Speaking Of Passing Thoughts...
Geoff Miller
Why is it that devout Christians are often referred to
as "committed" Christians, but one seldom, if ever,
hears adherents of other religions described as "com-
mitted?"
This came to mind when I read this article about the
film "Groundhog Day," of all things -- a film which
I thought was okay, if not worthy of seeing a second
time, but that evidently has quite a following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/goldberg200602020835.asp
I guess I'd place this film into the same category as the
Meat Loaf song "Paradise By the Dashboard Light": things
that were mildly entertaining once and tedious from then
onward, but that have an inexplicable fan base.
Personally I think *most* Christians should be committed,
but I suppose that's neither here nor there...
Geoff
--
"There now...nominating a conservative to the Supreme Court
wasn't that scary, was it? Hey, who wants to go again?"
-- Ann Coulter
Veronique
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Why is it that devout Christians are often referred to
> as "committed" Christians, but one seldom, if ever,
> hears adherents of other religions described as "com-
> mitted?"
My theory is, the default American is supposedly Christian. Given this
default, there needs to be an adjective appended to indicate Christians
who actually practice Christianity.
Compare this with Mormons, who are by default "committed." That
religion has an adjective for those who consider themselves Mormon but
are not church-going nor devout, eg. "Jack Mormon."
The non-devout Jews I know are still pretty committed to being Jewish,
although this doesn't necessarily translate into being religious.
Good question. Twenty points for Slytherin.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Don Steiny
are born Jewish, it is a pain to convert to it. It seems that the more
improbable and voluntary the dogma, the more it takes commitment to
adhere to it. To be a good Christian one has to ignore so much of what
is going on around them.
-Don
Veronique
The Mormons I know (admittedly not a huge sample size) don't talk about
being committed Mormons, because by definition, to be/call oneself
Mormon means commitment to a particular way of life. I respectfully
disagree as to the improbability of the dogma being in inverse
relationship to religious commitment. I see a direct relationship, but
then I'm a reformed Southern
Babdist-turned-secular-humanist-atheist-babykiller-enviro-nut, so maybe
I'm just sensitive.
Don Steiny
I am not sure that saying someone is committed and he or she being
committed are the same thing. But, in any event, I was joking. A
Christian would probably not think "that is great: that person keeps
believing in this stuff, even though it is ridiculous." There is a
paradox there. Another layer to the joke is that from an external point
of view, the idea of faith over observation is a strange one and would
require some sort of logic like that.
I'll have to take your word about Mormons. I have never heard anyone
refer to a "committed Christian" either.
It could be a like a fossilized relic going back to remote times when
the Christians conquered others and forced them to convert. Someone was
"committed" if they didn't convert right back if they had the chance.
With language there are lots of old things that just stay there, like
ox/oxen instead of ox/oxes. Of course, it could be as you say, that if a
person does not practice ritual cannibalism, try to intimidate
non-believers into converting, tithe, accept Jesus into their hear and
such, they are not really committed. I don't think it is possible to
figure out the answer to the question by thought experiments. You would
have to ask someone what he or she meant.
-Don
Geoff Miller
Veronique <veroniq...@yahoo.com> writes:
> My theory is, the default American is supposedly Christian.
> Given this default, there needs to be an adjective appended
> to indicate Christians who actually practice Christianity.
Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me.
> Compare this with Mormons, who are by default "committed." That
> religion has an adjective for those who consider themselves
> Mormon but are not church-going nor devout, eg. "Jack Mormon."
You've committed the exceedingly rare error or substituting "e.g."
("exempli gratia" -- "for example") for "i.e." ("id est -- "that
is," or more commonly, "in other words"). The opposite error is
far more common. If I were you, I'd start looking for four-leaf
clovers right about now. Maybe even toddle on over to that likker
store on the corner and invest in a lottery ticket.
In any case, did the term "jack Mormon" originate in the LDS Church,
or outside of it? Knowing what I do of the Mormons, I suspect that
their own term for such a person would be far less neutral-sounding.
"Jack" seems to translate as "not quite a ~," with the tilde being
a placeholder for something in particular. For example, there's
"jackrabbit," which could reasonably be translated as "not quite
a rabbit." I don't know of any other examples aside from "jack-
rabbit" and "jack Mormon."
Ever heard about Mormon underwear? That was a very recent discovery
for me. Apparently married Mormons were this thin, abbreviated long
underwear, called "garments" (or informally, "garmies") as sacred and
literal protection against evil:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon013.htm
(This entire site, exmormon.org, is a trip. And not in a positive
way, either, but in a "make your hair stand on end" sort of way.
Yeesh.)
> The non-devout Jews I know are still pretty committed to being
> Jewish, although this doesn't necessarily translate into being
> religious.
Which would seem to be rather contradictory, since the Jewish
religion and its practices and observances are what define
being a Jew.
> Good question. Twenty points for Slytherin.
"Time was Slytherin like a well-used condom out of my grasp."
Veronique
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Veronique <veroniq...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > My theory is, the default American is supposedly Christian.
> > Given this default, there needs to be an adjective appended
> > to indicate Christians who actually practice Christianity.
>
> Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me.
>
>
> > Compare this with Mormons, who are by default "committed." That
> > religion has an adjective for those who consider themselves > > Mormon but are not church-going nor devout, eg. "Jack Mormon."
