Ayaan Hirsi Ali's cancelled speech

[kimmy]

Here is what she planned to say when she accepted the honorary degree that the university offered then revoked.

A snippet:

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

The situation at Brandeis University creates a weird clash of competing values, where conservatives are upset that the university pulled the rug out from under a feminist atheist, while progressives are happy that an African feminist got kicked off campus.

-k

[Argus]

Here is what she

The situation at Brandeis University creates a weird clash of competing values, where conservatives are upset that the university pulled the rug out from under a feminist atheist, while progressives are happy that an African feminist got kicked off campus.

Religion does strange things to people. The conservatives (praise Jesus!) like anyone who criticizes Islam. That's a given. The lefties, well, the lefties are a strange bunch and always have been. Everything about Islam in the world today is anathema to western feminist values, and thus should be anathema to the broad range of 'progressives' out there too. But wait, most of them are 'brown people'! That means their cultural views and values and beliefs have to be respected and given the broadest paternalistic/materernalistic support and protection possible! Even from a brown woman!

Lefties have adopted the belief that all are equal into the broader notion that all peoples are equal, all cultures are equal, all religions are equal, and that singling any single one out for criticizm is akin to burning a cross on the lawn of a daycare center. And it doesn't matter whether the criticism is legitimate or not. It doesn't matter how broad a pattern of behaviour on the part of governments and societies exists. Lefties will only allow that certain elements are"extremists" have such beliefs. And then they'll immediately drag in examples of 'extremism' by other religions or cultures or peoples, however far back in history they must go to find it.

So, Islam is a fine religion, except for the 'extremists'. That every Muslim government is run by 'extremists' is, of course, the fault of the west and its constant interference and colonial history. That every Muslim society is extreme in its lack of toleration for things western progressives worship (like equality for women and gays and lesbians) is blithely ignored or blamed on the govenrments, which in turn, is blamed on the West.

[Shady]

It's all part of the leftwing mob rule. The almost fascist way they look to silence dissenting voices. Whether is Ali, or the guy from Duck Dynasty, or the recently ousted dude from Mozilla, or Condi Rice, or practically any conservative voice on campus. It's Liberal Fascism.

[-TSS-]

She's a brave woman. It takes a lot of guts to oppose a fascist ideology which islam ultimately is.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/11/too-many-still-fear-offending-islam

[Argus]

It's all part of the leftwing mob rule. The almost fascist way they look to silence dissenting voices.

Well, yes, but then, they're not the only ones who can do this...http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/jonathan-kay-on-tom-flanagan-a-media-mobbing-victim-tells-his-tale/

[Remiel]

I think you can criticize the continued popularity of Islam all you like as long as you can accept that based on the same standards Christianity should have been expunged centuries ago and only historical accident permitted it to survive long enough to become less brutal enough that we can tolerate it.

[-TSS-]

My view is that all Middle-East superstituous claptrap belongs to the Middle-East and should not be allowed outside.

[Mighty AC]

Lefties have adopted the belief that all are equal into the broader notion that all peoples are equal, all cultures are equal, all religions are equal, and that singling any single one out for criticizm is akin to burning a cross on the lawn of a daycare center. And it doesn't matter whether the criticism is legitimate or not. It doesn't matter how broad a pattern of behaviour on the part of governments and societies exists. Lefties will only allow that certain elements are"extremists" have such beliefs. And then they'll immediately drag in examples of 'extremism' by other religions or cultures or peoples, however far back in history they must go to find it.

So, Islam is a fine religion, except for the 'extremists'. That every Muslim government is run by 'extremists' is, of course, the fault of the west and its constant interference and colonial history. That every Muslim society is extreme in its lack of toleration for things western progressives worship (like equality for women and gays and lesbians) is blithely ignored or blamed on the govenrments, which in turn, is blamed on the West.

The All Lefties / All Cons game is getting a little stale. All Lefties defend Islam like all Righties are cross wearing, homophobic, misogynists.

There certainly are relativists that believe we cannot condemn any practice, if of religious origin. This view mainly belongs to minority of extreme, dreamland, ivory tower, academics. Though I think many get lumped in with this crowd when they speak out against Muslim bashing Christians. I think the vast majority of us can admit that today, Islam, as practiced and preached is more dangerous than Christianity. The rape, the violence, the lack of apologetics to explain away BS scripture that no longer applies, is so last century. So much of what is being done in the name of Islam is wrong and those that defend it on religious grounds are also wrong.

That being said, it is nauseating to listen to Christians, who currently knowingly (or not) support so much hate. It's like listening to Leaf fans call out the Oilers. I think that most who call out Christian hypocrisy, are not actually defending the actions of Muslims, but rather challenging the BS duplicity.

