Ayaan Hirsi Ali's cancelled speech

[Mighty AC]

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

It is often unknowable, however at times people will flat tell you why they are committing evil acts.

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

And also Christianity...

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?

Nope. I'm saying that Christianity is also a current, major source of evil and neither religion should be excused. In fact, I think we should stop indoctrinating children into all religions. Let's replace the brainwashing with skepticism and critical thinking.

[Michael Hardner]

It is often unknowable, however at times people will flat tell you why they are committing evil acts.

Do they know ? If they say "I'm doing it so I get into heaven" is that a reason we can believe ?

[Mighty AC]

Do they know ? If they say "I'm doing it so I get into heaven" is that a reason we can believe ?

I think many people do believe they are acting in a way that would please their god. So yes, I think that line is often sincere. Religious motivations can be even more blatant though, think of the "God Hates Fags" signs at protests.

[overthere]

Shame, shame , shame on Brandeis University for being such utter cowards.

[bleeding heart]

It's not necessarily the case. Like I said, it may be that Brandeis is insincere about its stated reasons....and the internet howls of "unfair!" are accurate. (Evidently an honorary degree is an entitlement, or even a right).

Or it may be that they didn't like Ali's very open and stated extremism (some of which I noted above) after it was pointed out to them, and so withdrew on that point.

Or, as I also said, it could even be a combination of fearful political correctness and a rush of sanity....no reason why the two must always be mutually-exclusive in this complicated world.

[overthere]

Universities are filled with scholars who know very well exactly what Ali was all about. Honorary degrees are not common, she would have been vetted carefully. Her name was not picked out of a hat at random.

I don't know what you mean by her 'stated extremism'. She is simply candid and honest about her views. The University would know them well, they were why she was selected for a degree in the first place. She was invited to come from her position at Harvard - yes Harvard- to be honoured.

It is certainly possible that gutless political correctness was part of it, but a rush of sanity? No. Perhaps they discovered some sympathy (after her invitation) for Israel in her writing, That would be enough to doom her at most universties.

No, they chickened out and deserve censure for their cowardice.

[Michael Hardner]

Religious motivations can be even more blatant though, think of the "God Hates Fags" signs at protests.

But... it's not a 'root cause'. Do you think that the Phelps family doesn't have other factors motivating them to protest at military funerals ? I do. Would there be any point in asking them ?

[bleeding heart]

Her extremism is readily available for anyone willing to look.

"We" are at war with Islam. when asked in the interview to specify ("Do you mean extremist Islam?"), she reiterated: "No. Islam."

She continued in this vein, saying that the war should be fought by shutting down schools, "converting Muslims to Christianity"--as a political act, mind, not as a natural part of existing missionary work--and "destroying Islam," including "militarily."

Well, as a "Visiting Scholar" at the imperial-minded American enterprise Institute, she plainly believes in the fantasy of a benevolent, US-led Western coalition militarily "destroying Islam."

Which just happens, coincidentally, to align perfectly with the AEI's "unipolar world" fantasy, in which the US should be the de facto ruler, not least through military exercises "against current and potential adversaries." (bolding mine.)

Do you really need me to parse out everything wrong with this view? Both its political lunacy, and its preposterous premises of an enlightened West fighting evil?

(The latter is a belief held by commissars and sycophants....and literally no one else.)

She has said that Anders Brievik acted as he did because his views were "silenced". I don't mean she was condoning the mass murders...she was not. But her view of Brievik as being "silenced" by the "advocates of silence" (ie "liberals") is about as salient as her (self-regarding) view of herself being "silenced".

That is, she is "silenced" by having an honorary degree revoked....and that the university has offered an open invitation for her to come speak at the university sort of....demolishes that victim-fantasy, just a tad....don't you think?

So in short: she believes the benevolent West is "at war with Islam"--explicitly not only with "extremist" or "political" Islam, but the faith entire; that "in war there is no middle ground." so that "you must defeat your enemies or get crushed";

that Islam is a "cult of death," and that "conversion to Christianity" is something we should be looking into;

that she is "being silenced" by the very institution that gave her a standing invitation to come speak at said institution.

(Her notion of "freedom of speech" is evidently plagiarized from Sarah Palin, who thought that the virulent criticism of her was "against [her] freedom of speech.");

that the United States of America, and its weak-willed but well-intentioned allies, are organs of enlightened benevolence seeking to destroy evil. (The majority of history thus deemed irreconcilable with her imagined world, no doubt making her empire-enthusiast husband rather proud.);

that "there is infiltration of Islam into the schools and universities of the West. You stop that.";

that we shouldn't "allow" Muslims, in other countries, to "burn effigies" and "symbols" (the American flag): "you look them in the eye and you flex your muscles and you say, "This a warning. We won't accept this any more."

