I decided to define terms of American politics for the layman and/or foreigner. These are not how terms are defined in political science and not how I utilize them, but how they are defined in American political parlance. (This is a rough draft!)
- Conservative: American Conservatives are Christians.* They believe that most social problems are caused by minorities and the underprivileged. The main theme in Conservative ideology is that those with less wealth are lazy (and that all minorities are lazy). If the Conservative is not wealthy, they believe the reason they are not wealthy is because other lazy people and minorities are the reason they are not wealthy.
- Moderate: A moderate is a person who is Conservative but also understands that Conservatives are racists, religious zealots and plutocrats. They do not wish to self-identify with these concepts, because they find racists and robber barons to be repugnant, even though they ideologically support them.
- Liberal: An American Liberal is a person who enjoys wealth, but dislikes racism and religious bigotry more than a moderate. They believe everything they do should make them look good, socially, as long as they do not have to make any major compromises in their personal lives.
- “Liberal” is also a pejorative term for Conservatives: When used, it dismisses everything a person states on the grounds that they are too compassionate to understand the benefits of unfettered greed.
- Communist: In America, there are two kinds of Communists: Stalin and Castro.
- Socialist: A Socialist in America is any person that believes society and/or government should help anyone; except when they benefit Conservatives – all other forms of government aid are ‘Socialist.’
- Republican: Republicans are Conservatives that believe, because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they can say whatever they wish about other people; much in the way Liberals claim having a Black friend proves they are not a racist.
- Democrat: These are Conservatives that think Liberals look nicer than Conservatives.
- Libertarian: Libertarians encompass a wide range of ideologies. Most of them involve having a gun rack in the home and automobile. Libertarians believe that all White people should be allowed to do whatever they wish.
- Independent: These are Republicans and Democrats that think both Liberals and Conservatives look foolish.
- Tea Party Movement: Inspired by the Boston Tea Party revolt against Royal British tariffs on tea, these people are British Loyalists who support Monarchy and will fight to the very end to defend their wealthy bosses.
- Immigrants: Anyone who is not White and Christian.
- *Christians: Anyone that claims to pray to Jesus, but behaves properly in public.
- Jews: This group of persecuted people are only supporters of Israel in America. An American Jew is one that does not openly chastise Christians or Israel.
- Muslims: Usually of Persian or Arabic descent, these people not only read the wrong Bible, but spell God’s name improperly.
- Secular: “Satanic”
- Evolutionary Theory: Just a ‘theory,’ that, although stands up against the rigor of science, is just as valid as pixies, unicorns, and leprechauns.
- Creationism: (Or Intelligent Design) Just a theory, that, although it does not stand up against the rigor of science, is more valid than pixies, unicorns, and leprechauns.
- Drugs: Chemicals that alter the mind or body, that are not predominantly used by wealthy, white people and are sold on the streets.
- Pharmaceuticals: Chemicals that alter the mind or body, that are predominantly used by wealthy, white people and are sold in stores and on the streets.
- Business: Anything that turns a profit for White Christians and the minorities that accept White Christian dominance.
- Crime: What happens when minorities do ‘business.’
- Special Interests: Groups and lobbyists that have a political agenda and spend inordinate amounts of money convincing politicians to vote in their favor. Majority of Special Interests involve Business.
- Lobbyist: Retired Democrats and Republicans that enjoy buying yachts and expensive clothing.
- Unions: Special interests for ‘the help.’
- Cartels: Surprisingly, these do not exist in America. [Sometimes, cartels refer to drug dealers in Central and South America.]
- Labor: Minorities that are employed (either legally or illegally).
- Middle Class: Everyone in America (sometimes excluding minorities).
- Family Values: The desire to make everyone else live their personal lives in direct contradiction to the ways in which Conservatives act privately. Family values include: monogamous heterosexual relations with a spouse, going to Church, giving money to Church, not using ‘bad words’ and abstaining from all illegal drugs. (It is important to note that those who espouse ‘Family Values” never behave this way, it is only the desire to force others to behave this way. Possibly to make their deviant behavior more titillating.)
Anything to add? Feel free. I will be redefining this list in the very near future. It was really just a smattering of ideas at the present. Hopefully this will help foreigners understand the American political dialogue a bit better.
hey,looks like we’re on the same path. good stuff! come by and say hi! cheers Reginald Melchor
Thank you for this valuable post. It changed my approximation
Here’s something to add:
As evidenced by the reaction to Terry Jones’s act, here’s a fine definition for virtually every ‘conservative’ and ‘Christian’, and EVERY liberal, moderate, Communist, socialist, Marxist and secularist and Hegelian:
Dhimmi coward, suicidally ignorant and Anti-freedom
So while the ‘right’ calls Jones a kook, ‘the pusillanimity of the Left in the face of Islamic imperialism is almost understandable. The feckless, morally bankrupt European Left has long traded their children’s future for their own comfort, safety and petty Marxist hatreds. For the American Left, their pathological hatred of the West trumps their own hollow rhetoric about freedom.’
Adam, that includes all those who demure, ‘but the West is where I keep my toys’.
(In case you thought I wanted to end commenting here please read what I said more carefully)
I have to admit, I had to look up Terry Jones. I had completely forgotten about him.
I think a lot of the confusion here lies in the concept of “secular.” Secularism is the belief that government should exist separately from the government. Not that the two are polar opposites, but that they should remain mutually exclusive. The government should not intervene in religious matters and religion should not intervene in governing matters. This is not a new concept, as Socrates was executed for extolling such virtues.
The first Amendment of the Constitution outlines the tenants of this as part of the foundation of the American government. Secularism does not purpose to destroy, nor hinder, religious practices; rather, it protects them… uniformly.
