I'm a fan of Taylor's. He really just digs the music, you know?

Heh. NOTE TO COMMENTERS:

Please direct all attacks towards dorkafork, as he is the Dhimmi RABBLEROUSER that wrote this post. Thank you.

Rather than labour mightily to respond to your cute post let me simply requote this response to a comment you aimed at me. Probably with a sort of smug satisfaction that led you to believe that you had me figured out.

Pierre, do you think all members of the Democratic party are traitors, and that the Democratic party is by nature evil?

No but I understand why you might hope I did. By and large I look at the Democratic party the same way Iook at Islam. The philosophy is corrupt and many of their leaders as asshats, but the rank and file are by and large ok though some on the fringe can act like moonbats. My mom has been a Democrat since she was small...

Or do you think there is nothing at all wrong with the Democratic party, and that all Democrats are saints and above reproach?

No but I believe you look at life in such black and white terms. In your conceptual model of the world all religions deserve equal respect because among other things the Constitution demands it. You are compltely stumped when you come upon a religious model that is a threat to you since that simply does not compute. And truth is I am having a hard time reconciling my feelings about Islam with my awe of the brilliance of the Constitution. But when push comes to shove the Constitution is not a death pact.

But all of that aside your article was simply flawed by the inclusion of so many questionable sources. That you had to use such questionable sources might be an indication that your dream of a Peaceful Islam might be the result of a pipe not reality.

This would all be so much easier if it were merely Radical Terrorists making this religion up as they go but sadly no. When the Catholic Pope acknowledges that Islam needs to reform and goes even farther to admit it cannot due to its structure alarm bells should ring.

All of this is posted with the deepest respect for a 7th century religion that is still in the midst of rioting about a bunch of cartoons. Cause you know any religion that has fooled 1.5 billion people deserves my respect.

Pierre Legrand

If anyone's interested, this is the post that comment is from.

I wonder what a conversation about Islam might sound like among a bunch of union workers ... or among blacks. I'm sure I'd feel the love of Islam there. Just because the "elite" Democrats sound the bell of multicultural love, and admiration for Islam, doesn't mean you would find the same among the rank and file.

I'm sure I'd feel the love of Islam there. Just because the "elite" Democrats sound the bell of multicultural love, and admiration for Islam, doesn't mean you would find the same among the rank and file.

I'm not sure that I catch your point.

My point is that many of the rank and file Dem voters - two with whom I am rather familiar with - Blacks and Union members (I'm live in Detroit) - are more anti-muslim than these conservatives debating whether the "issue" is Islam itself, or merely certain aspects of it.

And the point of that is what?

Are the "Dem Voters, Blacks and Union members," in general, ostensibly supporting a foreign policy to aggressively bring freedom to the Middle East via military intervention? No. Thus no parallel inherent contradiction that underlies the above series of posts.

Well, if there is no point, than I guess I haven't really gotten the "gag" of the whole Big Tent series.

See commment above. Most of the "Big Tent" (GOP) supports a President pushing a foreign policy that hinges around bringing freedom to the Middle East, while large portions of the "Big Tent" that ostensibly support this policy also label the people that we're freeing as followers of a death cult. Which seems a wee ideological/methodological/logical contradiction.

If that contradiction still isn't apparent, I'm not sure how else I can try to explain it. And that is only one "joke" in the "Big Tent series." Others focus on divisions in the GOP, like libertarians vs. social cons, etc.

Again, all this seems reasonably self-evident. So perhaps any failure to grok lies somewhere other than flawed execution in the series. Though personally and to your credit, I refuse to believe that you really don't get it. Refuse!

Well, in a general sense, I would say that there are a lot of union members and (inner city) blacks who (1) voted for Kerry, (2) are mixed on the war, yet (3) do not think very highly of Arabs/muslims (to put it gently.) I suppose that my point (did I have one?) was that there are inconsistencies in both "tents." A few years back, before 9/11, we were on the brink of race riots between the Arab and African-American populations.

Personally, I've always thought the Republicans were more willing to tackle inner debate within it's ranks than Democrats. At times, the big tent series seems to be a "slam" (on Rethuglians) , but I don't find the "debates" and disagreements to be a bad thing, since there is almost always a lively discussion going.

