Hard News: Appeasing Osama
104 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I think if Osama does rail against the 'liberals' it's in a wider sense. The 'Western Liberal Values' that Osama has the most objection to are the biggies. Rule of law, freedoms of speech and religion, full citizenship rights for females, democracy.
The fact that he's also teed off about our dirty movies and naughty sex kind of misses the point IMO.
As rodgerd says, if AQ's primary grievance is our lefty decadance, they attacked the wrong country.
The whole 'he attacked us primarily because of the lefty libs' argument only makes sense if you believe that had the US been governed by a Southern Baptist/Opus Dei coalition he would have no problem with them placing their armies in the middle east. To think of it is to reject it as an argument.
Another piece of evidence against this silly trope is that jihadist websites use footage of westerrn occupations and dead Muslim children etc in their propaganda, (and have done for years) rather than the gay porn that D'Souza seems to think has got them all het up.
-
piers. indeed. orthodoxy has us believe that christ was a blue-eyed carpenter for example.
modern scholarship argues fairly strongly he was a galilean jew, probably looked more akin to the average arab, and was occupied as a 'teacher' in the same mode as modern rabbi.
the only certainty is that his teachings and actions were as big a perceived threat to the establishment of the day (pro-roman jewish clergy) as OBL is to the USA.
-
I think if Osama does rail against the 'liberals' it's in a wider sense. The 'Western Liberal Values' that Osama has the most objection to are the biggies. Rule of law, freedoms of speech and religion, full citizenship rights for females, democracy.
I think you are probably right (although everything Osama says is so gnomic that it is difficult to ascertain what he believes).
Western conservatives also object to these values, as well their consequences, such as greater sexual freedom. We should not let them remove our freedoms on the spurious grounds that they threaten our security.
-
Mark,
I must say it is always curious how many on the left seem desperate to defend Islam - a faith that is totally contrary to most of what they believe. Yet at the same time seem desperate to shit on Christianity. I guess it is to do with most Muslims being non-white which means they must never be criticised in the left's eyes.
-
Is that PA System's first troll?
-
Neil,
Normally you are pretty sharp but you're letting yourself down today. OBL's primary stated concern with moral values is within the "caliphate". The fact that gay men can marry in Hawaii, I think, is/was of next to no concern to him.
-
stephen. i think so.
pity that none of us are defending islam, but instead trying to point out the hypocrisy of accusations that *it* is orthodox and one-eyed, when christianity is as bad.
-
A great little read on this very subject is Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit's Occidentalism.
A brief example:
O weariness of men, who turn from GOD,
To the grandeur of your mind and the glory of your action,
To arts and inventions and daring enterprises . . .
T.S. Eliot, The Rock (1934)."Blowing up the World Trade Centre in the name of Allah and a holy war is but a crude, literal, murderous echo of Eliot's verses. It is not something from a totally different order."
(__Occidentalism__, Buruma & Margalit, 21) -
From my vague sense of Islamic regional and theological history, it has been questioned. It's just that the situation seems to have regressed.
That flash movie with the empires bouncing back and forth over the Mid East might suggest one factor.
And the more recent upsurge in holier than thou religious conservatism that harks back to a golden age of moral goodness that probably never happened and... sounds oddly familiar.
That may not help with respect to how we deal with the situation now, expect perhaps that Islam is clearly not one huge blob, and the tattered remains of good sense are surely still lying around somewhere I we could only stop causing problems and start helping.
As for shitting on [radical] Christians, that might be partly because it's our problem. It's always a bit less of a shock when foreigners behave badly.
I'd also say that - especially the way things stand - people in our society complaining about our society is likely to be more not counterproductive than our society complaining abouth their society.
-
I always think it's odd when liberals are accused - as they frequently are in some circles - of being in league with radical Islamic conservatives. Surely the people who have common cause with religious conservatives are other religious conservatives? Right?
Well, Russell, I think that's a tad naive. It's sure it's going to be enormous fun watching putatively liberal Democrats cuddling up to some very illiberal black churches, Southern evangelicals (who apparently aren't quite as reliably in the GOP column as CW would have you believe), and Jewish congregations as primary season kicks into high gear.
