Dispatches from the Culture Wars

More laughably, I believe Britain's first Muslim member of the House of Lords actually made some hugely ironic comment about Rushdie having 'blood on his hands'. Now unless he was talking about a paper cut from all that writing...

I may be wrong - I'll look up the exact quote and be back in a moment.

Posted by: Matthew Young | June 19, 2007 9:45 AM

The award to Salman Rushdie is to be applauded for its deliberate indifference to the inevitable response. I was pleasantly suprised at the news, given our current government's usual kowtowing attitude to Islamic intolerance.

Posted by: Tycho the Dog | June 19, 2007 10:04 AM

Hmmm, I seem to remember stories of a couple of chaps who were very divisive and caused much bloodshed etc through their writings and teachings... What were their names.... Jeez, Josh Oh yeah, Jesus. And the other guy, Mo.. um, Moha... Help a guy out here, people.

Posted by: Alan | June 19, 2007 10:10 AM

"Actually I was appalled to hear that Salman Rushdie had been given knighthood, particularly when this man has been very divisive," he said. "This man - as you can see - not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people that were killed around the world and honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of because of what he did, honouring him I think is going a bit too far."

My irony meter just vaporized itself. Doesn't he follow a book in which he reads it to say to kill others in the name of religion? Isn't the concept the same?

Posted by: llDayo | June 19, 2007 10:15 AM

It looks to me that HRH Elisabeth is considering running for office and has hired Helen Mirren and the government? of Iran to handle her PR. She is almost as publicised as Tony Blair. best wishes

Posted by: roneida | June 19, 2007 10:16 AM

I'm not a Muslim but I may have got it wrong. Seems that criticism is BAD but killing is GOOD. I usually find Muslims to be nasty, superstitious and ignorant people but I'm going to have to stop saying stuff like that. So I'm working on the solution - smile, be nice - oops, sorry about that - just doing my duty.

NEXT

Posted by: Sean Shalor | June 19, 2007 10:17 AM

Is right, Arise sir Rushdie.

Posted by: BRAP | June 19, 2007 10:19 AM

The only problem I have with the article is that the Queen seems to no longer be queen of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, let alone Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 10:20 AM

anyone remember the chaos that started when the di vinci code was launched?
how everyone reacted to that
were you lame idiots dead back then or you simply decided to jump into that and say it was wrong
it is so disgusting to see that mother nature allows racists like you to live.
if anyone talks about chirst we need to get up and fight but other religions can go to hell right?

Posted by: stop being racist? | June 19, 2007 10:21 AM

As a "Yank," I respond to Harold, who wrote, "Bit of a racist title to the article don't you think, even for a dumb yank? You want to watch AQ don't catch up with you, their version of justice my be a cause for discomfort."

Harold, obviously an appeasing Brit (you know, the types who CAUSED this problem in the first place), needs to do a bit of history. As in "Neville Chamberlain."

These INSANE MUSLIMS, seemingly most of them, deserve whatever they bring upon themselves. ANY religion, any person, any group -- that fosters this kind of hatred and violence deserves to be put down or put out by any means necessary.

Obviously too many Brits learned NOTHING from World War II. Rampaging Muslims are like wild dogs: uncontrollable absent strong, immediate, certain, escalated violence until the violence stops. Saying "please" to Islam has demonstrably not worked.

Posted by: Ed | June 19, 2007 10:21 AM

"that makes everyone stupid right? means anyone can criticize moral values of a religion namely islam but people want sony to apologize over a video game?"

So has the Church of England pronounced a death sentence on the creators of the video game yet? Have irate Anglicans started violent riots over it? Or are you just making a completely invalid comparison?

Posted by: MJ Memphis | June 19, 2007 10:24 AM

Its true and I agree the idea of killing just for having a different opinion is wrong. But we need to understand this not only practiced my Muslims, its done widely by the west. Except the west tries to back it up with crab from the media. Let me ask this question, how many Iraqis the US has killed and why ?
if someone speak about to it Fox news, he\she is told to shoot up !!

Posted by: Someone | June 19, 2007 10:25 AM

Pretty damn stupid this Sir crap, pointlessly provoking terrorism, for what purpose ? Blair's legacy ! I think we've all had enough of the legacy. Rushdie's time was 18 years ago, it is blatant provocation to make him Sir now. He was all but forgotten until yesterday. How stupid can Blair get risking civil unrest and terror for a snub against Tehran. I just hope the young Muslim hot heads realise that this was not an act of the ordinary citizens they now have a new feeble excuse to target on buses, trains and planes. Despite having 2 muslims welcomed into my family, I am Islamophobic when I travel on the London Tube, who can blame me ? Blair just go before you do any more damage for the sake of your stupid legacy.