An interesting predicament I had recently: The issue came up several years ago about Muslim women wearing a burqa for their driver’s license photos. I actually sided with the state – that if the photo on your license is used to identify you, that wearing religious garb to conceal your identity violated this. Either they should remove the burqa for their photo, or not get a driver’s license.
I learned very recently that the Amish do not have to have a photograph for a license, due to religious reasons. If this is the case, then why must Muslims be forced to do the opposite? It has nothing to do with support of Islam, and everything to do with equal application application of the law… the tenants of American law.
This is secularism. It is not the condemnation of any religion, nor the condemnation of any religion. And if any religion claims to have the right to force others to bend to it’s will, it violates the law. A secular society no more supports Sharia law than it supports Judaic Law or Christian Law. Every citizen has the right to be protected under the law.
The other thing I see confusion on is what is “The West.” Marx was a European. The Frankfurt School was a product of Western Civilization. So was the Paris Commune. Antonio Gramsci was a product of Western Society. So were Voltaire, Freud, Vonnegut, and Einstein. Richard Dawkins is a product of Western Civilization. As is Gore Vidal. Scoailism and Communism were born out of the Industrial Revolution in England and, subsequently, France… spreading to Austria and Prussia and Spain.
America was founded by individuals that fought against European colonization, much like Kenya, India, South Africa, Haiti, and Algeria. So, is hatred of European colonization symbolic of hatred of The West? That doesn’t make sense, since America is considered a major player in Western Civilization.
In any case… there is no way that anyone that supports secular society could support a system of dhimmi. Likewise, if follows of theology that was developed in the Frankfurt School hated Western Civilization, they would hate the very ideology they espoused… it really is not a zero sum game.
I really had not noticed until it was brought to my attention. I have been on this site quite infrequently… I think I might be going to London, or Cape Town, in the near future, so I might have even more irregular times to add to the site. (And I have my thumbs in numerous projects as of late – so there has been a bit of a lack of input… as evidence by the scant amount of entries.)
“And if any religion claims to have the right to force others to bend to it’s will, it violates the law.”
Yes. For that very reason Terry Jones put the Koran on trial, found it guilty and ‘executed’ it. Per the paragraph I quoted, anyone who doesn’t see the rightness of his judgement and action is a dhimmi in waiting.
Re the West you said:
“Marx was a European. The Frankfurt School was a product of Western Civilization.”
No doubt you realize that someone can be a product of something that he may hate sufficiently enough to wish to destroy – wittingly or unwittingly as in the case of those you mention.
Just as you focus on and hate the colonialism of the West, Howard Zinn focused on all the evils of the U.S., and judged it would be better if the the U.S. had never come to exist. That was a very rare admission from a leftist.
Instead of that sort of honesty, 99% of the time leftists don’t admit what Zinn admitted. Yet:
1. never express gratitude for the Judeo-Christian role in developing the West.
2. never credit the European white race that developed it.
3. forever focus on what they hate about it’s heritage, (e.g. colonialism) traditions and values.
3. venerate those Westerners who most want to undo the traditional West’s values (Marx, Gramsci, Sanger, Singer)
4. do not understand how the West’s traditional institutions (e.g. heterosexual marriage)preserve it
Again, I do not see how it is a zero sum situation.
Wanting an end to White dominance is not synonymous with destruction of White people. Condemning bad actions is not the same as condemning all actions. It is possible to condemn the negative aspects and appreciate the positive.
Zinn also celebrated the labor movement. He lamented the Ludlow Massacre but praised the working class. Zinn, as many of the people you have mentioned, tend to celebrate victories of the working class and the freedoms won through hard work and sacrifice… just not at any means necessary.
The United States early leaders were heavily against colonization, proposing that the United States never venture into maintaining colonies. The US was founded on an anti-colonial movement.
Really, I do not understand how allowing gay marriage destroys heterosexual marriage… no one is asking to stop heterosexual marriage. No one is condemning heterosexual marriage in any way. I know many people who support gay marriage and are married to someone of the opposite gender. At one time it was illegal for Blacks to be married… the claim was just about the same. Is that equal protection under the law? Did allowing Black people to get married destroy the institution of marriage? Did allowing interracial marriages destroy White marriages? Nobody is trying to decimate heterosexual marriage, they just do not want other people telling them what they can and cannot do in their personal lives.
I do not want to follow the Qu’ran any more than I want to follow The Book of Mormon or the Torah. Why should refusing one be any different than refusing another? Religious rule always ends up the same way, anyway – in a monarchy… the very thing that the United States was founded against.
Undoing values is one thing, wanting to move forward is another. Should we have maintained that only land-owning males should be allowed to vote? Should we hold on to the view that progress moves West, and that California is the pinnacle of civilization (because any farther West is East)?
There may have been a Judeo-Christian role in developing Western civilization, but there were a lot of others that contributed. Do we really want to get into the social practices of Socrates and Plato? (Homosexual pagans and atheists?) Of the members of the construction of the United States that were more moved by Voltaire than by the Old Testament?
There have been many contributions to society today, including contributions from Christians and from Socialists… or should we consider it “evil” that we have rules that govern fair labor, such as safe working conditions, fair wages, child labor laws, vacation and sick time, pensions, and a whole host of other innovations that were brought to us from the Socialist movement?
As I pointed in the past, I find numerous flaws with the insights of Lenin. I think his theories on revolutionary movements and governments are pretty bad. (So did most of the Marxists in the Frankfurt School.) That doesn’t mean everything he said was wrong… It may be surprising, but I even agree with many of the allegories in the Bible. I may not use them to further my points, but that doesn’t mean I disagree with them. And just because I don’t think we should stone disrespectful children does not mean I think we should steal and murder.
Truth be told… Jesus was a vegetarian socialist, anyway. (He even told people to pay their taxes.)
Wow, I really type fast.
