Wahhabi Islam. Muslims, many on over-extended Visas-- flew airplanes into the Twin Towers. When Xian immigrants or foreign nationals do that, then their version of Xianity also goes on my "these are not allowed to stay" list.

Sir TJ writes: hmm. this is not the position you took a few months back on the same issue. glad to see your thinking progresses. I was beginning to wonder.

You are mistaken. I have never evinced any admiration for Joseph McCarthy. I have, however, objected to dismissing all anti-communism under the rubric of McCarthyism.

yup. and which religion produced them? do we make the same conclusions about christianity you do about Islam?

My "conlusion" about Islam is nearly identical to that of Salman Rushide, namely, that a virulent form of Islam, Wahhabism, has emerged as powerful within that religion as a whole.

"why, you have made our argument for us, Neurode. What do you think the primary responsibility of an evangelical christian IS? (uh, in case you had forgotten, it's to CONVERT THE UNWILLING)."

If, even after 9/11, you honestly can't tell the difference between Christianity and Islam, then your cranium must be stuffed with bubblewrap and styrofoam peanuts.

Incidentally, Mennonites and Amish are not "evangelical Christians". They keep to themselves and attempt to convert no one. In fact, I suspect that these sects would be rather difficult to join. (We have several Amish communities in this area, and I've never known them to take in an outsider.) As far as other Christian denominations are concerned, a potential convert is usually left in peace after expressing a firm unwillingness to join the church. Nobody threatens jihad; nobody gets beheaded. At worst, the non-convert is tenderly handed a couple of Jack Chick tracts and advised to think strongly about coming to Jesus. Any possibility of retribution is deferred to God and the afterlife.

It is beyond idiotic to maintain that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally similar. The central figure of Christianity advocated universal compassion and turned the other cheek; the central figure of Islam plundered for profit, killed dozens of people, and honeymooned a nine-year-old. Regardless of various historical departures to which you're in the habit of pointing around here, these are the ultimate exemplars of their respective religions, and it is on their markedly different characters and ideologies that the religions now stand.

Hello all.

Mona,

I think that I am reasonably knowledgeable to talk about FGM. It is practiced mainly by North and East Africans. It is NOT practiced by fundamentalist deobandi Sunni Muslims. If you want to know who deobandi Muslims are, they are followers of the deoband school of thought in Islam. The Taliban follow this school of thought as do my family and community. We do NOT practice FGM and we regard such traditions as bid'ah (unlawful innovation in religion.)

FGM has more to do with tradition and/or the sect that one follows. For example Sufi Muslims of the past believed that Christians and Jews would go to heaven whereas now most Muslims believe that only Muslims go to heaven, non-Muslims go to hell.

Yours,
Tahir al-Munafiq

Your being "well versed" in communist party tactics is an argument from authority you often make, but when it comes to details, you seem to present a rather ignorant revisionist view of things, as has been pointed out many times.

I do not make arguments from authority, except when appropriate, such as deferring to scientists about issues beyond my competency. I am not incompetent in the area of CPUSA spying, and nothing that has been "pointed out" to me has undermined my arguments in that regard.

You appear unfamiliar with the lingo and parameters of historical debate in this area. People of my POV are considered to be "traditionalists" or "Draperites." Leftist, progressive scholars are the "revisionists," due to their displacing the Draperites beginning in the 70s and holding scholarly hegemony until the last decade or so. They do not object to this nomenclature.

make no attempt to convert the unwilling

Those words you quote are not mine; they are those of a former Muslim and celebrated Western novelist

The central figure of Christianity advocated universal compassion and turned the other cheek; the central figure of Islam plundered for profit, killed dozens of people, and honeymooned a nine-year-old.

Tahir writes: For example Sufi Muslims of the past believed that Christians and Jews would go to heaven whereas now most Muslims believe that only Muslims go to heaven, non-Muslims go to hell.

Sufis are pretty cool. Mystics in most faiths are usually more reasonable and enlightened, often having more in common with other mystics in various faith traditions, than with their co-religionists.

I am well versed in the history of the Communist Party USA

Wow, you didn't tell me you'd be bringing the big guns in the liberal arsenal

It is beyond idiotic to maintain that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally similar

you are backpeddaling. they might have been written by rushdie, but your quote mining is directly in concert with your own views. why else would you have quoted it to begin with.

Quote mining is a specific sin against intellectual honesty, and I did not, and do not, commit it. I posted a huge excerpt (as much as I felt fair use would allow with copyright issues in mind) and gave the link to the full interview. That is not what quote miners do.

But yeah, I agree with a novelist who has been living in fear of being murdered after religious fanatics put a bounty on his head because he offended their beliefs. I think he has some insight into those folks. Don't you?

My "conlusion" about Islam is nearly identical to that of Salman Rushide, namely, that a virulent form of Islam, Wahhabism, has emerged as powerful within that religion as a whole.