>
> You've committed the exceedingly rare error or substituting "e.g."
> ("exempli gratia" -- "for example") for "i.e." ("id est -- "that
> is," or more commonly, "in other words"). The opposite error is
> far more common. If I were you, I'd start looking for four-leaf
> clovers right about now. Maybe even toddle on over to that likker
> store on the corner and invest in a lottery ticket.
I knew that. It comes of being overeducated (on my part, I mean.) Last
time I bought a lottery ticket, I only got one number (out of what, 40
possible? Five rows of six?), which made it painfully clear how
abundantly stupid "investing" in the lottery is. OTOH, going from 0 to
1 ups the chances the most. OTOH, I only buy lottery tickets from the
7-Eleven a few blocks away and it's spritzing outside and I'm in my
mid-winter-grossly-lazy season.
>
> In any case, did the term "jack Mormon" originate in the LDS Church,
> or outside of it? Knowing what I do of the Mormons, I suspect that
> their own term for such a person would be far less neutral-sounding.
I think it is Mormons (or Jack Mormons, anyway) who refer to themselves
as such. I first heard the term in Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench
Gang."
>
> "Jack" seems to translate as "not quite a ~," with the tilde being
> a placeholder for something in particular. For example, there's
> "jackrabbit," which could reasonably be translated as "not quite
> a rabbit." I don't know of any other examples aside from "jack-
> rabbit" and "jack Mormon."
>
> Ever heard about Mormon underwear? That was a very recent discovery
> for me. Apparently married Mormons were this thin, abbreviated long
> underwear, called "garments" (or informally, "garmies") as sacred and
> literal protection against evil:
Darlin', I have not only heard of Mormon underwear, I have seen it on a
gen-u-ine nearly nekkid Mormon. (I may _look_ all sweet 'n'
innocent...)
>
> http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon013.htm
>
> (This entire site, exmormon.org, is a trip. And not in a positive
> way, either, but in a "make your hair stand on end" sort of way.
> Yeesh.)
Sure. There's a couple of books out about the Mormon forgery murders,
if you're into modest serial killing. And if you want to read a lovely
account of modern-day polygamy and murder, there's always Jon
Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven."
>
>
> > The non-devout Jews I know are still pretty committed to being
> > Jewish, although this doesn't necessarily translate into being
> > religious.
>
> Which would seem to be rather contradictory, since the Jewish
> religion and its practices and observances are what define
> being a Jew.
Well, I've heard that, and I've also heard being Jewish is a cultural
or hereditary thing, but having grown up in a fairly Jewish
neighborhood, I know less about their peculiar religious rites than
Mormons (who have fascinated me ever since my tour of Oz I mean the
temple right outside the Beltway near Washington DC. That room of
mirrors made a hell of an impression.)
> Geoff
>
> --
> "There now...nominating a conservative to the Supreme Court
> wasn't that scary, was it? Hey, who wants to go again?"
> -- Ann Coulter
'Specially since he seems to be a stealth liberal, a la Souter... <g>
Geoff Miller
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
> I'll have to take your word about Mormons. I have never heard anyone
> refer to a "committed Christian" either.
I'm genuinely surprised; it's a fairly common expression. I thought
you were supposedly the guy who got around. And to think that I was
about to start calling you "Perry Patetic"...
> It could be a like a fossilized relic going back to remote times when
> the Christians conquered others and forced them to convert.
I thought it was the Mozzers who did that sort of thing.
Speaking of which, I was heartened to see a rare display of European
spine this week when the Danish prime minister refused to apologize
for a Danish newspaper's printing those inflammatory cartoons of
Mohammed. Who'd've thought that the first nascent glimmering of
European backbone would come from little Denmark, of all places?
Even France managed to stop cowering in the face of Islam long
enough for Jacques Chirac ("some call him the Bloodhound") to
hint that France might nuke the ragheads if they got too far
out of line. Goody.
Geoff
--
"That's the rule of consonants. There are only a finite number of Rs
in the world. Therefore, whenever someone in Boston paks the cah,
someone in Pittsburgh warshes the clothes." -- Rabbit
Geoff Miller
Veronique <veroniq...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I knew that. It comes of being overeducated (on my part, I mean.) Last
> time I bought a lottery ticket, I only got one number (out of what, 40
> possible? Five rows of six?), which made it painfully clear how
> abundantly stupid "investing" in the lottery is.
It may be, but not because you only got one number one time.
> I think it is Mormons (or Jack Mormons, anyway) who refer to themselves
> as such. I first heard the term in Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench
> Gang."
I've been meaning to read that for years. I understand that it
inspired a whole generation of treehugging waterheads, like that
bimbo who pissed away a year of her life up in a tree that she'd
named "Luna." Christ in a Countach...
> Sure. There's a couple of books out about the Mormon forgery murders,
> if you're into modest serial killing. And if you want to read a lovely
> account of modern-day polygamy and murder, there's always Jon
> Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven."
I just acquired a copy of that, as a matter of fact. I'll be getting
to it soon. I heard Krakauer interviewed on "Fresh Air" awhile back,
and he really piqued my interest in the book.