A vegetarian, smoke banning, animal rights activist and secular anti-Zionist socialist – The proto-typical modern liberal and Hitler have even more in common. (Also a fine supporter of paying taxes).
Hitler was NOT a socialist. Not even in a small way. Nothing Adolph Hitler espoused was socialism. Mussolini was a Communist, before becoming a fascist.
The Nazi Party did have “Socialist” in the name… but there is also:
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
The Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and a whole host of other entities that have a word in their name but do not hold the values of such terms… or do we suppose that North Korea is a democracy? And that the Soviet Union was really a Union of Republics?
Sorry, but the The National Socialist German Workers’ Party has more ideology in common with American Conservatives than with American Liberals. (Though there are also dramatic differences… there is more commonality with Conservatives.)
Also, Hitler was far from secular… at least in public, where he espoused the virtues of Christianity and of Jesus Christ. In policy, the Nazi Party may not have supported the Church, but they did not dispose of Christianity. (They basically wanted a form of Christianity similar to what was created by the Afrikaner Broederbond.)
Hitler loathed smoking and drinking, while Stalin indulged in both. Does that mean that Stalin was a Conservative Liberalist?
Also, Hitler was an advocate of paying taxes, but less taxes for the wealthy industrialists.
Hey Adam, seems you’re diverting a bit on the original point – that all your classifications are unimportant since they all didn’t stand up for free speech and as a result are all dhimmis. We’re all very much interested to know whether you’re as committed to freedom as is this little lady. She also seems to have a lovely handle on the Constitution (as well as bookmarking – as in the second video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeyrp-V3Jvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LCLDjPNpf4&feature=related
I do not see anywhere that I have not advocated Free Speech. Nor do I see where I have supported any religion in government.
Although, I’m not a fan of burning books at all, I do believe that people have the right to do so (responsibly) as a form of protest… whether it be a Qu’Ran, the Bible, or the Torah… or Grapes of Wrath.
I agree with this woman, though, that the freedoms of the Constitution apply to everyeone. The KKK has the right to voice their dissent, just as the Nation of Islam, the Westboro Baptist Church, PeTA, Greenpeace, the Tea Party, and anyone else.
Also… her voice is like of like masturbating with a cheese grater… I cannot figure out exactly why, but it became painful for me just before 7 minutes.
Just another point:
“Free speech” has been determined not to mean all speech. Mostly due to originalism from strict constructionists on Constitutional interpretation, there is precedent that restricts ‘free speech’ – that is to say, speech that serves no purpose, is not protected. (Morse v. Frederick for example.) I do not see that Terry Jones’ actions violate this… I only think that it is a bit careless, to incite the very people our troops are trying to suppress… but that is the cost of Free Speech.
“I only think that it is a bit careless, to incite the very people our troops are trying to suppress…”
May I presume you actually meant support? Like all of a sudden you’re a big Petraeus fan. I see.
I think I’m seeing the pattern again:
Terry Jones and Ann Barhardt – they are pro-West – they burn paper and ink that incites killing infidels – those are bad pro-west people!!–
Brown Islamics react by decapitating infidels – they not bad or good – they have no moral agency – they’re just the ‘people who’ve been incited’.—–
Adam Baum and every other dhimmi weaselly blames the pro-Westerners for the acts of the Islamic decapitators. So they good. They speak up against the pro-Western Whites. The script is played out once again with the same characters. Bad Pro west whites, Good Anti West Whites and morally free non-whites.
Common leftist straw man retort:
Where did I say I support Islam or condoned killings.
Reply:
No where. No one ever claimed you supported Islam. And no one claimed you condoned the killings.
Common leftist rhetorical attempt at diversion:
The bible supports killing too.
Reply:
Cite me when burning a bible incited the murder of Islamics.
Cite me when drawing a picture of Jesus incited the murder of Islamics.
You can presume anything… but, actually, it is not what I meant. What I meant was that I think it is careless to incite the people whom our troops are trying to suppress.
Just because I do not agree with a war does not mean I want to see casualties from that war. I cannot say I am a Patraeus fan or detractor… but I can say that I tend to listen to military officers with some level of expectation that they are knowledgable of the military situation. I have never wished ill will towards the soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq… in fact, I have several friends that were in the First Wave into Baghdad and I am glad most of them (that I know) are only fucked up mentally (instead of physically).
Actually – No. You do not see a pattern, because you seem to not read what I am actually saying…instead, you place values on my words that are the opposite. I said they have the right to do this, even though I disagree with it. Why do you insist that I have to agree with your views in order to not be some evil person? I don’t care if you want to burn the Qu’Ran… or the Bible, or Dianetics. I’m not a fan of book burning on principle… because I love books… but I think that people have the right to symbolically protest anything. I even stated that I agreed with the woman in the YouTube clip on that point of fact, but that her voice really bothered me. Newt Gingrich’s face and Bill Clinton’s nose also bother me. And Gavin Newsom’s perfect hair…. lots of things bother me. That has nothing to do with the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Terry Jones has the right to burn a copy of the Constitution, the Koran, the American Flag, the Nazi flag, a dirty pair of socks, and even an effigy of Mohammad or Nixon or Karl Marx. Just as I have the right to burn a Bible, any flag, an effigy of Margret Thatcher, a bag of poo… whatever political statement I feel necessary.
Where did I say that? Decapitation is murder. Where did I justify murder? (Or were the infidels decapitated while being hit by a truck or something? Coz that is a different story.) Of course killing people has moral implications… as I have stated previously, I do not support any form of capital punishment. There are only two instances that killing another person can possibly be justified: by accident or in self-defense (including defending the defenseless).
Is this English? Were verbs purposefully excluded? I don’t understand these statements, honestly. I can guess at the intent due to context… and it seems to be an assumption that has NOTHING to do with what I have stated. I have NEVER claimed that any particular slant justifies actions. I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe actions should be judged singularly – (the ends do not justify the means).