I always liked the Quicksilver Messenger Service's version of Mona.

The Mona you guys've been playing on this station recently isn't nearly as cool, from a strictly musical point of view. Kind of a johnny one-note.

Now, getting back to who wants which toppings on their pizza...

But yeah, I agree with a novelist who has been living in fear of being murdered after religious fanatics put a bounty on his head because he offended their beliefs. I think he has some insight into those folks. Don't you?

Now, getting back to who wants which toppings on their pizza...

"So your advantage over Muslims is that your prophet is known only through codified legends that portray him in the best light possible, while theirs was an actual historical figure? Funny, I always had that in their column."

If you did, it's certainly not "funny". Even if you believe that Christ never existed - and even the Muslims say he did - it is more socially conscionable to fictionalize a behavioral ideal than to offer a real live miscreant for worship and emulation.

You appear unfamiliar with the lingo and parameters of historical debate in this area.

Sorry, Lenny, but it is true -- I know tons of stuff about the CPUSA. You see, I was raised by an historian who specialized in that topic, and read Whittaker Chambers' Witness at age 16. To this day I keep up with important new books on the subject of CPUSA espionage.

Further, I am a member of this scholarly list: http://www.h-net.org/~hoac/ (search "Mona" and you will find my very few posts; mostly I just read). I commend to you the posts there by such luminaries as John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Ron Radosh, Arnold Beichman, Stephen Schwartz and Eduard Marks. You will also find Russian scholars contributing, along with a few former KGB (and FBI) agents.

Of course, you will also find fellow radicals, and they sometimes get into dust-ups with the guys I mention. It's great fun, and intellectually stimulating.

Of course, you will also find fellow radicals

uh, and of course the view of someone who feels under constant threat from a particular religious group simply couldn't be biased now, could it?

Not just feels, is under constant threat. Real Islam asked Muslims to kill him, anytime, anywhere. And boy, you bet Rushdie is biased; hot damn, anyone puts a bounty on my head, I'm gonna be real, real prejudiced against them. I might even make it my business to study and understand them.

Rushdie used to be an ardent Marxist and advocate of all things radically chic. But of late, he has been mugged by the reality that multiculteralists prefer not to see. Yup, nothing like a death threat to engender a bit of bias -- and clarity of thought about an enemy of the liberal West.

It's great fun, and intellectually stimulating.

Real Islam

Muslims, many on over-extended Visas--- flew airplanes into the Twin Towers. When Xian immigrants or foreign nationals do that, then their version of Xianity also goes on my "these are not allowed to stay" list.

You guys don't make it easy on a poor pizza guy, so lemme review:

Linguica and bell peppers we got.

CPUSA and parameters, we no got.

Lingo, maybe. I'll have to check with the sous-chef (but, please, it won't do no good to sue the chef--money, he don't got).

CPUSA and parameters, we no got.

Sorry to disappoint you, Mona, but Leninists are not my "fellows".

Just ask the ones who have met me.

No doubt, but really, only one of the leftists on that list is a Leninist/Stalinist. (He's demented, and it wouldn't be fair to hold him up as an exemplar of leftist opinion on Stalin, whom he worships. Almost everyone ignores him.) Most on the side opposite me are simply radicals, which I believe is how you self-identify.

I think Mona confuses religious fundamentalism i.e. literal reading of "The word of God in the K*ran/Bible" as the only source and vehicle of truth with the more benign forms of religion and religiosity.

The Isl*mic world were leaders in scientific thought, experiment, research and medicine for 500-600 years before the Sunna cracked down with direct authority from Moh*mmed the Prophet, who had declared they would always be right and rejected science and any form of secularism. Sound familiar ?

Any form of allegorical interpretation of those works in their view lead to a loss of belief in the Creator.

It could, no should!, be argued that that stripe of fundamentalism which is exactly the same as Christian fundamentalism is a major threat to world peace.

Man is a beast of prey and those that wish for a perpetual peace as Darwin himself said in the universal struggle for existance are not favoured. It's simply a fact of nature.

There must be a careful balance between asceticism and the power of arms if we are ever to reach a universal peace.

For more on this facinating subject read "Mythologies of War and Peace" by J Campbell in "Mayths to live by"

Enlightenment values, values that Mona plays lip service to but doesn't understand or accept or incorporate into her own value system

What part of "100%" don't you understand?

The fact is that she was a Muslim through at least November of 2002, which is enough to make Gary's point valid. I don't know where you get that date from - but either way, it doesn't completely validate his point.

I highly doubt your views on Islam reflect the prevailing intellectual opinion of even the "scholarly" list you refer to.