[Argus]

I think you can criticize the continued popularity of Islam all you like as long as you can accept that based on the same standards Christianity should have been expunged centuries ago and only historical accident permitted it to survive long enough to become less brutal enough that we can tolerate it.

Christianity and Islam are products of the minds of men who existed in an entirely different cultural mileau. That time being one of barbarism, both books can express barbarism, at times. The difference is that Christianity went through the Reformation, and adapted in keeping with western cultural values. Islam never has. It remains locked in a barbaric time, declared the literal word of God, with any attempt at redefining or reinterpreting it being met by screams of heresey and blasphemy.

[Argus]

That being said, it is nauseating to listen to Christians, who currently knowingly (or not) support so much hate. It's like listening to Leaf fans call out the Oilers. I think that most who call out Christian hypocrisy, are not actually defending the actions of Muslims, but rather challenging the BS duplicity.

Get back to us when Christians are imprisoned or executed for blasphemy or heresey. Are Christians sentenced to death for daring to change their religions? That law is still on the books in a number of Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia. Suggesting the level of 'hate' and violence on the part of Christians is in any way comparable to that of followers of Islam is preposterous. One need only look at the progression of the cultures of major Christian countries over the centuries to that of the Islamic countries, none of whom have progressed noticeably and many of whom have actually become more primitive and barbaric in their social customs.

[Mighty AC]

Get back to us when Christians are imprisoned or executed for blasphemy or heresey. Are Christians sentenced to death for daring to change their religions? That law is still on the books in a number of Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia. Suggesting the level of 'hate' and violence on the part of Christians is in any way comparable to that of followers of Islam is preposterous. One need only look at the progression of the cultures of major Christian countries over the centuries to that of the Islamic countries, none of whom have progressed noticeably and many of whom have actually become more primitive and barbaric in their social customs.

All true! However, it comes off a little hypocritical when your club used to do all those things and still hates, discriminates and kills based on a fairy tale. Again, you're the Leafs pointing fingers at the Oilers; feel free to chastise when you make the playoffs.

[Guest]

Well, we all used to do lots of things. You wouldn't compare today's Denmark or Peru to Afghanistan or Pakistan because the Vikings and the Incas were right bastards, would you?

We've all made it into the 21st Century, a few frayed edges notwithstanding. Only Islam refuses to join in, preferring the middle ages in many of the countries where it holds sway. Not all, obviously. I understand Oman is a beacon of religious fraternity.

And what about us atheists? Can we be the Bruins pointing fingers at the Leafs?

[Remiel]

If Islam were following the same schedule as Christianity they would have until about 2127 (1517+610) to get their act together. The World cannot necessarily wait that long, but that is a slightly different question.

[Mighty AC]

And what about us atheists? Can we be the Bruins pointing fingers at the Leafs?

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. That is a step in the direction of reason on one front, but it doesn't necessarily ensure a person is free from some of the same immoral positions taken by the religious.

The phrase 'let those without sin cast the first stone', comes to mind; but that's BS too, isn't it? We all have faults to varying degrees but stones need to be cast to move things in the right direction. Members of most of the world's religions can (and should) cast stones at Islam. It just gets frustrating to hear from sanctimonious Christians when they are still doing so much harm themselves.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Guest]

I suppose so. The messier it is, the more ink it gets. One could argue that trying to limit the use of contraception in the third world causes suffering but shooting nurses who are supplying polio vaccines just stands out more.

[Guest]

To speak to the opening post, I do think this was a gutless decision by a cowardly administration. This is not David Duke, or Ernst Zundel. This is a woman who has suffered under Islam, and who has tried to bring attention to the plight of women in general under Islam. Shame on Brandeis.

[bleeding heart]

This situation is slightly different from the way it's being painted...granted, it comes down to matters of degree.

So, a couple of points: first of all, Hirsi's personal victimization and her eagerness to stand up to Islamic oppression does not mean that what she says is correct. She has made a lot of fantastic claims, and her own experience does not provide any added gravitas to them.

For example, she said that the West "is at war with Islam" which is a "cult of death," and that "in war, there is no middle ground."

the implication seems clear enough, especially given her "fellowship" with the openly-imperialistic American Enterprise Institute, and her support for every military "solution" to everything.

She has said that Muslim schools should be closed; that Muslims should be converted to Christianity; and she is an advocate of a militaristic foreign policy "against Islam," putting her at the extreme hawkish edge of foreign policy prescriptiveness...far to the hawkish right of any administration, and to more extreme than...well, virtually everybody, including those who admire her.

Personally, whether a university awards her an honorary degree is far outside my area of interest. Don't care if they do, or do not. Honorary degrees usually mean next to nothing.

But well-known, vocal critics of Islam, such as Salman Rushdie, have received numerous such honours.

That's presumably because they're not calling for perpetual war against a religion by the world's superpower....a stance that is quite literally insane.