> Well, I've heard that, and I've also heard being Jewish is a cultural
> or hereditary thing, but having grown up in a fairly Jewish neighbor-
> hood, I know less about their peculiar religious rites than Mormons
> (who have fascinated me ever since my tour of Oz I mean the temple
> right outside the Beltway near Washington DC. That room of mirrors
> made a hell of an impression.)
I thought non-Morms weren't permitted inside temples. Maybe that
only applies to the one in Salt Lake City.
> 'Specially since he seems to be a stealth liberal, a la Souter... <g>
Based on his position on one case? I think you're engaging in wishful
thinking. One can't plot much of a curve from a single data point.
Veronique
> > I think it is Mormons (or Jack Mormons, anyway) who refer to themselves
> > as such. I first heard the term in Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench
> > Gang."
>
> I've been meaning to read that for years. I understand that it
> inspired a whole generation of treehugging waterheads, like that
> bimbo who pissed away a year of her life up in a tree that she'd
> named "Luna." Christ in a Countach...
Oh, you mean Julia "I've got control issues" Butterfly? I heard her
talk at Bookshop Santa Cruz a few years back when she'd finally climbed
down. My overall impression was, "What a bitch!"
(My dislike of Ms Butterfly in no way endorses logging of old growth,
but geez, talk about making Our Side look bad...)
You'll be amused by Abbey's book. His protagonists are a long way away
from what you've come to imagine as pansy-assed liberals.
> > Well, I've heard that, and I've also heard being Jewish is a cultural
> > or hereditary thing, but having grown up in a fairly Jewish neighbor-
> > hood, I know less about their peculiar religious rites than Mormons
> > (who have fascinated me ever since my tour of Oz I mean the temple
> > right outside the Beltway near Washington DC. That room of mirrors
> > made a hell of an impression.)
>
> I thought non-Morms weren't permitted inside temples. Maybe that
> only applies to the one in Salt Lake City.
They aren't. After a month or so of allowing the filthy gentiles to
assuage their curiosity (and acquire free copies of the Book of
Mormon-- I tend to agree with Mark Twain's assessment of its
readability), they closed the place to the unChosen, tore out every
carpet, scraped the walls, and reestablished its purity.
>
>
> > 'Specially since he seems to be a stealth liberal, a la Souter... <g>
>
> Based on his position on one case? I think you're engaging in wishful
> thinking. One can't plot much of a curve from a single data point.
It's my Pollyanna personality, dude.
Don Steiny
> Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
>
>> I'll have to take your word about Mormons. I have never heard anyone
>> refer to a "committed Christian" either.
>
> I'm genuinely surprised; it's a fairly common expression. I thought
> you were supposedly the guy who got around. And to think that I was
> about to start calling you "Perry Patetic"...
>
people I know. Very few people I know are religious. As I said, we
travel in different circles. There are so many religions and people are
sensitive about them.
-Don
Geoff Miller
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
[Don had never heard the expression "committed Christian"]
> I don't watch TV and the religion stuff does not come up much among
> people I know. Very few people I know are religious. As I said, we
> travel in different circles.
The implication, of course, being that yours are much more rarefied and
highbrow than mine. Why else would you have defaulted to the lowest
common denominator and assumed that television had anything to do with
my knowledge of this figure of speech?
Truth be told, I watch very little television, and practically none of
the network variety. And I don't remember ever having heard this ex-
pression on TV, in any case.
What I do is read. Voraciously. Have since I was knee-high to a high
knee, in fact. And I talk to my share of people, as well, both online
and in person.
> There are so many religions and people are sensitive about them.
That's all the more reason to discuss them, I'd say. And maybe even
have some fun with the sensitive types in the bargain. "You don't
really *believe* that silly-assed Christian crap, do you? Do you
talk to your invisible friend every night before bed?"
Or, "What's up with you frothing, Bronze Age fanatics that you can't
handle a few mediocre cartoons published in a newspaper in another
goddam country? What exactly do you people have up your butts? Why,
somebody ought to grab the ends of your turbans and spin you around!"
See? You really are missing a lot of opportunities.
Geoff
--
"Eat Football, Sleep Football, Drink my hot, salty jism."
-- Joseph Betz
Tim May
Veronique <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Geoff Miller wrote:
> > Veronique <veroniq...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> > > I think it is Mormons (or Jack Mormons, anyway) who refer to themselves
> > > as such. I first heard the term in Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench
> > > Gang."
> >
> > I've been meaning to read that for years. I understand that it
> > inspired a whole generation of treehugging waterheads, like that
> > bimbo who pissed away a year of her life up in a tree that she'd
> > named "Luna." Christ in a Countach...
>
>
> Oh, you mean Julia "I've got control issues" Butterfly? I heard her
> talk at Bookshop Santa Cruz a few years back when she'd finally climbed
> down. My overall impression was, "What a bitch!"
>
> (My dislike of Ms Butterfly in no way endorses logging of old growth,
> but geez, talk about making Our Side look bad...)
"Split wood, not atoms!"
So now when we log the forests to burn in our stoves and fireplaces,
the lefties and feministas freak out.
As for tree sitters, here in Corralitos we had one of those nitwits
trying to stop logging. Some real brights lights aimed his way dropped
that sucker on the ground. A good use of technology to defeat a
Luddite.
