The religious imperative

[solicitr]

....who actually did things to be prosecuted for - their actions and deeds.

No, they were prosecuted for their words. Are you attempting to justify it?

[solicitr]

Nobody has taken away the right of the former Miss California to speak or be heard in any forum which will have her. She has not been silenced. The former Miss California has no right to be Miss Californai and thus be on the national stage if she violated the terms of her contract. People speak out on the issues of illegal immigration and racial hiring quotas all the time. Lou Dobbs did it almost every night. There is not law against such discussion. If every person in America wanted to speak out against gay marriage or immigration or racial quotas right now, there is nothing to stop or silence them.

My goodness, already confusing two issues.

Please observe: the issue of prosecutions outside the US for SPEECHCRIME is a separate matter from the non-prosecutorial use of the Bigot shilleleagh to humilate and marginalize, in the US and elsewhere. It is the unorganized social condemnation Prim was referring to above.

If there was any bigotry operative in the Carrie Prejean matter, it was the anti-Christian bigotry of that pinkhaired little toad who deliberately set her up. Do you really believe anyone was fooled by the transparent pretext that she was targeted for 'contract violations?' Please. That's like saying the Feds targeted Al Capone over unpaid taxes.

[Primula Baggins]

solicitr, I have asked sauronsfinger to let go of this; now I'm asking you.

I can't afford to spend the rest of the afternoon reading this thread every five minutes. Please, both of you, give us all a break.

[sauronsfinger]

I am happy to comply with the request.

[Cerin]

So we're talking about two separate things. Legal prosecution in other countries for speaking ideas that are considered heinous, and non-legal ostracization that happens here and elsewhere to people who voice ideas that are unacceptable or are becoming less acceptable, depending on the community. Opposition to calling gay partnerships 'marriage' is definitely one of the latter, because some people consider that an opposition to calling them that unequivocally and unambiguously indicates bigotry on the part of those opposed, and that is the way it has been framed by gay 'marriage' advocates.

[solicitr]

Yes, Cerin, exactly.

But trying to bring this back on topic:

We were talking about whether we, collectively, can arrive with a moral understanding of sufficiently strong foundation to assail a claimed 'religious' ideology which, according to that understanding, is heinous? And if we can, than can that condemnation be expressed without being pilloried as Bigots?

Because, it seems (from the Can o' Worms) that condemnation, social ostracism, shunning, whatever informal sanctions are called, currently are only permitted against ideologies which are *both* heinous and 'bigoted.' And this, I suggest, is because 'tolerance' has become the Great Commandment, demanding the acceptance (or at least the polite treatment) of the heinous, so long as it's not 'bigoted' (hence the privileged treatment of Communists vis-a-vis Nazis. I doubt any student would get away with wearing an Eichmann T-shirt).

[sauronsfinger]

For practical purposes, you cannot stop anyone in a free society with free speech for saying directly or merely implying through suggestion that a persons views are
a- unfriendly to some minority groups
b- tinged with prejudice
c- are helping to foster an environment of prejudice or bigotry
d- outright bigoted

I imagine that one who is labeled with the outright charge of bigot could then claim some sort of damages and possibly sue in court if they could prove their claims. But what is the point this overall discussion other than to point out that there are people in our society who judge others and apply labels to them - as is their right to do.

Is the real complaint not that people are speaking out but that not enough people are speaking out in a certain manner or in favor of a certain ideological position?

Cerin said this on page one of this thread

But then again, I don't quite understand the premise of the thread.

I have to agree. the OP was 99% a reprint of an article and the OP poster said very little about it.

[Primula Baggins]

sauronsfinger, please drop this now.

[Cerin]

We were talking about whether we, collectively, can arrive with a moral understanding of sufficiently strong foundation to assail a claimed 'religious' ideology which, according to that understanding, is heinous?