And I'm sure she is candid and honest about her views.

So am I....you must think me quite the guy.

The difference is that I don't have glorious fantasies about Western militaries "defeating Islam," which is the stupidest and saddest delusion I've heard from a major public intellectual in...well, a couple days, I guess.

Edited April 15, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Mighty AC]

But... it's not a 'root cause'. Do you think that the Phelps family doesn't have other factors motivating them to protest at military funerals ? I do. Would there be any point in asking them ?

I can't know for sure what motivates the Phelps clan, Pat Robertson or Brian Fischer to do evil. However, they really do seem to be sold on the fact that their god believes homosexuality is an abomination. The millions that follow men like this seem to believe it as well.

[-TSS-]

For anyone who has any doubt about the true nature of islam we need to turn again to the Swiss to hear the truth:

[bush_cheney2004]

The "truth" ? This guy is a few bricks short of a full load when it comes to European history, human rights, and "democracy".

[Peter F]

"...our cultural ghetto's" ?? deja vu all over again.

[Argus]

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

Can you think of any other universal constant? Wherever there are Muslims in the majority, you have what by our standards would be considered extremely radical religious intolerence, and wherever there are large groups of Muslims you have terrorism.

[WestCoastRunner]

wherever there are large groups of Muslims you have terrorism.

It's comments like these that instil prejudice and fear in folks and does nothing to create harmony between different religions and cultures. Being a muslim does not designate someone as being a terrorist. Consider this case in NYC. A bus driver booted an 11 year old boy off his bus after calling him a terrorist because he was reciting a prayer. He was looking for his bus pass and recited the prayer to help him find it. An 11 year old boy!

Muslim Boy Called Terrorist

[-TSS-]

It's comments like these that instil prejudice and fear in folks and does nothing to create harmony between different religions and cultures. Being a muslim does not designate someone as being a terrorist. Consider this case in NYC. A bus driver booted an 11 year old boy off his bus after calling him a terrorist because he was reciting a prayer. He was looking for his bus pass and recited the prayer to help him find it. An 11 year old boy!

Muslim Boy Called Terrorist

I know you are sincere and well-meaning but the harsh reality is that there can be no harmony in society where muslims and non-muslims live side by side because islam knows no compromises; Everything must bend to the will of islam, anything else is simple blasphemy and heresy in their view.

[-TSS-]

Canada and Finland are in a somewhat similar position regarding muslim-invasion. We in Finland haven't experienced it yet simply because, well, Finland is remote, no reason denying that. Canada hasn't experienced it yet because Canada is located on the other side of a vast ocean and there haven't yet been bridgehead-groups large enough been formed.

Both "faults" will be easily dealt with in the future. Finland is getting less and less remote and more and more people of muslim-background are moving across that wide ocean to form bridgehead-groups.

You must realize that things are working by stealth. Not in a flash. I can remember 20 years ago my neighbourhood in Helsinki and there used to be almost no burkha-veiled ladies pushing their prams. Now they are all over the place. Do you think that happened one day during these 20 years? No no, gradually all along these 20 years so that we original people start regarding burkha-veiled ladies pushing prams as something of a normality.

Edit: Speaking of Finland's remoteness, the countries in Europe which are not remote, like the UK, France, Holland, etc, they are up to their ears with muslim-immigration.

Edited April 16, 2014 by -TSS-

[WestCoastRunner]

I know you are sincere and well-meaning but the harsh reality is that there can be no harmony in society where muslims and non-muslims live side by side because islam knows no compromises; Everything must bend to the will of islam, anything else is simple blasphemy and heresy in their view.

I guess than as Canadians we should be concerned. There are approximately a million terrorists living amongst us. We better take cover!

Muslims fastest growing religious population in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Can you think of any other universal constant? Wherever there are Muslims in the majority, you have what by our standards would be considered extremely radical religious intolerence, and wherever there are large groups of Muslims you have terrorism.

I like how you say "universal constant" then go on to qualify "by our standards." Is it universal or relative?

[bush_cheney2004]

I know you are sincere and well-meaning but the harsh reality is that there can be no harmony in society where muslims and non-muslims live side by side because islam knows no compromises; Everything must bend to the will of islam, anything else is simple blasphemy and heresy in their view.

Interesting...that's what they used to say about the Finns who emigrated to my part of the United States:

Not all Finns were radicals, of course. Some were deeply religious and socially conservative - the so-called White Finns. But it was the radical or Red Finns who drew the most attention. Finnish immigrants were the first in the nation to found a foreign-language group of the American Socialist Party. Finntown in Virginia had a three-story brick building known as the Socialist Opera. By one estimate, a third of the Finns on the Iron Range in 1913 were socialists. In the 1930s, 40 percent of the total membership of the American communist party nationwide came from one small immigrant group - the Finns....