--Tim May
Don Steiny
> Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
>
> [Don had never heard the expression "committed Christian"]
>
>> I don't watch TV and the religion stuff does not come up much among
>> people I know. Very few people I know are religious. As I said, we
>> travel in different circles.
>
> The implication, of course, being that yours are much more rarefied and
> highbrow than mine. Why else would you have defaulted to the lowest
> common denominator and assumed that television had anything to do with
> my knowledge of this figure of speech?
>
> Truth be told, I watch very little television, and practically none of
> the network variety. And I don't remember ever having heard this ex-
> pression on TV, in any case.
>
> What I do is read. Voraciously. Have since I was knee-high to a high
> knee, in fact. And I talk to my share of people, as well, both online
> and in person.
Great, what do you read? I read what I read because I have to, so it
is not so much that it is one way or the other. When I can I read
fiction, but I have a pile of books I need to read that I don't know
when I will get through and none of them will have the string "committed
Christian" in them, I am quite sure.
>
> Or, "What's up with you frothing, Bronze Age fanatics that you can't
> handle a few mediocre cartoons published in a newspaper in another
> goddam country? What exactly do you people have up your butts? Why,
> somebody ought to grab the ends of your turbans and spin you around!"
>
> See? You really are missing a lot of opportunities.
>
Maybe, and for some I do, but I know some people that have been very
good to me that have strange beliefs and I just don't sweat it.
-Don
Tired Of Ragheads
Veronique <veroniq...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Oh, you mean Julia "I've got control issues" Butterfly? I heard her
> talk at Bookshop Santa Cruz a few years back when she'd finally climbed
> down. My overall impression was, "What a bitch!"
Yeah, her. I'd forgotten how hippie-dippy her name was. It sounds
like the name of a character from The President's Analyst or something.
Anyway, do tell: what did she have to say when you heard her speak,
and why do you say she has control issues? All I know about her is
what I read in da paperz.
> You'll be amused by Abbey's book. His protagonists are a long way away
> from what you've come to imagine as pansy-assed liberals.
I'll add it to the pile.
> They aren't. After a month or so of allowing the filthy gentiles to
> assuage their curiosity (and acquire free copies of the Book of
> Mormon-- I tend to agree with Mark Twain's assessment of its
> readability), they closed the place to the unChosen, tore out every
> carpet, scraped the walls, and reestablished its purity.
Please tell me you don't mean that literally.
Geoff
--
"You're about as charismatic as an AIDS-soaked chainsaw."
-- Mike S. Parrish
Veronique
Tired Of Ragheads wrote:
> Veronique writes:
>
> > Oh, you mean Julia "I've got control issues" Butterfly? I heard her
> > talk at Bookshop Santa Cruz a few years back when she'd finally climbed
> > down. My overall impression was, "What a bitch!"
>
> Yeah, her. I'd forgotten how hippie-dippy her name was. It sounds
> like the name of a character from The President's Analyst or something.
>
> Anyway, do tell: what did she have to say when you heard her speak,
> and why do you say she has control issues? All I know about her is
> what I read in da paperz.
The main thing I remember was her tearing into the audience for having
the audacity walk around downtown drinking coffee from paper cups-- my
impression from her ire was maybe she thought the paper used by Santa
Cruz Coffee Roasting Co. and Peet's is made from old growth redwood.
Being a coalition-builder myself (when I'm not posting to usenet,
anyway), I thought even us liberals get tired of shouldering the guilt
for the entire downfall of creation and maybe she should use her
tree-sitting capital more productively. Her descriptions of sitting and
living in the tree were pretty amazing. Her attitude of, "I suffered to
have this amazing experience and it's all your fault" (for values of
'fault' being The Enormous Environmental Crisis Among Which We
Live)...well, to concede a point, there are too damn many people
consuming too damn many things, but enlightened self-interest goes a
lot further towards modifying outcomes than totalitarian flagellation.
Or something. Her father was an evangelical preacher, and she's
inherited that to some extent. As with so many celebrities du jour, her
message-- cutting down old growth is non-sustainable and we lose a lot
more than we gain-- got lost in her attitude.
> > They aren't. After a month or so of allowing the filthy gentiles to
> > assuage their curiosity (and acquire free copies of the Book of
> > Mormon-- I tend to agree with Mark Twain's assessment of its
> > readability), they closed the place to the unChosen, tore out every
> > carpet, scraped the walls, and reestablished its purity.
>
> Please tell me you don't mean that literally.
>
Hey, I'm just the reporter. "Carpets" and "purity" are non-sequitors,
IMNSHO.
(Wish someone'd tear out my bedroom carpets and reestablish wood
floors, literally.)
Geoff Miller
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
> Great, what do you read?
Mostly nonfiction. A smattering of history, quite a bit of socio-
cultural and political stuff, and an assortment of magazines that
I subscribe to -- some serious, some less so.
> I read what I read because I have to, so it is not so much that it
> is one way or the other. When I can I read fiction, but I have a
> pile of books I need to read that I don't know when I will get
> through and none of them will have the string "committed Christian"
> in them, I am quite sure.
I note a persistent theme of distancing yourself from anything that
might be tainted by Christianity. I'd wager that you've bought into
the Christianphobia that's common among liberals. That would dove-
tail nicely with your none-too-subtle assumption that I'm uneducated
because I'm a political conservative.