When I say that you cannot slap a vicious dog in the face and then be surprised that it bites you; does this sound like I am justifying the dog bite? If a two year old slaps a dog in the face and gets eaten… it is a tragedy. It’s still a dog. If you slap it in the face, it will probably bite. If the West continues to provoke others, is there a surprise there is blowback? When people feel threatened, is it a surprise that they react violently? Certainly not… but this does not mean I hope for violence.
You have claimed I am a “dhimmi” and that I support “radical islam” because it is “anti-Western” (although the last I checked, Islam is an Abrahamic/Western religion.) You claimed that I support murder committed by Muslims and that I want to allow Muslims to implement Sharia Law…. stop playing dumb. (are you playing?)… oh, and stop calling me names… it is really juvenile.
First of all… What are “islamics”? You mean Muslims? The people who have faith and follow the religion of Islam?
If you want accounts of Christians killing people who did not submit to their religion… I will post a list of publications that go to great lengths to give vivid accounts of NUMEROUS events in which this happened. If you are going on literal occurrences, like that Jesus is allowed to be drawn and Muhammed is not… then you are playing a game of semantics and picking at straws… but the Reformation was extremely bloody and had many similar themes in this avenue. Or there is the Crusades… the Inquisition… the Spanish Conquistadors… the Mission system on the West Coast… there is even the six million people who were killed by the Nazi Party for being Jews. (The Nazi Party was officially Christian.)
If you want illuminated specific passages in the Bible that advocate the killing of non-believers… I know of a few, but I am not a Biblical scholar… it may be best to find one and ask them.
This would be a diversion in some instances… but it also points to the fact that some people reject both religions.
Cite me ONE example of a non-theist (Atheist) that has done any of these things? Any secular movement that advocated killing based on theological differences? (No, Stalin was a Christian, as was Hitler… Mao was a Confucianist. Sun Yat Sen was a CHristian. Hirohito was Shinto. Kim Jong-il is Juche.) Yet, I am to believe that those who propose secular systems are more prone to violence?
It is also interesting to note… on the issue of the “picture” line… that Shah Jahan had the Taj Mahal built… as well as many works of art… and he was a Muslim. Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, has a variety of interpretations and sects and followers… which is often the point of pointing out the differing views of Christianity.
This whole side-discussion on Islam has been a rhetorical attempt at diversion. My acceptance or rejection of Islam has nothing to do with my support of the First Amendment. And my feelings on Terry Jones have nothing to do with my feelings on his ability to practice the first Amendment.
For once… how about commenting on my actual words, instead of preconceived ideals on what I am supposedly thinking based on my political ideology?
Me: In the left’s script, non-whites or Islamics have no moral agency. When they murder, they are not judged as responsible for their actions.—————-
Adam: Vicious dogs bite when provoked.———–
Adam nicely proves my point. For:
Does he think it is natural for a vicious dog to bite? Of course he does. He says that the vicious dog that ‘feels threatened’ will bite and thus believes that the dog not be judged as morally evil.——————–
This is how Adam excuses the reactive behavior of the Islamic decapitators – he likens it to that of vicious dogs – he holds neither to be in control of their actions.
——————
Just what made the Islamic decapitators, as he says, ‘feel threatened’ to murder? – it was the burning of a book and in the past it was the drawing of an image. Does Adam actually think that those acts should entitle people to ‘feel threatened’ to the point of reacting violently? Of course not. He knows that a moral agent would be held responsible for advocating murder or killing when his only excuse is that a cartoon or a burned book made him ‘feel threatened’. Ergo, in Adam’s world, Muslim fundamentalists, like vicious dogs are given a free ride – they have no moral agency.——————-
But he has bigger problems here yet. He is not just freeing the actual decapitators from moral agency. When surveyed multiple times, most the Muslim world supported the fatwas against the cartoonists and the Koran burners. Thus Adam’s analogy to that of the vicious dog makes it clear that the vast majority of the Muslim world is, to him, without moral agency. So as I said earlier, he nicely proved my point.
So how does the left weasel out of such a corner. Here are the tactics:——————
The first is to say ‘when did I say I justify/condone such acts?’. Notice that the left speaks of murder and not the murderers. By phrasing his question this way he avoids judging, as evil, the murderous and those who call for murder. With this question – Adam’s continually offered defense – he avoids directly judging those evil Muslims who kill or support the call for fatwas against all those who draw Muhammed or burnt a Koran – which includes most the world of Islam ———————
And even though Adam deems acts as these to be unjustifiable he has described similar acts as these to be ‘understandable’ (as would be in the case that South Africa’s Blacks were to murder and torture his family or himself… merely because they were white). Adam routinely uses this question to refrain from directly condemning the majority of the Muslims who advocate or perpetrate anti-West/anti-Christian evil.
Then there is of course Adam’s ever pathetic “I don’t believe in Islam”. Well of course he doesn’t. No one on the right ever accused the left of believing in Islam. I never once said you did. But the left always supports those Muslims who cry discrimination – always compare the atrocious behavior of Muslims to Christians – always takes Islam’s side on issues (such as the 9/11 mosque) to use it as a club against the West. And please don’t tell us where you keep your toys again. You are ignorant that your behavior will lead to the loss of your descendent’s toys and freedom. We have already lost our freedom to speak truthfully about Islam without having politicians and Petraeus seek to muzzle us.———————–
The next tactic:
Adam plaintively asks “if the West continues to provoke others, is there a surprise there is blowback?”