Personally, I've always thought the Republicans were more willing to tackle inner debate within it's ranks than Democrats. At times, the big tent series seems to be a "slam" (on Rethuglians) , but I don't find the "debates" and disagreements to be a bad thing, since there is almost always a lively discussion going.

And that's fodder for the series. That a "Big tent" exists. And some members of the Big tent are methodologically contradicting themselves, in the opinion of this blog.

I would venture that most "inner city blacks that voted for Kerry" are not mixed on the war, rather massively against it, btw.

This series of posts has nothing to do with Democrats, or comparing Republicans to Democrats. It does not say that republicans are better than D's, D's are better than Republicans - in fact, it makes no value judgments between the two parties at all. Thus the angle is not all that relevant as a critique of the posts.

Why did this get to be prejudice against Muslims (a religion, not a race..just sayin'). This is a war against infiltration, not armies. To win the enemy needs to infiltrate our country and blow stuff up. If they are working right smack dab inside of good places to blow up, which political side is going to make the best excuses after the explosion? Who cares? Let's just not have Muslim countries running major industries for now, we can always change our minds later.
This is not a private company. I don't know why people aren't more alarmed by that. You are putting a lot of trust in the future stability of a Muslim kingdom. There is a history of the US doing that in the region (Shah of Iran anyone?).
And what's all this business about hurting their feelings? Are we dealing with teenagers here? Cartoons hurt their feelings, western culture insults them, they boycott Israel so I guess Jews hurt their feelings. I know, let’s sell our Ports operating contract to grownups (Can you imagine Tony Blair pouting about his feelings over a business deal?)
This isn't a Dem vs Repub issue, instead let’s see the statements and activities of the royal family over the past few years, newsclips and video. How moderate or modern they are within the palace is the question, not the efficiency of the port operations. Every media reporter should be swarming to UAE, there is where the real story is. Americans are nice people, show us who these new “friends” are and we’ll embrace them soon enough. Until then, let’s just pass. No offense.

See commment above. Most of the "Big Tent" (GOP) supports a President pushing a foreign policy that hinges around bringing freedom to the Middle East, while large portions of the "Big Tent" that ostensibly support this policy also label the people that we're freeing as followers of a death cult.

I don't really see why this is contradictory. After all, along with every cult is an authoritarian leadership structure. Lots of people who would, in a different environment, be decent neighbors who offer to fill your BBQ grill tank when they go out to fill theirs, would in an Islamofascist world be the same folks who'd use those tanks to blow up your house.

Take the power structure away, and perhaps the death cult will cease to be so. The bigots that really bother me, then, are the ones that suggest we shouldn't be attempting to democratize the Middle East because democracy is beyond their grasp, that they are incapable of it, so we should just let them be. I dare say there are quite a few Persians in Iran who hope that argument doesn't take hold.

Well, I didn't really mean it as a critique of the posts. I don't critique.

As for (inner city) blacks being massively against the war - I see a lot of indifference. It certainly wasn't their "voting issue" in the last election.

Have you seen the Opinion Duel between Monsoor Ijaz and Andrew McCarthy?

No, hadn't seen that, looks like an interesting link. Thanks.

And yeah, "indifference" (though slanted negatively among those that acknowledge the issue) is a better descriptive term.

mcg -

After all, along with every cult is an authoritarian leadership structure. Lots of people who would, in a different environment, be decent neighbors who offer to fill your BBQ grill tank when they go out to fill theirs, would in an Islamofascist world be the same folks who'd use those tanks to blow up your house.

Since when does Islam have radicals as THE "authoritarian leadership structure?" The religion is too diverse for such a characterization, and the individuals that are being lampooned in the series here are not distinctively harping on "authoritarian leadership structures," they are harping on Islam itself as an irrevocably negative philosophy. If only they WERE aiming their barbs at authoritarian leadership structures ...

In addition, perhaps more relevant "authoritarian leadership structures" fomenting much of the dysfunction in the ME are cynical dictators that give rise to religious radicalism as an appealing counterweight in backwards and closed societies. Thus, I don't think that your point is quite on target as a contradiction of what I wrote.