: See? You really are missing a lot of opportunities.
> Maybe, and for some I do, but I know some people that have been very
> good to me that have strange beliefs and I just don't sweat it.
There are a lot of targets of opportunity out there; that's one thing
Usenet is good for. You don't necessarily have to antagonize your
friends and personal acquaintances by ridiculing their closely-held
beliefs.
I hear it's fairly easy to get a rise out of Moslems, for instance.
Geoff
--
"You'd be amazed at what we Ugly Americans can accomplish
with a sufficent amount of plutonium." -- Alan Gore
howard
"Geoff Miller" <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:dsd0tv$9...@u1.netgate.net...
>
>
> Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
>
> > Great, what do you read?
>
> Mostly nonfiction. A smattering of history, quite a bit of socio-
> cultural and political stuff, and an assortment of magazines that
> I subscribe to -- some serious, some less so.
A Republican , WITH A BOOK !!!!!?????
Blimey.
H.
Veronique
Geoff Miller wrote:
> I hear it's fairly easy to get a rise out of Moslems, for instance.
>
I thought this was fairly interesting, vis the Furor:
(From The Telegraph.uk)
If you get rid of the Danes, you'll have to keep paying the Danegeld
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 04/02/2006)
It's some time since I visited Palestine, so I may be out of date, but
I don't remember seeing many Danish flags on sale there. Not much
demand, I suppose. I raise the question because, as soon as the row
about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke,
angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well
supplied with Danish flags ready to burn. (In doing so, by the way,
they offered a mortal insult to the most sacred symbol of my own
religion, Christianity, since the Danish flag has a cross on it, but
let that pass.)
Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that
they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and
burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study
this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.
The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have
provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday,
it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to
brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their
package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not
appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many
thought they had.
It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be
burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who
seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him
to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that
republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those
flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised,
radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this
network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative
journalism.
Now the BBC announces that the head of the International Association of
Muslim Scholars has called for an "international day of anger" about
the cartoons. It did not name this scholar, or tell us who he is. He is
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. According to Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of
London, Qaradawi is like Pope John XXIII for Catholics, "the most
progressive force for change" in the Muslim world.
Yet if you look up Qaradawi's pronouncements, you find that he
sympathises with the judicial killing of homosexuals, and wants the
rejection of dialogue with Jews in favour of "the sword and the rifle".
He is very keen on suicide bombing, especially if the people who blow
themselves up are children - "we have the children bomb". This is a man
for whom a single "day of anger" is surely little different from the
other 364 days of the year.
Which leads me to question the extreme tenderness with which so many
governments and media outlets in the West treat these outbursts of
outrage. It is assumed that Muslims have a common, almost always
bristling, view about their faith, which must be respected. Of course
it is right that people's deeply held beliefs should be treated
courteously, but it is a great mistake - made out of ignorance - to
assume that those who shout the loudest are the most representative.
This was the error in the case in Luton, where a schoolgirl's desire to
wear the jilbab was upheld in the erroneous belief that this is what
Islam demands. In fact, the girl was backed by an extremist group, and
most of the other Muslims at the school showed no inclination to dress
in full-length gowns like her. It's as if the Muslim world decided that
the views of the Rev Ian Paisley represented the whole of authentic
Christianity.
There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about
depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they
fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about
Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from
Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching,
having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey
to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not
everyone agrees about what is permissible.
Some of these depictions are in Western museums. What will the
authorities do if the puritan factions within Islam start calling for
them to be removed from display (this call has been made, by the way,
about a medieval Christian depiction of the Prophet in Bologna)? Will
their feeling of "offence" outweigh the rights of everyone else?
Obviously, in the case of the Danish pictures, there was no danger of
idolatry, since the pictures were unflattering. The problem, rather,
was insult. But I am a bit confused about why someone like Qaradawi
thinks it is insulting to show the Prophet's turban turned into a bomb,
as one of the cartoons does. He never stops telling us that Islam
commands its followers to blow other people up.
If we take fright whenever extreme Muslims complain, we put more power
in their hands. If the Religious Hatred Bill had passed unamended this
week, it would have been an open invitation to any Muslim who likes
getting angry to try to back his anger with the force of law. Even in
its emasculated state, the Bill will still encourage him, thus stirring
the ill-feeling its authors say they want to suppress.
On the Today programme yesterday, Stewart Lee, author of Jerry
Springer: The Opera - in which Jesus appears wearing nappies - let the
cat out of the bag. He suggested that it was fine to offend Christians
because they had themselves degraded their iconography; Islam, however,
has always been more "conscientious about protecting the brand".
The implication of the remark is fascinating. It is that the only
people whose feelings artists, newspapers and so on should consider are
those who protest violently. The fact that Christians nowadays do not
threaten to blow up art galleries, invade television studios or kill
writers and producers does not mean that their tolerance is rewarded by
politeness. It means that they are insulted the more.
Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see
the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported,
to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod
Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with
that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan "God loves
F***ing".
Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live
with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that
people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they
dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn't
I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I
shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and
George off the walls? I won't, I promise, but how much longer before
some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.
There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous
offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers
about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against
the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would
mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant
Islam - fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.
