Ayaan Hirsi Ali's cancelled speech

[bleeding heart]

I agree there's nothing phobic, nor wrong, about pointing out barbaric behaviour.

But choosing to view the whole mess, the whole fraudulent "War on Terror," as an existential battle between the forces of Good (Western nations, victims and heroes in the predictable and ahistorical formulation) and the forces of Evil (Islam entire) is indeed a cowardly stance.

It has little or nothing to do with "Islamophobia," and mostly or all to do with doctrinal "truths" about Western benevolence. This undergirds everything Hirsi Ali has to say on the matter, at least when she moves from her critique of oppression of women into "They shouldn't be allowed to burn our flags."

Or the self-regarding, apocalyptic polemics of the silly Swiss man in the video above.

Edited April 17, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Guest]

Everybody should be allowed to burn flags. Freedom of expression isn't about doing things everyone likes. That's why I think the Brandeis administration has shown themselves to be cowards for caving in to opinion that didn't like Hirsi Ali's POV. Not having been through what she has been through I don't feel qualified to castigate her for her opinion on flags as much as I disagree with it.

But surely it's her opinion on Islam and it's treatment of women that is important, and worthy of being heard, for all the upset it might cause.

[bleeding heart]

Well, sure, like I said, I don't mind who or who does not receive an honorary degree.

But when someone repeatedly says things like "Judaism is a cult of death," or "When Americans burn flags, we should flex our muscles and say, 'This is your last warning,'" or "We are at war with Christianity; and in war there is no middle ground."....

....well, whether someone cares about honorary degrees or not, they'll at least say that Brandeis might have had a point.

[Guest]

One would assume they were familiar with her work and her views. They offered her the degree.

Then they caved in to avoid giving offence to some who objected. Why would they worry about people being offended?

[bleeding heart]

Doubtless in part the Muslim population at the university. They would, quite understandably, avoid giving offense to the Jewish part of the school population for similar reasons.

[Argus]

It's comments like these that instil prejudice and fear in folks and does nothing to create harmony between different religions and cultures.

But am I wrong? And don't you think maybe it's the terrorism which is failing to create harmony rather than people who mention the terrorism?

Being a muslim does not designate someone as being a terrorist.

Never said it did. However, the religion does seem to give rise to most of the world's terrorism and nastier intercine xonflicts.

[WestCoastRunner]

But am I wrong? And don't you think maybe it's the terrorism which is failing to create harmony rather than people who mention the terrorism?

Never said it did. However, the religion does seem to give rise to most of the world's terrorism and nastier intercine xonflicts.

Actually you did say that. A very racially charged bigoted comment.

[-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

You are making a strawman¨-argument; no-one has said that all, or even most, muslims are terrorists. On this issue I agree with those who think the Bliar/Bush-alliance sponsored war on terrorism is hysterical nonsense; or rather singing to the tunes of their own puppet-masters.

What is wrong with islam is its total inability and lack of will to adapt to western surroundings. I know this doesn't happen in Canada, which in itself helps the immigrants to adapt to their new homeland but here in Finland every child is entitled to public tuition in one's own language at least certain amount of hours a week. When we have Kurds, Somalis, Afganis, Chinese etc it's really going to create a mess.

Besides, that very idea is wrong to begin with. It is the parents' job to teach their children the language of their parents if the parents want that, not the job of the education-system funded by the tax-payers.

[WestCoastRunner]

You are making a strawman¨-argument; no-one has said that all, or even most, muslims are terrorists

Argus said that large groups of muslims are terrorists. He clearly said that.

[Argus]

Actually you did say that. A very racially charged bigoted comment.

No, I did not. You simply perceived that.

And by the way, which race was I disparaging?

Edited April 18, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Argus said that large groups of muslims are terrorists. He clearly said that.