Well, maybe the point is larger than you've characterized it above, but I'm responding to your very specific claim that people think "we are freeing members of a death cult." Obviously, we're not going around freeing Muslims in moderate countries just because they happen to be Muslim. And certainly, in the process of tackling Islamofascism we are also freeing people from its clutches who were not simply in brainwashed support of it but also simply living in fear of it.

But again, to me it seems to me that the real problem is not in the acknowledgement that significant chunks of the Muslim community are under despotic rule fed by the influence of a radicalized version of their religion, but rather the idea that such people are beyond hope of taking a hold of democracy and running with it if they are given the opportunity. That somehow democracy is too Western a concept for that part of the world, and that we ought to respect their wishes to dispense with it.

But lest I be accused of avoiding the central issue, I do actually believe that Islam the religion is troublesome in its resistance to moderating influence. Its central tenets and structure are less amenable to the kind of social evolution achieved in the Christian world. And frankly it would seem that Pope Benedict has my back on that one.

Do I think that it is beyond hope, though? No, I don't. In fact, I see the evolution of Judaism as an example of what is possible. Let's face it, if I take the Old Testament at face value, the Jews ought still be slaughtering animals to atone for their sins, and stoning their adulterers, homosexuals, and rebellious children. The last I checked, even orthodox Jews don't do those things. Though I must say, the hoops they jump through to obey the Sabbath are quite interesting.

mcg -

Your last comment 100% reinforces and validates the exact points that have been made on this blog over the past month or so. Almost word for word, qualifications and all.

As far as this:

but I'm responding to your very specific claim that people think "we are freeing members of a death cult." Obviously, we're not going around freeing Muslims in moderate countries just because they happen to be Muslim.

There are certain people that DO in fact believe this almost exactly, some of which have been actively commenting on this blog within the last month, and they are being lampooned. Where have you been?

As far as this goes ...

Obviously, we're not going around freeing Muslims in moderate countries just because they happen to be Muslim.

... I don't understand it. Who is arguing such a thing? The point of the posts is mocking the disconnect of those that publicly that buy into the whole "freedom is on the march" idea, while at the same time casting incredibly negative generalizations/condemnations about a fundamental trait of the people that are being freed - who are Muslim. It's not a conscious association in their minds. Celebrating "freeing" people that one then snidely insults is a bit silly, from a practical/logical perspective.

And thus, where is the conflict between what I'm saying and what you're putting forth? If you don't think Islam is an irrevocable font of evil that's immutable to interpretation, then what do you and I have to argue about? "Nothing," that's what.

There are certain people that DO in fact believe this almost exactly, some of which have been actively commenting on this blog within the last month, and they are being lampooned. Where have you been?

Well, I've been busy. :-) Maybe I've just misunderstood the conflict, and that is fine, I will sit back and watch more. Or just go back to looking at the videos.

Dude, you and me? We're simpatico, my man. Simpatico. Like pineapple and ham.

So...

I saw a great bumpersticker today:

"Dean/Obama '08".

Pleasepleasepleaseplease!

A *person* -- not a "class", "party", or any other collective, but a PERSON -- is to be judged on his own *individual* character and actions. Similarly, any system of ideas, including religions, must be judged on their own merits.

The contradiction is Dorkafork's; it lies in his insistence on treating all adherents of a particular philosophy as a "class" instead of as individuals.

The motive behind this, I'm willing to bet, is not to protect Islam, though -- it's to protect religion, in particular Christianity, from being held responsible for its consequences. The "don't judge Islam" crowd seeks to credit the religion for its peaceful folks while absolving it of the actions of its "extremists" -- because they know that the same issue applies to Christianity too. If Islam is to be judged, than so is Christianity.

Anybody can call himself a "Muslim". By itself, that tells you nothing about how far he takes his belief (i.e. how consistent he is). The same goes for Christians; there are those who go to church maybe twice a year, and there are those who bomb abortion clinics, and everything in between. To determine the role of religion or any idea in leading to that range of results, you must ask: what was he thinking?

What idea keeps a man from killing someone he disagrees with? What idea leads him to blow up children? Determing this is to examine what I call "ideological causation".