I would say we can. I think there would be universal condemnation of that religious imperative that started the thread, except by those who espoused that religious ideology. The trouble comes in how we label it. If we label it as extremist Islam, then we're fine. If we try to label it as mainstream Islam, then the agreement falls apart.

And if we can, than can that condemnation be expressed without being pilloried as Bigots?

I think people can condemn extremist Islam (suicide bombings) or extremist Christianity (murder of abortion doctors) without being pilloried as bigots.

But what is the point this overall discussion other than to point out that there are people in our society who judge others and apply labels to them - as is their right to do.

I think we're trying to explore the phenomenon of intolerance as the new pre-eminent sin -- and specifically how the intolerance of intolerance manifests in relation to various religious ideologies.


edit spelling

[Cerin]

Because, it seems (from the Can o' Worms) that condemnation, social ostracism, shunning, whatever informal sanctions are called, currently are only permitted against ideologies which are *both* heinous and 'bigoted.' And this, I suggest, is because 'tolerance' has become the Great Commandment, demanding the acceptance (or at least the polite treatment) of the heinous, so long as it's not 'bigoted' (hence the privileged treatment of Communists vis-a-vis Nazis. I doubt any student would get away with wearing an Eichmann T-shirt).

Perhaps bigotry is the only thing everyone can agree is heinous?

[Lidless]

Isn't the Old Testament mainy "God commanded me to kill him / them?"

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

We were talking about whether we, collectively, can arrive with a moral understanding of sufficiently strong foundation to assail a claimed 'religious' ideology which, according to that understanding, is heinous?

I would claim all religious ideology is heinous. It encourages belief without thought and reliance on beings that are the opposite of empirical. I can surely make this claim since my beliefs are directly opposite of it (atheism). I'm sure plenty of people here would disagree, so whether we can "collectively" come to some agreement especially about belief systems is a pointless attempt since we will never all agree.

Perhaps bigotry is the only thing everyone can agree is heinous?

What is bigotry? Where is the line between bigotry and expressing your own beliefs? I don't have an answer except that bigotry is going to be very subjective.

[Frelga]

Isn't the Old Testament mainy "God commanded me to kill him / them?"

Actually it's mainly about sex. Try reading it some time.

[superwizard]

Anwar al-Aulaqi, Hasan’s one-time spiritual leader, after the mass murder:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.

The fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

I found Anwar al-Aulaqi statement quite pathetic actually. I'm no scholar in Islam and I won't pretend to be but I do know a thing or two and I have probably read more about it than most people (including muslims) and I can say quite definitively that the case against Hasan's actions cannot only be made but is actually based on some of the most commonly accepted legalistic principles in Islamic law. I won't go into too much detail but the basic concept is that under Islamic law you are unable to violate any contract that you have previously signed even if that contract is seen as unfair. As long as you have willfully signed this you are obligated to keep it. By accepting to be an American Citizen and the American Military he clearly violated his contracts when he sought to harm and murder people he had sworn to protect. In traditional Islamic jurisprudence this obligation actually supersedes most other obligations. The law originated back when Mohammad signed a contract and refused to break it even though doing so meant that he could not harbor Muslims that escaped his enemies and when his enemies came to take them away he handed them back to them.

Of course I understand that there will be some fringe fanatics who will disagree with this argument but I just felt the need to actually put in what most scholars would argue today...

[Primula Baggins]

Thank you, s'wiz. That's really illuminating.

[solicitr]

Superwizard, I don't disagree at all, and I am *not* trying to lump all Muslims or all of Islam in with the radicals. But the quotation demonstrates that there exists a strain of religious belief (in this case a branch of Islam, but it could be a branch of Zoroastrianism or anything else) which asserts a religious imperative for murder and mayhem.

-----------------

Isn't the Old Testament mainy "God commanded me to kill him / them?"

No, not really. Sure, you can find those passages (and anti-Christians love to quote them); but they're minor, and (more importantly) within the historical context of the Israelites' wars (offensive and defensive) in that violent corner of the world. You won't find any prospective commands for all time to go out and Kill X; particular commands allegedly received to smite the Amalekites or whomever are not part of the Law of universal application.