Posted by: Richard Stow | June 19, 2007 10:26 AM

Possibly the most eloquent statement I've heard in a decade:

Nonsense. If your religion says that you have the right to kill anyone who criticizes your religion - fuck your religion.

Hear, hear, Mr. Brayton. Thank you for having the courage to say in a public forum what mainstream media should have been saying 50 years ago to middle-eastern extremists.

Posted by: Simon | June 19, 2007 10:27 AM

Even its not really, it should be the right of anyone to say whatever they want. I can't believe these clowns can't see the nauseating stupidity in what they're saying.
-fuck you Islam- and any other religion while im at it....

Posted by: meshuggahnaught | June 19, 2007 10:29 AM

tsk...tsk...

Posted by: david olson farmer waterville mn. | June 19, 2007 10:30 AM

Rampaging Muslims are like wild dogs: uncontrollable absent strong, immediate, certain, escalated violence until the violence stops.

Jebus, you're genuinely bonkers, aren't you! Well done.

You are using the precise argument that Iranian and Pakistani and any number of other regimes use to justify the buildup of a nuclear arsenal: 'Look what America and Britain did to Iraq. If we can't defend ourselves they will do the same to us - diplomacy has demonstrably not worked.'

Do you seriously think this is a productive way to lessen the threat to freedom in the modern world?

Posted by: Matthew Young | June 19, 2007 10:31 AM

how stupid is "knighthood"? Come on, "wake up and smell the 18th century"? You mean when daily public hangings were the most popular form of entertainment in Jolly Olde Englande?

Oh Enlightened Civilized Western World - let the ignorant world bow before your cultured ways.

Sir Crappy Novelist, arise!

Posted by: tom | June 19, 2007 10:32 AM

MOHAMED WAS JUST A MAN. THOSE WHO FOLLOW HIM ARE LIKE CATTLE TO SLAUGHTER. THEY DO NOT USE THE BRAINS THEY WERE BORN WITH AND HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED FROM BIRTH. IT IS THE SAME AS IF I TOLD YOU FOR THE FIRST 18 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE THE SKY IS RED. YOU WOULD HAVE A TOUGH TIME DISCERNING THE TRUTH BECAUSE OF THE NARROW SCOPE OF YOUR EDUCATION. IN ADDITION YOU WOULD DEFEND YOUR POSITION EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE "WRONG". THIS IS ISLAM. IT IS A SHAME. THE NARROW VIEW TAKEN HAS STIFLED ANY COGNITIVE DEVELOPEMENT IN THE MUSLIM WORLD. BECAUSE OF ISLAM THERE HAS BEEN NO SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION BY MUSLIMS FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. HOW CAN AL SADR BE A LEADER WHEN HIS KNOWLEDGE IS SO LIMITED AND HIS VIEW SO SKEWED BY A THEOLOGY OF HATE AND VIOLENCE.

Posted by: NORMAN | June 19, 2007 10:36 AM

RollerSun:

Imagine Mr. Rushdie substituted Islam with Christianity, Hinduism or Sikhism in his book. Mention "Pope" to spice it up a bit. You'll hear war cries from fanatics of the sort - Mr. Bush, Mr. Bal Thackeray or Sikh fanatic leaders.

I don't have the knowledge to speak about likely Sikh reaction, but the fact is that books are routinely published that either blaspheme Jesus, in the eyes of orthodox Christianity, such as The DaVinci Code, or that are blatantly anti-Christian, such as Christopher Hitchen's latest work, with nary a Christian threatening the author. I don't consider this particularly to Christianity's credit, which through much of its history has burned heretics and banned their works. It is instead a cultural attribute of the modern world, where people of all religions and beliefs have learned that their recourse against words they don't like is to reply with their own words, not with violence.

Posted by: Russell | June 19, 2007 10:37 AM

Eddie, please....
Don't get your own panties in a bunch.
There have been women leaders in countries for some time.
Knighthood is for achievement which one of your favorite authors rightly deserves.
How do you know she did not read the book? Assume means...
The Islamic movement is insulted by anything outside of their own minds.
Let it go.
F--- their religion? Careful. You may be on the next list with you fav author.