Doing that reveals something that the religionists desperately don't want us to know: the extent to which religionists are peaceful *on principle*, is the extent to which they constrain their faith, knowingly or not, within the secular principle of freedom. No religion discovered that idea, and none treat it for the absolute it is; there are no signs of such a concept in the thousand years of Christian feudal Europe, and none in Islam anywhere.

No, it is the secular Enlightenment which introduced this principle to the world. The only difference between Christanity and Islam in this regard, is that most Christians since the Enlightenment have "adapted" and subordinated their faith to this principle; except for "Westernized" Muslims, Islam has not been so tamed.

It is reason which tames faith and sets its moral limits, not the other way around. Seen this way, the evidence shows that it is the "extremists", not the moderates, who are the real expression -- and indictment -- of religion.

hehe...Never content to simply quote "Moderate" Sheiks who aren't so "moderate" and "moderate" Organizations who are not so "Moderate" Bill moves on to mischaracterizing arguments so he can respond effectively.

It is simply not the case that anyone I have seen commenting on this issue wants to kill all Muslims. Thought I could see how believing that to be the case might make your argument a bit easier.

This post of Dorkafork is cute but it only works for those of your readers who buy into your strawmen. The reason I included that quote from an earlier go around with Dorkafork in the comments section was to show the absurdity of his belief. He wants to believe that I think ALL Muslims are evil, makes it easy for him to avoid the issue of Islam and merely paint me with the brush of a bigot.

You and Dorkafork are lost when faced with a religion that at its core is the source of much of whats wrong in the Middle East and Beyond. You assume that I believe that each and every muslim is fervent in his belief of every single jot in the koran. You want to believe that I think that every single Muslim is one cut below a fundementalist. Though its probably true that if you and Dorkafork would have been around in the 30's and 40's you would have believed that every single German was an ardent Nazis.

Myself I do not believe that every single Muslim is an ardent muslim. But I believe that until we liberate those countries and provide them with a framework to give religious freedom those moderates, and they are a minority, will never have a chance of making their arguments.

What gives me pause in this quest is the fact that in countries that have well established secular governments Islam is still threatening peoples freedoms. That does not give you pause.

Like I said if you and Dorkafork had lived in the 30's and 40's you would both be counsuling that we not call Nazism evil since that would offend all Germans evil and we would not get their help.

Pierre Legrand

By the way, that Taylor Hicks is impressive. I don't watch the show but thanks to the word of mouth I caught him on the Internet. It's no surprise then that he already has a professional career...

Bill moves on to mischaracterizing arguments so he can respond effectively. It is simply not the case that anyone I have seen commenting on this issue wants to kill all Muslims.

Where did I just say that, you imbecile? Where?

Quote it back to me, I'll wait. No, forget that, you're banned; there is no reason that i have to endure your repeated crappy tone and wacky strawmen that you've been tossing at us since this issue began. You sir, are a world-class douche.

Everyone else - parse all of my comments above closely - I neither explicitly nor implicitly made any such argument.

Bill moves on to mischaracterizing arguments so he can respond effectively.

Oh, the irony.

Myself I do not believe that every single Muslim is an ardent muslim.

Ah, so now it's just the "ardent" muslims. WELL OF COURSE, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG. ARRGHH!

If you ask a moderate Muslim what they believe in, they will say they believe in Islam. That's why saying "Islam is the problem" or that Islam "at its core is the source of much of whats [sic] wrong" isn't helpful or even particularly logically coherent. What would you say to one of the people mentioned in a previous post? "You're not a devout Muslim"? I don't think that would go over well.

After that comment by Pierre he reprinted above, I realized that Pierre does not believe all Muslims are evil. That's obviously not what I was trying to get at with this post. In fact it proceeds from the assumption that some Muslims are moderate, and uses that to point out the problem in labeling Islam as an evil religion.

As for the rest, it's just crap. Nobody has seriously stated anything about "killing all Muslims," the strawman is Pierre's. Then there's the Godwin's Law violation. It's particularly obnoxious that he has the nerve to say that restrictions of freedom by radical Muslims "does not give (me) pause" and that had I lived in WWII I "would... be counsuling [sic] that we not call Nazism evil". You know what, Pierre? Fuck you. Fuck you for having the gall to tell me what I believe and declaring that I would have held a Nazi-friendly position in WWII.