-- as well as this (from SFGate, especially interesting, in a
conspiracy theorist way, about where all those Danish flags for burning
came from instantly):
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2006/02/08/cstillwell.DTL
Something Is Rotten Outside the State of Denmark
- Cinnamon Stillwell
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
A worldwide battle for free speech is taking place, with Denmark at the
center of the storm.
It all began last September when a Danish author writing a book on
Islam was unable to find artists willing to submit illustrations
because of the Islamic stricture against visual representations of
Muhammad. To try and call attention to the issue, the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten put out a call for cartoonists to submit depictions of
Muhammad. Twelve cartoons were submitted and eventually printed in the
newspaper.
The cartoons themselves were a mixed bunch. Some merely depicted
Muhammad as a man, which is by no means a historical first. Other, more
provocative drawings alluded to the realities of terrorism and misogyny
in the Muslim world. But in the risqué realm of political cartoons,
they could hardly be construed as derogatory toward an entire religion.
If compared to the body of criticism and satire connected to Western
religion, the cartoons were downright tame. Government-subsidized art
in the West using human urine and elephant dung to depict Jesus Christ
and the Virgin Mary come to mind.
But judging by the reaction from the Muslim world, one would think that
a crime against humanity had been committed. The response so far has
included demands for apologies and censorship, violent protests, Danish
flag-burnings, attacks on Danish aid workers, employees, diplomats and
embassies, as well as terrorist warnings and death threats. On several
occasions, the staff at Jyllands-Posten was forced to evacuate the
building after a bomb threat, and the cartoonists who drew the Muhammad
series have now gone into hiding.
In Denmark, a group of radical imams and Danish Muslim organizations
tried to pressure the newspaper's editor, Carsten Juste, and Danish
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen into apologizing. Juste
acknowledged that the cartoons may have offended Muslims, but he
refused to express regret over the decision or to back down on the
issue of free speech. Rasmussen issued an apology to the Muslim
community but would not cave in to demands that he censor
Jyllands-Posten. As he put it, "Independent media are not edited by the
government."
The campaign to defame Denmark soon went international, with calls for
Muslim consumers around the world to boycott Danish products. As a
result, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Kuwait and the Palestinians pledged
to join the boycott, and more Muslim countries are sure to follow. The
boycott is already having an impact on sectors of Denmark's economy,
with workers being laid off and businesses put at risk.
Islamists Fan the Flames
No doubt the furor was inflamed by the spreading of three false and
ridiculously over-the-top cartoons via a report handed out by a group
of Danish imams touring the Muslim world and meeting with political,
religious and media figures. Spokesman Akhmad Akkari actually admitted
that the drawings had been added, but claimed the cartoons had been
sent to them anonymously. It seems that the original cartoons were not
sufficiently offensive to whip the Muslim masses into a frenzy.
Whether the protesters constitute large portions of the Muslim
population or simply a radical fringe is still questionable. It
certainly is odd that the cartoons came out in September and are only
now causing such an uproar. How all those Danish flags suddenly
appeared across the Muslim world is another curiosity. Could it be that
this "movement" was in fact orchestrated? The finger has been pointed
at Syria and Iran as possible contenders.
But some Muslims have chosen not to follow the script. Emboldened by
the fortitude of their countrymen, Danish Muslims in the city of Arhus
have begun to speak out against the radical imams who purport to
represent them. "There is a large group of Muslims in this city who
want to live in a secular society and adhere to the principle that
religion is an issue between them and God and not something that should
involve society," said city official and organizer Bünyamin Simsek.
European Media Fight Back
What's more, the European media seem to be experiencing an awakening.
All across Europe, newspaper after newspaper has expressed solidarity
with Jyllands-Posten by reprinting the cartoons. As of this writing,
newspapers in Norway, Germany, Spain, Italy, Holland, the Czech
Republic, Switzerland and Hungary have followed suit. Going further, a
Moscow museum is showing its support for free speech by exhibiting the
entire series of Muhammad cartoons in an upcoming show.
The cartoons were also reprinted in the French newspaper France Soir,
although the editor was fired a day later by the French-Egyptian owner.
Also suffering the same fate were the two brave editors who reprinted
several of the drawings in Jordanian newspapers. Both have since been
arrested under Jordan's press and publications law.
While newspapers in New Zealand and Australia have reprinted the
cartoons and the BBC has aired them on television, the American media
are still coming around. After months of reporting on the story without
reprinting the cartoons, a select few are just now jumping into the
fray.
U.S. Media Off to Slow Start
The New York Sun reprinted one of the cartoons in its print edition and
the Philadelphia Inquirer linked to the cartoons from its Web site,
reprinting one of them in the paper. The Chronicle has avoided
reprinting the cartoons thus far, although its online arm, SF Gate,
published one and linked to others in the World Views international
news blog last week as well as linking in this column. Fox News
broadcast some of the images on television, as did ABC News and the PBS
NewsHour. The Riverside Press-Enterprise and The Dallas Morning News
each ran one of the cartoons.
Other media outlets continue to censor themselves in the name of
cultural sensitivity, but perhaps fear would be a more appropriate
term.
Fortunately, alternative media have taken up the job. Bloggers and Web
sites all over the world have posted the cartoons and reported
extensively on the topic. In reaction to the consumer boycott of Dutch
products emanating from the Muslim world, a "Buy Danish" campaign has
popped up on the Internet, while SupportDenmark.com is offering a
series of pro-Denmark banners.