The answer of course is yes Adam, if you provoke someone who you do not expect to behave morally responsibly there will be blowback of a magnitude that is disproportionate to the provocation. If I were to burn a copy of the Communist Manifesto or whatever book a leftist finds precious there will also be blowback (and please don’t divert by telling me which book you do hold dear). In such a case perhaps the blowback will be that I won’t get invited to the next Che Guevara BBQ (and please don’t divert by telling me that you have issues with Che or Lenin for the 5th time). But as you consider yourself a moral agent you would of course not consider a book burning to be a rationale for killing me. On the other hand, as I presume you recognize, Muslim’s ‘blowback’ for the provocation of drawing a cartoon is insanely disproportionate to the provocation. And as Ann Barnhardt said, if you burn a copy of the Christian bible the ‘blowback’ will be that she prays for your soul. So the tactic of using words like ‘blowback’ to avoid judging the evil nature of the decapitators and the Muslim world that registers support for such action is ‘weasel’ to the extreme.————————–
When all else fails the left invariably attempts to avoid the charge of freeing non-whites/non-Christians from moral agency by not addressing the matter whatsoever and in stead ranting aimlessly about how evil Christians, whites and the West have been. That is what consumed so much of Adam’s last comment. The added hilarity of the diversion is that it proves the very point at the beginning of my comment – Christians/whites/West are bad!!!!! Anti West white liberals, like Adam, are morally good for pointing this out.
Once again, the intent of my words seems to not be understood. I will assume this is my fault and attempt to clarify. This may be long, but whenever I am brief, the meaning of my words tends to get twisted into some form of concept I had not even considered.
First: I was not claiming that Muslims are like vicious dogs. I was referring to societies that already have a penchant for violence. A completely unrelated example would be the Zulu. The Zulu Empire had a ruthless army and ran campaigns that were quite brutal in conquering territory and demanding allegiance. So, when the Boers and British encroached on their land, it was no surprise that the Zulu resisted violently… at least, it shouldn’t have been. Any of the Xosa would have been able to explain that.
I also used the analogy because of the animal instinct humans have for self preservation… any group of people who feel threatened will fight back. This is an important context when dealing with marginalized and/or disenfranchised peoples. They may feel as though they are under direct threat and respond violently. Again, this is not a justification, only an explanation. (The last I checked, when a vicious dog kills someone, we do not throw them a parade.)
Actually, this is not a proper understanding of what is being stated. If the murder is not justified, then the perpetrators are not justified. If the acts are condemned, then the people who committed these acts are condemned. But it is the actions that are bad, not the people. This often confuses me. I had always believed that Jesus often told his followers to use this line of reasoning… “hate the sin, not the sinner.” So, why is it that Christians so often have a problem with this? Was Jesus wrong? I’m not even a devout follower of Christianity and I employ this line of rationale.
Oh, and that whole “they are evil” and “this is evil” thing… how do we quantify what is evil? Really, one could debate the meaning of “evil” for centuries – as has been done, from Jung to Biblical definitions. I think “Evil” has little place in the debates of society and politics and man. It is a loaded and subjective term that implies different meanings in different situations. Especially in the context above, it gets highly dubious… as the concept of “evil” is much different in Islam than in Christianity and in Judaism.
No. I just avoid condemning one religion over another. Islam, Judaism, Christianity… have no right to dictate what I can do in a country with a secular government. And what they want to do is a Muslim nation is their business (to a degree). I am not going to go to the UAE or Iran and demand they stop following Islamic Law… partly because I believe that is their right, and partly because I do not think this is an issue worth dying over. There are so many more important things to be challenged.
This really leads into the issue of Blowback. Maybe you are not familiar with the term, I don’t know… but the CIA used “blowback” as a term to mean “violent, unintended consequences.” It does not really matter what proportion the violence is… it is blowback if it is unintended and violent. At least, that is how I used the term, too. It has nothing to do with morality or justification – it is just a term used for a type of reaction. What I claim is that when you have people of devout religious fervor, the blowback is inevitable when they feel slighted. If this group feels marginalized, the blowback is likely to be escalated. Praying is not blowback. (Unless you believe praying is a violent attack on one’s soul, maybe.)
Second, (or third?) the comparison of Christianity to Islam: This is done to provide a relative perspective. Not all Muslims want to decapitate infidels. Just as not all Christians want to kill heretics and not all Jews are Zionists. There are a lot of Muslims on the earth. When a small amount of them react violently, it really is unreasonable to hold every follower of Islam accountable, just as it is unreasonable to hold every Christian accountable for the Westboro Baptist Church. Those of us who believe Christians have no right to force us to live the way they believe point this out because we feel the same way about Muslims. We want to be allowed to live our personal lives without religious individuals dictating the terms of our lives. (Something I thought Conservatives and Limited Government proponents would endorse.)
How many Muslims were a part of these beheadings? A million? Ten million? The only one I have seen was committed by five people. I heard nothing of a vast majority of the Muslim world decapitating people or attacking people. (And to make the statement that I claim Muslims have no morality is just absurd. If this is true, I feel the same way about Christians, HIndu and Jews.)
There is another reason to point out the parallels between Christianity and Islam – because when dealing with matters of religious conviction and faith, reason is typically not deployed. The reason I point out that I am not a follower of Islam is because it is relevant. You make claims that I try to justify killing, when this is not the truth. But, being a supporter of a secular government, I do not support any religious ideology that overrides the rights of other people. Why would I support the right of a religious ideology to force others to obey it? The reason I constantly point out that I condemn these acts of violence is simply that… that I condemn these acts of violence… especially when committed as an act of religious devotion.
And this perception that everything I have stated is done to portray Whites and the West as bad is really a false conclusion. At least, what I contend is that religion is really the blame. It seems that, time and time again, religion is used as rationale for horrible acts… whether it be Muslims or Christians. I mean, let’s look at this reasonably… because there is a bit of double-speak in your comment.