As a person advocating against oppression of women, and one who has herself been a victim and has embraced a less oppressive worldview, I can certainly applaud her. But as a foreign policy wonk, she is so far out in hawk-land that it beggars belief.

For she too has an extremist religious belief: the extreme, faith-based statism of a benevolent West fighting evil. That's the stance of intellectual weaklings and moral cretins....without exception. Because it IS a matter of Faith, and wholly so, hostile to evidence.

Brandeis made their objections clear; if there is an element of politically-correct, tip-toe around Islam note to it, then sure, criticism is due. But I think their objections simultaneously go deeper than this.

......

I should add, in case I wasn't clear, that I DO think a sort of politically-correct mindset sometimes pervades this issue...as with every issue, from homosexual rights, to anti-Semitism, to the complaint that "people are too critical of the West" (one of PC's most laughable forms). And so I agree with pointing it out where it rears its head.

But I think too there are plenty of cases that are greyer, and sometimes people's views are excoriated not because (or not only because) of political correctness...but because they say stupid and ugly things.

Edited April 15, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Peter F]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above post.

I would also like to point out the weird standards expressed in this thread:

If christians kill people its because they're insane

If atheists kill people its because of greed, lust, pride, anger etc

if muslims kill people its because of their religion.

I do not understand why the badly behaving persons motive is paramount in determining relative rightness. It seems to me that a persons bad-behaviour is what should be condemned - not their silly motives

[Michael Hardner]

I do not understand why the badly behaving persons motive is paramount in determining relative rightness. It seems to me that a persons bad-behaviour is what should be condemned - not their silly motives

Also, to point out that, generally, people from tribal and illiterate cultures have their own factors in play, motivating them to do things that we find abhorrent.

[Mighty AC]

If christians kill people its because they're insane

If atheists kill people its because of greed, lust, pride, anger etc

if muslims kill people its because of their religion.

I do not understand why the badly behaving persons motive is paramount in determining relative rightness. It seems to me that a persons bad-behaviour is what should be condemned - not their silly motives

There are many reasons people behave badly but only religiously motivated evil deeds are being discussed here. The evil deeds should be condemned, along with the motivating forces. For example, a gang forces members to commit crimes, should we just concern ourselves with locking up the criminals or do we target the root of the evil deeds as well?

[Argus]

All true! However, it comes off a little hypocritical when your club used to do all those things and still hates, discriminates and kills based on a fairy tale. Again, you're the Leafs pointing fingers at the Oilers; feel free to chastise when you make the playoffs.

This argument is old. It's the dredging up of historical religious violence among Christiand to excuse present-day religious violence among Muslims.

The problem with that is it suggest Muslims are a backward people centuries behind the rest of us and should thus be excused for being barbaric. Is that what you were getting at?

[Argus]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above post.

I would also like to point out the weird standards expressed in this thread:

If christians kill people its because they're insane

If atheists kill people its because of greed, lust, pride, anger etc

if muslims kill people its because of their religion.

This is BS. People commit violence for many reasons, most of them, if they're sane, related to emotions or money. What we're speaking of with regard to Muslims is organized violence on a mass scale. We're speaking of imams and mullahs screaming invective towards minority groups or other religions and demanding death. We're talking of mobs burning down buildings and hacking people to death over allegations or even rumors of some religious insult (koran burning, cartoons) or blasphemy. We're talking organizations specifically dedicated to Islam committing thousands upon thousands of terrorist acts.

And while there are fanatics in every religion, nothing among the other world's religious communities even begins to compare to the sheer scale of the religious violence coming from the Muslim world.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

There are many reasons people behave badly but only religiously motivated evil deeds are being discussed here. The evil deeds should be condemned, along with the motivating forces. For example, a gang forces members to commit crimes, should we just concern ourselves with locking up the criminals or do we target the root of the evil deeds as well?

And yet the root of the evil deeds here is Islam...

[Michael Hardner]

And yet the root of the evil deeds here is Islam...

That's unprovable, and in fact unknowable. There's no way to separate out the religion from other factors.

[bleeding heart]

I agree with Michael. There is a complex set of cultural, tribal and political factors at play.

Now, personally, I don't have much respect for the religion. And there's no need for me to have respect for it. But I think the notion (one shared by Ali, incidentally) that the Muslims are poised to take over Western civilization is....simply a silly idea. And the idea that we are--or should be--"at war with Islam" is a non-starter, and a kind of political lunacy.

Ad while I too have perceived some pc cautiousness about criticizing the faith, I don't see it as a monolithic notion, of "the West committing suicide" as some more frail and fearful folks would have it; nor is it perfectly clear and obvious that Brandeis had only "political correctness" in mind when they revoked the trivial matter of an honorary degree.

Edited April 15, 2014 by bleeding heart