Chorus of Political Cowards
Other reactions have been less than inspiring.
Former President Bill Clinton chimed in on the subject while speaking
at a UCLA-sponsored conference in Qatar last month. But instead of
supporting Jyllands-Posten's brave defense of free speech, he railed
against what he called "these totally outrageous cartoons against
Islam."
State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper issued a statement on behalf
of the U.S. government that took the same approach. While paying lip
service to freedom of the press, the statement said that the cartoons
were "inciting religious or ethnic hatreds." By remaining effectively
silent, the Bush administration missed a historic opportunity to set
the bar higher.
Instead of providing moral footing, the Vatican provided moral
confusion in a statement that called the drawings an "unacceptable
provocation."
Rounding out the chorus of cowards, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw
accused European newspapers of acting irresponsibly and labeled the
cartoons "insensitive," "disrespectful" and "wrong."
The United Nations' weak-kneed response was equally disappointing. The
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reacted
sympathetically to calls from the Organization of the Islamic
Conference and the Arab League for a U.N. resolution, including
possible sanctions, to ban "religious discrimination." Meanwhile, U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan issued another of his typically ambiguous
statements on the matter. This coming from the man who addressed an
audience at a U.N. conference last November in front of a "map of
Palestine" -- minus the state of Israel.
The European Union, although initially condemning the cartoons, has
since risen to the occasion. With Austria holding the rotating
presidency, the EU expressed its support for freedom of speech. "We
have reiterated our belief and our attachment to the freedom of the
press and freedom of expression as part of our fundamental values,"
said Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik.
Indeed, what's at the heart of the matter is a fundamental
misunderstanding among many Muslims about the meaning of free speech in
the West. While some find the cartoons offensive, that does not give
them the right to ban the cartoons or to react violently.
Free Speech in Action?
The recent controversy in the United States over a Tom Toles cartoon in
the Washington Post is a case in point. The chairman and all five
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent a letter to the editor
critiquing the cartoon, followed by several days of public debate. No
one tried to censor the newspaper for running Toles' cartoon, and no
one's life was threatened. Would that the Washington Post were as
strident in its defense of the Danish cartoonists' rights to free
speech as they were of Toles'.
The Danish cartoon controversy is certainly not the first example of
European writers and artists trying to tackle subjects relating to
Islam and encountering resistance. The murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo
Van Gogh in 2004 was an earlier wake-up call. Van Gogh was
ritualistically murdered by Islamic extremist Muhammad Bouyeri because
his film "Submission" shed light on the oppression of women in Islamic
culture. His partner, Ayan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia and a member of
parliament, was forced to go into hiding, and she retains extensive
security to this day. Interestingly, none of the Hollywood glitterati
came to Van Gogh's defense or even referenced his brutal murder.
Similarly, in 1989 when the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini issued a fatwa authorizing Muslims to murder British author
Salman Rushdie for his allegedly blasphemous book, "The Satanic
Verses," Western apologists for radical Islam said nothing. The leader
of the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,
recently invoked that case, saying that the cartoon dispute would never
have occurred had the death sentence against Rushdie been carried out.
And now an Iranian newspaper has decided to test Westerners' commitment
to free speech by holding a contest for the most inflammatory Holocaust
cartoons. When the expected riots and death threats fail to
materialize, perhaps that will be a lesson in free speech to those who
really need it.
Misguided Multiculturalism
Today's apologists condemn the Danish cartoons, while ignoring real
offenses from the Muslim world. Somehow Muslims inciting hatred toward
other religions on a regular basis has become acceptable, while honest
analysis of Islam has not. The daily eruptions of anti-Semitic and
anti-American sentiment from the Muslim world are hardly pleasant for
those on the receiving end. But instead of stifling speech, opponents
challenge such expression on the intellectual and political
battlefields. Yet some would have us turn a blind eye instead.
How did this double standard arise? The answer is multiculturalism. Not
the multiculturalism of different cultures living side by side, but the
ideology that renders all cultures equal and therefore none worthy of
condemnation. Such moral equivalence allows for the most backward
traditions to flourish, even when they are destructive to the society
as a whole. When democratic societies find themselves dominated by
intolerant cultures to which they have given sanctuary, everyone's
freedom is put at risk.
Multiculturalism also has the effect of erasing any unifying culture or
nationality in favor of a collection of balkanized groups with nothing
in common. In such an environment, integration is forsaken and culture
clashes are sure to follow. The Muslim riots in France last year were a
prime example. Many a reporter chalked it up to the lack of integration
in French society, but few followed that line of thought to its logical
conclusion and named multiculturalism as the root cause.
Political correctness is another of multiculturalism's destructive
offshoots, and there are certainly those in the West who would shield
Muslim populations from legitimate criticism. But they are actually
doing more harm than good. Much-needed reform will never be possible
until Muslims learn to withstand examination like everyone else. Islam
should be subjected to all the scholarly interpretation,
self-reflection, humor and even insult that Western religions
experience.