And with all due respect to Mr. Hood, I don't give the proverbial flying frak at a donut whether someone who thinks my dirty faggot arse is better off dead is a Yankee Christian theo-con, a drooling Eurabian fundie, or your common or garden nondenominational bigot.
-
As for shitting on [radical] Christians, that might be partly because it's our problem. It's always a bit less of a shock when foreigners behave badly.
Where as I care about nutjob Christians more than nutjob Muslims because I know which group are a greater risk to me.
-
Honestly, just watch the Colbert interview where he destroys the man's soul just by staring at it. It was painful to watch Colbert decide he'd had enough and it was time to take the gloves off.
I'm so amused by the argument posed in this book that I just can't take it seriously.
-
I'm not an expert on Islamic history, but what I've gleaned from the backs of cereal boxes (and the occasional actual book) suggests that Islam is anything but the static, unchanging set of fundamentalist, anti-modern beliefs that we see in al-Qaeda and it's followers, and is, in fact, a very complex religion that has shifted often and in curious ways in response to changes within Muslim empires (which, after all, once spanned throughout Northern Africa, Southern Europe, the Balkans, South Asia, and South East Asia as far as Thailand and most of Indonesia) and in response to local condtexts.
For instance, in pre-19th Century Iran, Sufi-ism not only tolerated homosexual behaviour, it positively encouraged it, within strictly encoded parameters and in ways that are very different to our own concept of homosexuality. This practice wasn't restricted to the sufis either -- it made up the core conceptions of Iranian sex and gender discourse for centuries. Now, of course, Iranians get sex changes rather than run the risk of being gay, but the present far from characterises the past.
What we have seen in both the United States and in the Islamic world is a rise in fundamentalism that probably didn't exist in any great numbers before the 20th century. I don't really know why this has happened, or if the two fundamentalisms are somehow connected, but I'm pretty sure that, as Lyndon says, these golden ages that are being appealed to are fictions of the worst kind -- ones that claim to be absolutely true, that have can very real consequences, and that offer no opportunity to admit that they're fiction.
In terms of the Colbert interview, whilst I think that D-Souza has it dangerously wrong, I found Colbert's behaviour depressing. I know that it's satire, but Colbert didn't trick D'Souza into anything, unless you consider twisting someone's arm and making them say "uncle" a particularly clever trick. I don't. I call it bullying. Colbert barely let's D'Souza finish a sentence in the whole interview, and the bit where he "gets" him, D'Souza isn't allowed to say more than three words. Classy. If the tables had been turned, and D'Souza had been able to ask 'yes or no, do you agree with Al-Qaeda that the United States should not be in Iraq?', Colbert would have said yes (had he been out of character). I think Colbert should have given D'Souza enough rope to hang himself -- he would have been quite capable of it.
-
Mark,
Sigh.. No, Stephen I wasn't trying to be a troll just point out the bleeding obvious. Rodgerd, how are nut-job Christians a bigger threat to you? Seriously, I mean I haven't heard TOO many speeches by Anglican vicars telling his congregation Jews are pigs and are going to hell. It must be blindingly obvious that Islam has got some major problems among its basic tenets.
-
When did you stop beating your wife, Mark?
And if Anglican vicars are typical Christians, is the Mad Mufti of Oz a typical Muslim?
-
Oh, and I'm not worried Anglican vicars. I'm worried about Brian Tamaki. He has blackshirts.
-
WH,
The radical Islamic conception of how our world should be organised can (and should) be unequivocally rejected.
I would readily concede that Western power has caused significant injustice, even I though I believe Western power (and the US in particular) to be an positive influence in world affairs. The liberal democratic and mixed economy ideology of the USA is demonstrably superior to the other major ideologies of the 20th century. (No Chomsky or Pilger refutations please.)
I cannot accept that radical Islam is a legitimate response to the considerable injustice that exists in our world; nor can I really understand any attempts to apologise for it. The attempt to directly compare the murderous hate and violence of Al Qaeda to evangelical Christianity is logically fatuous and morally offensive.