Large groups of Muslims ARE terrorists, though that's not what I said either.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What is wrong with islam is its total inability and lack of will to adapt to western surroundings. I know this doesn't happen in Canada, which in itself helps the immigrants to adapt to their new homeland but here in Finland every child is entitled to public tuition in one's own language at least certain amount of hours a week. When we have Kurds, Somalis, Afganis, Chinese etc it's really going to create a mess.

What if we don't live in Finland, and have all those ethnic groups and a lot more living together without all that drama? Maybe the problem is Finland ?

[WestCoastRunner]

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.

Here is what you said. I didn't make it up.

[Michael Hardner]

But am I wrong? And don't you think maybe it's the terrorism which is failing to create harmony rather than people who mention the terrorism?

Is it factually wrong ? No, you are able to phrase correct statements - I have no doubt of that. But they come across as statements of blame. There's a feminist line that says white males are rapists, which is also correct. Would you take offense if they said it to your face, and pointed a finger ?

Never said it did. However, the religion does seem to give rise to most of the world's terrorism and nastier intercine xonflicts.

So what ? Are you going to fix everything else that's wrong with those parts of the world, or are you going to continue to comfort yourself with easy statements, for some reason ?

[Michael Hardner]

Here is what you said. I didn't make it up.

WCR - Argus would never equate being Muslim with being a terrorist, he's smarter than that. You need to parse your words carefully when discussing this topic with him, as he usually has a very solid basis for what he says.

[Argus]

Here is what you said. I didn't make it up.

Yes, indeed. I said wherever you find large groups of Muslims you find terrorists. That does not in any way imply all the members of that group are terrorists. Every country I know of which has a substantial Muslim population has had issues with Muslim terrorism.

[Argus]

Is it factually wrong ? No, you are able to phrase correct statements - I have no doubt of that. But they come across as statements of blame.

Yes, and? They're meant to be. The degree of religious extremism one finds amongst Muslims cannot flourish as it has without an enormous amount of sympathy from the remainder of that population. These people we call terorrists are often considered holy men in the Muslim community, even if their actions themselves are dissaproved of. Their cause, whether fighting for a Muslim state, or to punish Jews or to eject 'infidels' from their lands, have a lot of support.

In a survey of Canadian Muslims, who I freely acknowledge are amongst the least religiously extreme in the world, 65% repudiated Al Quaeda, which means 35% did not. When a third of the population is willing to admit they support or at least, don't condemn the world's biggest terrorist group, even in Canada, where there is so little extremism, it gives you an idea of the problem.

There's a feminist line that says white males are rapists, which is also correct. Would you take offense if they said it to your face, and pointed a finger ?

Your comparison would be more apt without the finger. You're taking my statement about a wide group and equating it with a personal attack on an individual. Besides, I didn't say "Muslims are terorrists". I said wherever you find large groups of Muslims you find terrorists. There is a substantial difference between those statements.

So what ? Are you going to fix everything else that's wrong with those parts of the world, or are you going to continue to comfort yourself with easy statements, for some reason ?

My statements are generally in response to someone else's statements. I'm not on a campaign here. I don't know a way to solve the world's religion or terrorism proclems. I do, however, like to point out hard truths to the 'we're all brothers' crew, including yourself.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Your comparison would be more apt without the finger. You're taking my statement about a wide group and equating it with a personal attack on an individual. Besides, I didn't say "Muslims are terorrists". I said wherever you find large groups of Muslims you find terrorists. There is a substantial difference between those statements.

No - the finger is important because this is about perceptions too. Making a statement about a wide group, being interpreted as an attack on an individual is how your statements would be perceived by many. You can claim innocence, but if you have already been told that this is a risk in your communication, and you don't try to clarify then you just don't care about the effects. And if you don't care about the effects, then you may as well be attacking them personally.

Your statements are factual, but communication is about more than facts. I'm not speaking to the facts, then, but the communication.

I do, however, like to point out hard truths to the 'we're all brothers' crew, including yourself.

I am not part of any crew, and since I take care to characterize your position in my discussion with you and others on this thread, I would appreciate you doing the same.