Beyond economic need, one of the reasons many Muslims immigrated to
Western countries in the first place was to enjoy the sort of freedom
denied to them in their native lands. Turning the West into Afghanistan
under the Taliban will help no one. While Islam may enjoy equality with
other religions, supremacy is another matter. If we are to truly
integrate Muslims into our societies, it must be on an equal footing.
One of the most important and hard-won rights in the West is free
speech. When free speech is chipped away in the name of avoiding
offense, all else is soon forfeit. Western countries will have to
decide where to draw the line -- or find themselves overtaken by
tyranny.
With the controversy over the Muhammad cartoons, Europe seems to be
awakening to this struggle. Will we follow?
V., all for equal opportunity offensensibility
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Don Steiny
> Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
>
>> Great, what do you read?
>
> Mostly nonfiction. A smattering of history, quite a bit of socio-
> cultural and political stuff, and an assortment of magazines that
> I subscribe to -- some serious, some less so.
>
>
>> I read what I read because I have to, so it is not so much that it
>> is one way or the other. When I can I read fiction, but I have a
>> pile of books I need to read that I don't know when I will get
>> through and none of them will have the string "committed Christian"
>> in them, I am quite sure.
>
> I note a persistent theme of distancing yourself from anything that
> might be tainted by Christianity. I'd wager that you've bought into
> the Christianphobia that's common among liberals. That would dove-
> tail nicely with your none-too-subtle assumption that I'm uneducated
> because I'm a political conservative.
>
I really appreciate you calling me a liberal. Here I am a registered
democrat and just because I am for free trade and am not anti-corporate
around here everyone thinks I am right of Atila the Hun. Can use this
to get into SCAN meetings?
I also do not see the term "committed Jew" or "committed Moslem," or
for that matter "committed Atheist." I am not sure what kind of a
discussion that would come up in. I am not saying it is not common, I
am just not sure of the context.
>
> : See? You really are missing a lot of opportunities.
>
>> Maybe, and for some I do, but I know some people that have been very
>> good to me that have strange beliefs and I just don't sweat it.
>
> There are a lot of targets of opportunity out there; that's one thing
> Usenet is good for. You don't necessarily have to antagonize your
> friends and personal acquaintances by ridiculing their closely-held
> beliefs.
>
> I hear it's fairly easy to get a rise out of Moslems, for instance.
I still think that getting offended is a way of controlling others.
-Don
Geoff Miller
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> writes:
: I note a persistent theme of distancing yourself from anything that
: might be tainted by Christianity. I'd wager that you've bought into
: the Christianphobia that's common among liberals. That would dove-
: tail nicely with your none-too-subtle assumption that I'm uneducated
: because I'm a political conservative.
> I really appreciate you calling me a liberal.
Well, I suppose it's a compliment in some circles...
> Here I am a registered democrat and just because I am for free trade
> and am not anti-corporate around here everyone thinks I am right of
> Atila the Hun.
You get off easy. They typically think I'm the Antichrist. Or the
moral equivalent thereof, at least; liberals tehd to be athiests,
after all. Or to hold me personally accountable for every misstep
of the Bush Administration, interestingly enough. A Santa Cruz liberal
friend of mine called me a couple of evenings ago to spew about Bush's
(admittedly harebrained) idea to sign up an Arab company from the
Trucial States to run some major U.S. ports. My response was, "Well,
what do you expect *me* to do about it?"
An experience I've had a number of times has been for people to
assume (in the complete absence of any evidence) that I'm a liberal
like them, even to go so far as to rant about "those conservatives,"
-- and then to react with palpable shock and horror when I let slip
(with no small relish) the truth about myself.
And it isn't just the knowledge of having committed a "fox poss,"
either, although I'm sure that's part of it. Clearly, much of
their unease is the result of finding themselves in close proximity
to one of...*them.* Boogaboogabooga! Liberals are funny that way:
they don't regard conservatives as fundamentally respectable people
like themselves with whom they happen to disagree; as often as not,
they consider us actively *evil.*
They can be downright theatrical about it, too. It's actually quite
funny, like watching a mouse after he's been dropped into a python's
terrarium and suddenly realizes what his place is in the greater
scheme of things. It reminds me of the elevator scene in _Fear And
Loathing In Las Vegas_: "Did you see that? They were *spooked!*
Just like rats in the death-cage!"
> Can use this to get into SCAN meetings?
Who?
> I also do not see the term "committed Jew" or "committed Moslem,"
> or for that matter "committed Atheist." I am not sure what kind
> of a discussion that would come up in. I am not saying it is not
> common, I am just not sure of the context.
I've seen it applied to various public figures by the print media,
have seen a handful of people describe themselves that way on Usenet,
and have heard one or two people describe himself that way in person
(including a recent business associate who gave me The Jesus Pitch).
Maybe it's heard more often in conjunction with Christianity than it
is in conjunction with other religions because of the evangelical/
conversion-oriented nature of modern Christianity, whereas Moslems and
Jews tend to born into their faiths. Well, that and the fact that the
phrase "committed Christian" is alliterative, and we all know how
alliterative phrases and slogans ("digital divide," "road rage") tend
to catch on.
("It isn't a digital divide until I shove my finger into it.")
> I still think that getting offended is a way of controlling others.
Absolutely.
Geoff
--
"The 'offense to Islam' ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims
to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things
on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem."
-- Ann Coulter