-
Mark, as a left wing nutjob of the highest order, I am concerned about religious fundamentalism, whether it comes from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, worship of He of the Noodly Appendages, or anywhere really.
What particularly concerns me is the use of religion and religious institutions as a means of social control - particularly for women and those of minority races and sexualities.
Most religions that are widely recognised seem to me to epitomise the saying "broad church". I've encountered racist, sexist and homophobic Christians but have met others who are not only open-hearted white straight men, but also actively campaign for rights for those others would oppress.
The history of many religions' leaderships is often less enlightened than ordinary members, and change at the highest levels comes slowly. Which is one of several reasons why I'm not interested in joining any religion anytime soon.
I worry a lot about Islamic fundamentalism and what it means particularly for XXers and those who prefer their own sex, but Christian fundamentalism is what I encounter personally more often.
-
Weston, perhaps you need to pay attention to the eliminationist, totalitarian rhetoric of the loony Christian right.
Now of course they are not mainstream, and in New Zealand, they are a tiny minority who will never get any traction. And the vast bulk of Christians in New Zealand are blameless people towards whom I bear no ill-will at all. But if we are talking about the threat of any religion, and looking to its extremists as the expression of that threat, then Tamaki is where I will look rather than an Anglican vicar. No, there is currently no Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda; but there have been eliminationist Christian movements in the past, including the recent past, with equally murderous programmes, and no doubt there will be again.
More generally, I find Mark's unfounded assertions equally offensive. Like span, I'm equally opposed to fundmentalism of all kinds.
Some people have a kind of projection going on. They presume that since they're right wing, and right-wingers hate (what they imagine to be) Islam, that lefties must love it. No basis in fact required.
-
yeah, mark the "fundamentally flawed" religion meme is not only wrong, it's *deliberately* wrong.
the tenets of islam are *wild* and *radical* ideas like charity, the battle to self-improve ("jihad"), and community.
the bloke in Australia is a wanker, plain and simple. although, if you've ever witnessed ozzy persecution of minorities, you'd not think him so out of order.
-
WH,
More generally, I find Mark's unfounded assertions equally offensive. Like span, I'm equally opposed to fundamentalism of all kinds.
I respect your scepticism about religion, and my purpose here is not to defend the religious right. However, I think this (and Span's position) are species of false equivalence.
Ba'hai, Brian Tamakism and radical Islam are different; each involves different beliefs and implies different political consequences. However, IMO the consequences of radical Islam are particularly malignant and should be more strongly opposed than the others on moral grounds. It is a failure of both logic and empathy to believe that your local baptist pastor deserves the same contempt as the perpetrators of the Bali bombing.
Terrorism is bad and killing innocent people is wrong. You may not believe this, but its even worse than Ba'hai.
-
Weston mate, who said anything about the local Baptist pastor? Or Bahais? You are proposing straw men here.
(If you think tamaki is a typical baptist you are badly misinformed).
-
Stephen Judd wrote:
Oh, and I'm not worried Anglican vicars. I'm worried about Brian Tamaki. He has blackshirts.Yes, Stephen, and who do you think is more likely to have Helen Clark's diary secretary return his call or get a nice puff-piece in the O'Herald (which is probably real influence in our culture): Brian The Bish, or Anglican Archbishop Whakahuihui 'world without gays' Vercoe? If I was of a left-wing frame of mind, I'd be very worried about the Anglican Church election as its head a man who's left a very long snail-trail of anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-immigrant rhetoric.
-
If I was of a left-wing frame of mind
Surely, Craig, caring about human rights is not merely the province of the left wing? (just teasing)
I don't see either Tamaki OR Vercoe having a policy influence. But Tamaki has a posse.
However, you are very right to point out that hateful religious rhetoric is to be found close at hand, albeit without armed force behind it.
-
From what little I hear about the inner workings of the Anglican church it sounds like internationally there is a major split coming over issues to do with homosexuality. Something about the Southern US branch considering joining up with the African part or something? Perhaps another reader is less ignorant of the details than I?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.