[dre]

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.

Well the difference is the Christians you speak of live in structured secular societies. Muslims that live here behave a lot better than they do in places like the middle east as well.

[Argus]

Well the difference is the Christians you speak of live in structured secular societies. Muslims that live here behave a lot better than they do in places like the middle east as well.

And where are the structured secular societies populated largely by Muslims? There are none. And if Canada became a Muslim country, what makes you think it would remain secular?

[Argus]

No - the finger is important because this is about perceptions too. Making a statement about a wide group, being interpreted as an attack on an individual is how your statements would be perceived by many.

You can claim innocence, but if you have already been told that this is a risk in your communication, and you don't try to clarify then you just don't care about the effects. And if you don't care about the effects, then you may as well be attacking them personally.

So I'm responsible for people too ignorant to understand that a generalization does not imply totality? I don't think so!

Your statements are factual, but communication is about more than facts. I'm not speaking to the facts, then, but the communication.

I think my communications are more than adequate to convey ideas. If certain types are eager to perceive a different intent they'll find a way to be offended, no matter what care I take.

[Michael Hardner]

So I'm responsible for people too ignorant to understand that a generalization does not imply totality? I don't think so!

Yes, and I'm sure you do this in other aspects of communication, since communication is about getting an idea across properly.

If certain types are eager to perceive a different intent they'll find a way to be offended, no matter what care I take.

You seem to care what they are doing with your communication - so it should be easy to take that extra step to make these people appear to others to be unreasonable, right ?

[Mighty AC]

I'm not sure why many feel that it's somehow wrong to point out that one religion is more destructive than another. Christianity is destructive but the idea that Islam is currently far worse is an indisputable fact. It doesn't make one a racist to point out that Islam and the countries control by it produce out an abnormally larger number of terrorists.

Some have pointed out that other factors including the culture of some Muslim nations contributes to the evil deeds being committed. When Islam is the religion and Islam forms the basis of the law and those who leave Islam are openly attacked, I think it is easy to pinpoint the root of the problem.

We don't have to endorse other flawed belief systems like Hirsi has, but I think those of us who recognize the dangers of religion in general, do have to stop pretending that all religions are somehow equal. Ayaan was born into and victimized by Islam throughout her life. I think one has to be a complete ass to shout her down, because she wants to fight such a destructive force. I also think one has to be an ass to condemn one religion as evil while also supporting another.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure why many feel that it's somehow wrong to point out that one religion is more destructive than another.

Let's see... it's an offensive and therefore impolite statement that is incorrect, in that the validity of the statement could never be based on objective facts, and there's no way to ascertain such a thing.

Christianity is destructive but the idea that Islam is currently far worse is an indisputable fact.

Obviously you are incorrect, as here I am disputing it !

but I think those of us who recognize the dangers of religion in general, do have to stop pretending that all religions are somehow equal.

And yet another reminder as to why freedom of religion should never be restricted. Recognizing the 'fact' that certain points of view that differ from ours are 'destructive' is one short step from banning 'incorrect' thinking. Thank God for the Americans and their wise constitution to set an example, at least.

[Mighty AC]

Let's see... it's an offensive and therefore impolite statement that is incorrect, in that the validity of the statement could never be based on objective facts, and there's no way to ascertain such a thing.

Why should it be offensive or impolite? I'm interested in why you feel that we cannot rate the relative destructiveness of various religions. Do you somehow feel that evil or destructive acts cease to be so, if done at the command of scripture?

And yet another reminder as to why freedom of religion should never be restricted. Recognizing the 'fact' that certain points of view that differ from ours are 'destructive' is one short step from banning 'incorrect' thinking.

I absolutely find a faith that props up forced marriage, female genital mutilation, acid attacks, honour killings, preventing the education of females, etc. to be destructive. Excusing acts such as these as simply being differing points of view, is in my opinion, quite an ugly statement. Why do you feel that religious beliefs, harmful to human well-being, should be protected?