Um. Sir TJ, the list I referenced in my post to Lenny is "The History of American Communism" at H-Net. Anything posted there about Islam would be entirely incidental and tangential to the site's subject matter. That would explain why I didn't cite any authors from there on the subject of Muslims, and instead went to an interview in a magazine I take, an interview with Salman Rushdie. (Altho Stephen Schwartz, whom I listed as worth reading at HOAC, in a convert to Islam, and has written about that elsewhere than that list.)

Got it now?

Most on the side opposite me are simply radicals, which I believe is how you self-identify.

oh, gee pardon my confusion that you would cite authority from a list about the history of american communisim when the topic was Rushdie and Islam.

to reiterate:

why do you think Rushdie is such an authority on Islam in general? I sure don't.

Why did you feel the need to cite him as an authority when your own arguments are show not to have merit?

Got it now?

well, to be fair, while i agree that Mona seems incapable of incorporating a non-biased viewpoint into her own value system, it would be yet another overgeneralization to assume she rejects ALL enlightenment values. In fact, her rejection of ID indicates at least a general acceptance of the scientific method.

Well, I see that Dembski finally had enough of DaveScot's frothing at the mouth and closed the his thread. Dave got in the last word which is fitting.

I am similarly inclined. I'll wait a few hours so that those who wish can post a summing up comment, and there is always the option of moving the topic to "After the Bar Closes."

just in case you don't get what i mean...

what you did would be the equivalent of me citing myself as an expert in communications and internet technologies because i spend time on slashdot, and that somehow makes me qualified to discuss quantum physics.

do you see why I concluded it being so pointless to actually discuss anything of substance with you now?

'nuff said.

I always liked the Quicksilver Messenger Service's version of Mona.

Real Islam asked Muslims to kill him, anytime, anywhere.

For example, I long ago stopped posting at Little Green Footballs because the comments section is a sewer. Many there delude themselves that Islam is inherently rancid and violent

This is such basic, common sense, I cannot fathom how a thinking person cannot see it.

Funny how some people see their own inability to fathom something as confirmation of their views

I always liked the Quicksilver Messenger Service's version of Mona.

Oh come on, Bo Diddley's original blows them all away! I mean really, that I should even have to explain this...

Gary Hurd, puh-leeze. Allen Foster, was not merely "accused" of "assaulting" a white woman. Rather, he was sentenced to death in Hoke County NC for murder, and was executed in the state's gas chamber on January 24, 1936.

Sir Wiggles Wrote: good luck with your overgeneralizations and pigeonholing. I hear that's a very popular pastime these days... or is that an overgeneralization itself?

Reverend Jim Wrote: I self-identify as an anarcho-syndicalist. Which most Americans can't even *pronounce*, much less understand what it is. To make it easier on folks, I sometimes refer to myself as a "democrat", with a small "d". I am definitely NOT a Democrat, with a capital "D".

The program of anarchosyndicalists, to the extent that one has ever been cohesively formulated, draws from the toolbox of radical labor and anarchist organizing, and applies these tools to contemporary bourgeois society. Capital - by which anarchosyndicalists mean workplaces, factories, equipment, and the wealth used to buy these things - must be wrested mercilessly from the control of their owners, who constitute the ruling class of our era. It is the ownership of these things, sanctioned and guaranteed with the violence of the State, that has led to the current inequality of wealth and living conditions across the globe. Anarchosyndicalists exist at the point where the labor and anarchist movements intersect. Workers who hate the system, who recognize how they are exploited, bossed around, regimented and treated as drones, only to be used up, disposed, thrown away like garbage, and treated as inferiors every day of their working lives, constitute the strength of the anarchosyndicalist movement. The wealthy men that push for the globalization of corporate power are men who depend upon the eternally continuing subjection of a global class of wage slaves to generate their wealth for them. Anarchosyndicalists are those whose bitterness and desperation have driven them beyond the point of simply talking about how bad things are; anarchosyndicalism is comprised of the ideas of workers willing to act to ensure a swift, immediate remedy to the problems of authoritarianism and economic subjugation. Veteran anarchosyndicalist organizer Sam Dolgoff stated that "the revolutionary libertarian concepts of class-struggle, federalism, direct economic action, local autonomy and mutual aid -- are all deeply rooted in American labor traditions." Historically, direct action was the only choice of workers who had no say in the affairs of society through either political or economic means. Direct action is the only refuge, and the most democratic expression, of powerless workers to exact change over the material conditions of their own lives.

You basically hate your own culture and cannot find it to be better even than the Taliban!

This from someone who says "I expect a more civil and reasonable tone at a site where well-educated and intelligent people participate".

Gary Hurd wrote that "sadly" the Taliban holds no advantage over the U.S. in terms of heinous killing. Anyone who posits moral equivalency between this nation and the Taliban, hates this culture. Indeed, they are moral idiots.

Well, that seems to be a marvy momment to stop this sillyness.