If I compare Islam to Christianity, and then condemn Christianity, am I not also condemning Islam for the same thing? If they are just about the same, that’s how it works. If a = b = c, then a = c. If I think Christians are wrong to force others to obey their religious tenents, the why would it be reasonable to assume the same does not stand for Islam? Just like they have the right to build the Park 51 Islamic center several blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center towers, so does anyone else. The Klu Klux Klan as the right to build a meeting hall in Selma if they own the property. The law stands to reason that anyone is free to build any church on any land that they own. Blind faith exists in the absence of reason… I am not speaking from a perspective of faith, but from a perspective of reason.
I find this interesting… that on an entry that has absolutely nothing to do with Islam or muslims, the comments have been directed on this issue and, yet, I am accused of ranting aimlessly. I even tried to steer the conversation back to the right to freedom of speech and separation of church and state. Instead, I am greeted with responses about how Islam is false and how “Liberals” are anti-West. Looking at things objectively, I see the Christian Conservative minority in America talk about moral agency as justification for whatever agenda they wish to promulgate and force non-believers to conform. I see the American Left trying to maintain a secular and egalitarian government: one that protects the rights of all citizens, irregardless of personal concerns.
I do not know if it is because I am a moral agent… i think it is because I condemn senseless acts of violence and I also believe that everyone has the right to protest. There are things I find immoral, but not because I have been told they are immoral. These are things I have reasoned to be immoral… things such as lying, killing, stealing, hypocrisy, and giving an award to Lady Antebellum. But I also think it is not rational to send someone to prison for life for stealing three times… or many of the other reasons we continue to incarcerate people … and have 25% of the world’s prison population. There are more people incarcerated in the US than in China… so, taking about moral agency and proportional retribution seem a bit hypocritical coming from such a nation… (you can get a PDF file from Kings College London’s website.) So, I guess I find America immoral for incarcerating more people than any country in the world.
This is just false. I take the side of the issue that is outlined by law. The government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Whether it be a mosque or a catholic church or a snake dancing baptist. It is not about supporting Islam, it is about protecting EVERYONE and their right to practice whatever they believe.
The comment about keeping my stuff in the West is called a joke. But it is where I live…and where most of my convictions come from. I believe that the government has no place in religious affairs, and vice versa. And I believe the people need to have the right to speak freely in order to provide a real democracy. I also believe it is integral to democracy to have an egalitarian society – one in which everyone is protected by the law equally. My arguments are much more pro-West than anti-West.
How is this? Who was arrested for stating anything about Islam? Who was silenced by the government? Sarah Palin’s understanding of “Freedom of Speech” is fictitious. You have the freedom to make any political and/or social statements that you wish to make. And anyone has the freedom to disagree with those statements. Neither side is to be silenced by the government. Was the woman in the Youtube clip arrested or burning the Qu’Ran? Was anyone arrested for burning any religious book? Was anyone arrested for making any political statement? THAT is what violates freedom of speech… Freedom of Speech does not mean you have the right to state whatever you wish and no one has the right to disagree. The only curtail to the Freedom of Speech in America in the past 50 years was the Patriot Act. (Implemented by G.W. Bush and extended by Obama.)
Finally, at the end of your statement… you provide so much ammunition, and I largely let it go:
Why assume that I am an “anti-West white liberal”? I have stated that I am not a Liberal ad nauseum. The assumption that I am White is interesting. The claim that I am anti-West is telling – because I am not “pro-Western domination” this makes me “anti-West”? Because, I really do not see it as a zero sum game. It is like claiming that freedom for Black people means genocide for White people (a popular claim int he past) – it assumes that the only way Whites can exist is through oppressing Black people. I do not believe that the West needs to dominate in order to survive… but your comments elude to this very prospect… this really only feeds those who seek to destroy Western society – and most of those who actually do seek this are militant religious zealots… not Left leaning political theorists. Many of us believe that we can co-habitate with people with whom we disagree.
No doubt, I will be accused of ad hominem attacks again… with little regard to statements such as this… which is the definition of an ad hominem attack. You made a presumption about me (being an ‘Anti-West, White Liberal’) and then judged my words in accordance with these standards; instead of judging the words on their merit. Does this not get old? If you actually read the entry these comments are posted on, I was not particularly kind to “Liberals” either. Why, exactly, am I anti-West? So far, the things I have spoken against are: totalitarianism, fascism, plutocracy, oppression, murder, most violence, and things we typically consider bad in a Western democracy… I see no reason to assume I am anti-Western or anti-Christianity. I just do not support blanket domination by the West or by Christianity… and I’m not alone. Most of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States felt the same way.
There seems to be a desperate need to classify everything and place it on sides of this zero sum game. The reality is that the political realm is much more complicated than such a task. THe world is not in Black and White. There are many shades of Grey. I mean… this is a world where Libertarians are Conservatives and also Anarchists. And Communist governments are Far Left but also Authoritarian and behave like Fascists, which are Far Right. Maybe it is too abstract, complicated, and nuanced for everyone to understand… but I will try my best to clarify.
Perhaps you have been outraged that a jury has found that a proposed protest by Koran burning pastor Terry Jones outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, the largest mosque in the United States, is likely to breach the peace and incite violence. They have incarcerated him. Or maybe you’re not outraged after all.
They think that Jones should know, just like you know, that Muslims ‘have a penchant for violence’. And we need to take into account that penchant for violence and make that more important than our right to free speech.
Of course you don’t go as far as the Jury. You don’t think that Jones is only doing it for the purpose of inciting violence. Or do you? If you’re not above inferring the motive of racism on the part Tea Partiers you shouldn’t have much problem inferring the motive of wishing to incite violence by a Koran burner. Right?
In any case whether you liken Muslims to vicious dogs – as you in fact did do – (your backtracking was a piece of work) or whether you simply say that they and Zulus have a ‘penchant for violence’ you are failing to hold them up to the same standards of civilized behavior that you are holding up other cultures to. In so doing, you have given them a pass on behaving as morally as you require of the Western white man. Thus you have failed to explain away the assertion – that you, as a man of the left, routinely breaks every situation into three roles:
1) the evil white western oppressor, 2) the non-white or poor man who is held to diminished or no moral standards and 3) the good leftist whose function it is to judge the evil Western white man and his Judeo-Christian values.