[Pearly Di]

For the record and for whatever it's worth, I was genuinely shocked and disgusted to learn that there are places where being a Holocaust denier is a crime.

It's a crime in Germany and various other European countries, yov. Countries where the Holocaust took place.

It's not illegal in the UK or US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again ... ust_denial

Very tricky issue. But perhaps we can understand this legislation in countries where the Holocaust actually happened.

[yovargas]

Of course I understand it, but I strongly oppose it nonetheless.

[vison]

Of course I understand it, but I strongly oppose it nonetheless.

I oppose it as well. The worst thing about prosecuting these b******s is that it gives them publicity. The infamous monstrous Ernst Zundl comes to mind. And his creep of a lawyer, who has made a career out of defending such persons. The defense of "free speech" is fine with me, but in the Zundl case, we were presented with a Canadian courtroom where Zundl and his lawyer seemed to be able to get away with demanding that the Holocaust be proven to have happened. Sickening beyond words. He should have been left alone to spew his hateful bile and then, if chance offered, stepped on like the insect he is. And that's an insult to insects.

We all have vile thoughts upon occasion, although there may be those who deny THAT. We are free to think as we like. And with certain long-established exceptions, we are free to speak as we like. Past Canadian governments have made the mistake of extending those exceptions to "hate speech", with which I disagree utterly.

However, the current PM is courting the "minorities" awfully religiously, since they tend to be socially conservative - and so he can't risk offending them by striking down this asinine law.

The Liberals used to have a lock on the immigrant vote, but the Liberals turned out to be, you know, sorta Liberal and supported gay marriage and that sort of thing, so the socially conservative ethnic voters have sidestepped to the Right. If the excessively uninteresting and uninspiring M. Ignatieff ever actually gets to be PM, he's got to grow a set and do something about this. Or whoever the next Liberal PM is.

[sauronsfinger]

Cerin explains

I think we're trying to explore the phenomenon of intolerance as the new pre-eminent sin -- and specifically how the intolerance of intolerance manifests in relation to various religious ideologies.

thank you for that explanation.

There is no evidence that intolerance is the new pre-eminent sin above all else. At least I have not seen any presented here or elsewhere.

Many different religions have its fanatics who feel they are empowered or justified by their theology. This is nothing new or different. We have gone through many ages of history and the books are filled with examples of intolerance resulting in murder and other terrible crimes.

A question that I think deserves to be answered - what is wrong with making intolerance or bigotry or discrimination something which society sees as a negative and something which should be discouraged if not altogether eradicated?

We certainly have gone through the opposite swing of that pendulum and know the evils of socially accepted bigotry and intolerance. Trying to foster an environment in the world where intolerance and bigotry are scorned and reviled appears to me as definite progress.

This is encouraging

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

CAIR REPUDIATES PRAISE FOR FORT HOOD SHOOTER

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/9/09) The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today repudiated online remarks by a former Virginia imam praising Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who allegedly killed 13 people and wounded 29 others in a shooting spree last week at Fort Hood in Texas.
The posting on the web site of Anwar al-Awlaki called Hasan a “hero” and said American Muslim groups, like CAIR, that condemned the Fort Hood attack are “hypocrites” and traitors to Islam.

In a statement, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

“As American Muslims said with one voice when this cowardly attack first occurred, no ideology could ever justify or excuse such violence. To call the alleged killer a ‘hero’ makes a mockery of every Islamic principle of justice. The twisted and misguided views in Anwar al-Awlaki’s posting are not those of American Muslims and do not reflect mainstream Islamic beliefs or sentiments.”

Immediately following the attack at Fort Hood, CAIR issued a strong condemnation of the deadly shootings and urged the nation to remain calm and unified.

It is very dangerous to allow a few fanatics and extremists give us the wrong picture of over a billion people on this planet.