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199706/10_losurem_finnpoor/finnpoor2.htm

Did this justify discrimination against Finns ?

Edited April 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[bleeding heart]

The firebrand moaning deliriously about European's cultural and moral supremacy--and chilling warnings about the End of Civilization--gave me a warm feeling.

After all, it's not as if Canada has a large and growing Muslim population.

It's not as if the United States has a large and growing Muslim population.

And hey, since we're talking about the glories of freedom and Western culture, a listener might find it interesting that the United States has a more entrenched system (and entrenched belief) in personal freedoms overall than any European country. And it seems evident that the good of this outweighs the bad by a large measure.

And yet--somehow Americans and Canadians have managed to so far delay the sense of absolute panic that underlines this Swiss fellow's polemic, and so many of his "Muslims-are-scary" European counterparts.

At bottom, ironically, I'm not perceiving an underscoring of Western, enlightenment liberal values in such fear-mongering little speeches and remarks...I'm seeing a kind of detestation of them, under the pretence of defending them.

Is it in bad taste for me to suggest that the Europeans might take a page from the quieter, saner North American domestic response on this issue?

After all, what critics are calling "bowing down" is no such thing....it is the assumption, properly conditional, that Muslim immigrants are going to accept their adopted country's laws, and become decent and productive members of society.

And apart from an occasional outlier, this has proven to be the case, in spades.

As usual, Canadian and American immigration policies have proven effective and reasonable.

And as usual, Muslim citizens (also known as "Canadians" and "Americans") are not the enemy.

Perhaps it's the people who keep screaming irrationally about them who are the real "enemies of Western civilization." Mmmmmm, delicious irony!

Edited April 16, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Can you think of any other universal constant?

Yes, a few of them. But I wouldn't point at any of those as "the" cause either. If you find groups of people who have been dispossessed, do not have a history of rights or real justice, and have been around violence - I would say that violence is likely.

Wherever there are Muslims in the majority, you have what by our standards would be considered extremely radical religious intolerence, and wherever there are large groups of Muslims you have terrorism.

Without going into proof of this assertion, I will say instead that you could use the same meta-criteria to prove all kinds of things about certain groups, and make conclusions that people would find abhorrent.

I tried to explain this to Wild Bill last year (I think) using African Americans and crime as a comparison. He misunderstood my analogy so badly that he thought I was accusing him of racism. It was too abstract for his brain. I wasn't, of course, I was trying to show why simple generalizations and drawing lines like that are incorrect. But I couldn't talk him down and he left in a huff.

[Peter F]

Universities are filled with scholars who know very well exactly what Ali was all about. Honorary degrees are not common, she would have been vetted carefully. Her name was not picked out of a hat at random.

I don't know what you mean by her 'stated extremism'. She is simply candid and honest about her views. The University would know them well, they were why she was selected for a degree in the first place. She was invited to come from her position at Harvard - yes Harvard- to be honoured.

It is certainly possible that gutless political correctness was part of it, but a rush of sanity? No. Perhaps they discovered some sympathy (after her invitation) for Israel in her writing, That would be enough to doom her at most universties.

No, they chickened out and deserve censure for their cowardice.

Your first sentence is correct. Braneis U is indeed filled with scholars who know very well exactly what Ali was all about. So they came up with a petition

to the university president asking hiim to rescind the invitation.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M0AvrWuc3V0nMFqRDRTkLGpAN7leSZfxo3y1msEyEJM/edit?pli=1

It seems your second sentence regarding careful vetting may be incorrect. From the linked petition:

"We further urge you to re-institute the past practice of a faculty committee that vets potential honorary degree recipients"

I see no reference to Isreal anywhere in the petition.

[bleeding heart]

Well, no, but there's an assumption--mostly if not exclusively by the political Right--that universities are hotbeds of anti-Israeli sentiment.

That certainly wasn't my experience during a liberal arts degree--where the topic was in fact more marginal than most "hot topics" around--but either way, since the "anti-Israel" claim is actually pretty common (among those standing on certain points of an ideological spectrum), I'd suggest it is up to them to demonstrate the veracity of the claim.

[-TSS-]

When talking about islam and muslims anyone throwing the islamophobia-card is akin to Godwin's law. Besides, most people who are accused of islamophobia aren't afraid of islam as the word phobia suggests. The correct term is more likely islamonausea.

[Guest]

The only real Islamophobes are Muslims. They hate Muslims so much they kill them. But then, they kill other people too. Maybe the best term would be Infidelophobes.

The rest of us just point out barbaric behaviour every now and then. Nothing phobic about it at all.