Happy Easter (or Passover) Adam. ( With no Quanzaa equivalent, I suppose this time you’ll just have to be content to wish me a little premature May day. Right?)
So… from back to front (which is unhygienic for women):
I did not backtrack. I apologized. I did not realize the true ramifications of the analogy that I created until long after I had written it. I did what so many Tea Party politicians refuse to do: I admitted it was insensitive and incorrect. I then explained why I used the terms I used.
As for the Zulu… There seems to be an assumption that the Zulu were so completely different than the Han Dynasty or the Roman Empire. Or that Shaka was very different from Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, or General Patton. The reality is that the Zulu were a great Kingdom that revolutionized warfare for their era and region… and they were brilliant strategists. They also refused to allow enemies any movement against them.
That said… I do understand that there are ‘radical Muslims’ that would commit acts of violence and harm ‘innocent’ persons for their ideology. I also understand that they are not a majority. The same goes for Jews and Christians. There are plenty of people of these faiths that would do great harm to “nonbelievers” or “infidels.”
As I said earlier, I think anyone has a high penchant for violence when religion is their motivation. Those who feel blasphemed are usually quick to have their tempers flared… no matter the theology. (If you need a list of contemporary Christian groups that have reacted with violence, I can compile it, but as I said, I’m a bit busy, so it may take a little while.)
To be honest: I didn’t know much about it. I was pretty busy recently, and lost track of many current events. From what I have learned, I’m not necessarily outraged, but I’m not necessarily pleased, either. I think my barometer is somewhere in between. I am outraged when innocent people are executed, or when someone cuts me off without using a turn signal…
Is that what was said? Or is that from use of telepathy? To my knowledge, the measure of free speech is strict scrutiny. When I really think about it, I’m more outraged that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was not allowed under free speech. Hate speech is not protected speech.
“Freedom of Speech” is in regard to political ideology. The government does not have the right to silence subversive speech. (Personally, I believe that Jones’ was speaking politically, and should be allowed to make his statements publicly, no matter how much I disagree with him.)
What it looks like to me, is that Jones is really liking getting attention. It really appears as though he is burning the Koran for just such reasons.
Happy Zombie Jesus Day!
Oh yes, I’m sorry but this was just too priceless:
“The assumption that I am white is interesting”
As if a Black or an Asian or a Polynesian or a Puerto Rican, or an Arab or a Persian any other race, other than a white man would seriously decide to identify himself with the name Adam Baum – a typical Jewish name if there ever was one. But maybe I’ve been away from the latest trends too long. Tell me – are non-Jewish minorities seeking some extra gravitas these days by having themselves identified as having Jewish names?
Regarding my name:
Say it out loud a few dozen times. Maybe you will get it. (It seems obvious to me.)
Regarding the “typical Jewish name” – I guess that Whoopi Goldberg is White now, too? Goldberg is a pretty Jewish name. Sammy Davis Jr. was Jewish…
The fact is, I have many names… does The Hyena ring of European lineage? I fail to see anything in that name that speaks of any Eurocentric diaspora.
Farther: I often go by the name 火龙 (huo long) as well. Does that mean I am Chinese? I mean, after all, do White or Black Americans traditionally know, speak and read, 普通话 (Putonghua/Mandarin)?
The simple fact is: Adam Baum is a pen name, a pseudonym. I use this name in the manner in which I write on this site… (which is why I dropped Hyena from my name… it was inappropriate for the content.) I also do not use Huo Long He here, because I rarely utilize that pseudonym personality on this site… or in any of my writing. I have a few other names that I respond to, but I don’t use them here, either.
Well it’s refreshing to hear that you didn’t use your mental telepathy to presume Mr. Jones was doing this to incite violence… but rather you used your abilities to figure out that he just wants to be a celebrity.
Hmmm, kind of a strange telepathy you’ve got going there considering that Jones sacrificed every worldly possession he had and subjected himself to constant mortal danger… just for a little fame, huh? Yeah that makes sense. But are you sure he wasn’t motivated by that crazy religion thing or patriotism thing that you are so fond of ridiculing?
“If you need a list of contemporary Christian groups that have reacted with violence, I can compile it”
No thanks – in the last 20 years – it’s so well established that the ratio is so ridiculously extreme in the direction of Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam that it would be silly for you to waste your time searching for Christian needles in terrorist haystacks.
And I certainly wouldn’t want to take a chance that you might try to pawn off McVeigh’s act as one done in the name of Christianity as is occasionally attempted by those in the Godless camp.
Btw, one of the interesting facts that came out long after Michael Moore’s Columbine fantasy was that those two boys were extreme Darwinists that were just doing their thing to cull the human race down to the better among us.
“I did not realize the true ramifications of the analogy that I created…”
Okay – then I guess you must subconsciously see Muslims that way.
Still no comment of course on the essence of what was the point of all of this. How leftist narratives are routinely about the three reductionist roles of evil white, good white leftist and non-white of diminished or no moral agency.
That is not what I said. I will try to elaborate the best way I possibly can to explain what I stated. I do not care if people take issue with my claims, but I would appreciate that they understand what I state before taking issue – or allow me to explain.
I was attempting to use an analogy to explain that when specific issues are pressed and people are cornered, they will react in a manner that is expected…
I also do agree that there are violent Muslim groups that are prone to commit act of violence. There are also violent White Supremacists, violent Christians, violent Hindu, violent nationalists… et al.
I realize afterwards that it appeared that I compared all Muslims to vicious dogs… and I stated that I had never intended to make that claim. This is nothing about subconscious feelings or attitudes…except, possibly, my attitude towards religion and religious persecution.
No. Because you still do not seem to understand the fact that I am not a “Leftist” in the American dichotomy. I do not see a tertiary division of roles within the Leftist perspective, either. What I see is imperialism and cultural hegemony coated with compassion.
And you do not have to tell me anything about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine High School. At the time of the shooting, I lived about 8 miles from the school. (And it was a highlight of the many reasons I will never move back to the monolithic society of Colorado.
I also noticed you skipped over every single comment I made about how Pastor Jones should have been allowed to make his public display and that I support his right to freedom of speech. Or how you skip over the comments I made stating that there are groups of Muslims out there that are violent and want to do harm to “infidels.” But c’est le vie…
Re your ‘Adam Baum’ humor: I didn’t realize that non-whites or non-Jewish ethnic minorities were so much into that sort of humor that they would want to identify themselves with such a Jewish name.
Oh. Fuck off.
Was that racist and antisemitic at the same time? Why not go for the trifecta and make it misogynistic, too?
** edited for format on April 26th at 2:40 **
Actually, this is a bastardization of what I stated… which is common with your paraphrasing. I stated that I have not been following this story closely, but gave a synopsis of my opinion based on what I have seen. It has little to do with any claim. It is how it appears to me. Just like some people can look at a cloud and see a bunny and another person can look and see a cow. It is my perspective – I stated as much.
My exact text was:
Note the words “what it looks like to me” proceeding the claim.
20 years is a pretty small window. But really, Christian violence is not a “needle in a haystack” – considering there is the IRA and the KKK. Limiting the scope to 20 years seems a bit self-serving.
But, you may want to look into Christian terrorism in India or the PRC, or in Uganda. Not to mention the anti-abortionists that use violence and terror.
Throughout this post the Adam Baum would have us believe that Islam’s violence is confined to but a tiny fringe. He entirely ignored the portion of my comment regarding the failure of the majority (when surveyed multiple times),in the D’ar Islam, to condemn the violence committed in the name of Islam. Furthermore:
a)in multiple surveys, Bin Laden received wide support after his major act of terrorism (even though the same majority of Bin Laden supporters believed it was an act of the Mossad).
b) the idolization, by its majority population, of its terrorist martyrs (e.g. the naming of most major boulevards after them in Gaza and the West Bank).
c) the wide majority Muslim support for the fatwas against the cartoonists with mass riots in the streets seeking their death.
So here’s a couple suggestions for excuses (commonly used by the left):
“I bet a lot of people in Spain supported the Inquisition” – in other words excuse Islam’s historic penchant for violence by going back in history to a time when many Christians supported violence. Of course that would mean that the majority of Christians have now matured while the majority of Muslims remain barbaric. Oh well.
Or the Adam Baum could fall back to “There are also violent White Supremacists, violent Christians, violent Hindu, violent nationalists… et al.”
In other words, completely ignore any sense of proportion to their respective populations.
The uselessness of these defenses is that the Adam Baum has already stipulated to the fact that, like the Zulus, the Muslims are a society prone to violence. In case he needs a reminder:
“I was referring to societies that already have a penchant for violence.” (said in the context of explaining that we ought to expect blowback from Muslims).
Now the Adam Baum claimed this is all off topic. No, it is exactly on topic. The topic was decoding American politics. He asked for suggestions. I supplied one. I defined every variety of leftist as being: “a Dhimmi coward, suicidally ignorant and Anti-freedom.”
I offer proof. Proof that the Adam Baum and his ilk are not committed to any serious solution to restore our right to free speech. Evidence of such is his reaction to Terry Jones, arrested for exercising his free speech. Then there’s the innocuous Seattle Times reporter who, after suggesting “draw Mohammed day”, was forced to give up her whole life and identity and go underground (as do ALL outspoken Islamic heretics in this country).
Yes, the Adam Baum says he favors free speech in the face of Muslim intimidation and I believe him (even though he is so quick to cast an unsupportable taint upon Terry Jones). But is there any indication that he favors doing anything to restore free speech in the U.S.?
If the Adam Baum were to be as outraged, express it, at this calamity with even just one quarter the emotion he puts behind his hatred for Beck and Palin well then we might think otherwise. Does the Adam Baum have any solution to our loss of freedom? Has he ever considered what MUST be done to restore it? I will venture to guess not one iota. Why? Because Islam’s threats are against Western civilization and a leftist dislikes Islam but hates America.
No matter how much he asserts otherwise, you shall know him by whom he routinely criticizes and who he routinely defends.
So, how many Indonesian Muslim terrorists can you name? Considering that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, it would have to be quite a few… talk about ignoring sense of proportion.
If I were to ignore any sense of proportion and judge Christians by American Evangelicals, then I would say that Christians are just as prone to violence as Muslims, if not more. At least in rhetoric, American Christians are a scary bunch of turds… threatening violence against gays, “heretics” and just about everyone else they dislike. The truth is that the violence is the problem and people are free to believe whatever stupid superstition that they wish.
I accepted your suggestion and explained that it will not be used because it has no substance. I don’t find it amusing, or based on any factual information.
As I stated then, Terry Jones has the right to make whatever political criticisms he wishes…and I have every right to explain why I think it’s a bunch of irresponsible shit.
Where did it go? When was the last time someone was silenced by the government?
This routinely confuses me. Because I believe Islam deserves the same rights as Christianity, that means I support Islam over Christianity? This is absolute nonsense. I could give a fuck about Mohammed or Jesus. If you want to give a fuck about Jesus, go ahead. If you want to give a fuck about Mohammed, go ahead. Just do not expect me to give a shit. I don’t care what book you want to get on your knees and flog yourself to… you can even prosthelytize, just don’t get mad when the honey badger doesn’t give a shit.