Posted by: Wayne Allyn | June 19, 2007 10:39 AM

Now, I am going to read the book "Satanic Verses" precisely because it pisses the Muslim wackos off so much.

Posted by: Chris Schene | June 19, 2007 10:42 AM

Who gives a damn? Everything is just phony.

Posted by: Madan Dev, Dayton, Ohio | June 19, 2007 10:43 AM

i think people are not denying that that Salman is a great author and has a great way of using the English language, although it is not his first language. what they are upset or shocked at, including myself, is that he is not deserving of a knighthood. Knighthoods are given to people who have achieved a lot and represented the state in a good light across the globe throughout their life- according to many people managing to get a fatwa issued against him doesn't put him in that category. One needs to truly try and understand why the knighthood was given to him and not a CBE, OBE or any other honour. Has he really achieved so much? Unfortunately the nation as a whole just know him as the author who had a fatwa issued against him by an Iranian ayatollah for the Satanic Verses. There are many other British authors who are equally as talented or better, and have contributed more to literature as they have published more books which are at a higher standard. This Knighthood looks political. Muslims express their regret at the Queens decision as it seems that without the fatwa Salman would not be as known or have a knighthood. It is not those Muslim that issued the fatwa, but it is those British Muslims who have their feelings trodden on by royalty that they and their ancestors have served.

Posted by: Abdul | June 19, 2007 10:43 AM

Not a lot of semantic differences here:

ISLAMABAD: A cleric has issued a fatwa ordering the killing of the editor and the publisher of a local fashion magazine for publishing allegedly objectionable pictures of Adam and Eve.

Then again - I'm not religious so what do I know. Just think the guy's a jerk - and psychotic - and dangerous.

Posted by: Sean Shalor | June 19, 2007 10:45 AM

What is it about the Islamic faith? Is it so fragile that any kind of critisism will destroy it?

All religions and political ideologies should be mature enough to take critism and being ridiculed without imploding if they truly believe in their faith what possible harm can it do to show a sense of humour or tolerance?

After all Religion is a matter of personal choice not a something you are born with.

Posted by: Mark | June 19, 2007 10:45 AM

I commend the Queen for her action. Just goes to show that the old values have their place in society. Values like recognizing Rushdie's contributions to that society.

The rest of society manages to ignore so called 'attacks' on their belief systems and moves on. Is there some particular reason why SOME Islamic individuals cannot? I have a feeling that it is more about power and self-gratification among the 'leadership' of that faith than it is about defending said faith.

The fuss over this event just goes to show why I am an Agnostic who is REALLY starting to lean toward becoming an Atheist. Too bad more Islamist's can't take the same road (the one that involves thinking for yourself).

Posted by: Allan | June 19, 2007 10:46 AM

Some months ago, there was a flap about a Dutch cartoon

You missed the point on this one. We (educated westerners) put a guy in prison for denying the holocaust yet we laugh at another beliefs (the largest religion in the world I believe) deity. A little biased isn't it?

My position - God doesn't exist and this thread is created by someone to have a metaphorical wank as a substitute for his weaknesses.

Posted by: mikey | June 19, 2007 10:47 AM

What do you call a NON Extremeist Muslim? NON-Practicing! Of course!

Posted by: Hans Christian Anderson | June 19, 2007 10:49 AM

i think people are not denying that that Salman is a great author and has a great way of using the English language, although it is not his first language. what they are upset or shocked at, including myself, is that he is not deserving of a knighthood. Knighthoods are given to people who have achieved a lot and represented the state in a good light across the globe throughout their life- according to many people managing to get a fatwa issued against him doesn't put him in that category. One needs to truly try and understand why the knighthood was given to him and not a CBE, OBE or any other honour. Has he really achieved so much? Unfortunately the nation as a whole just know him as the author who had a fatwa issued against him by an Iranian ayatollah for the Satanic Verses. There are many other British authors who are equally as talented or better, and have contributed more to literature as they have published more books which are at a higher standard. This Knighthood looks political. Muslims express their regret at the Queens decision as it seems that without the fatwa Salman would not be as known or have a knighthood. It is not those Muslim that issued the fatwa, but it is those British Muslims who have their feelings trodden on by royalty that they and their ancestors have served.

Posted by: Abdul | June 19, 2007 10:54 AM

Abdul, you have a couple of valid points and couple of less valid ones.

His literary achievements are open to question and subject to opinion, of course.

Also, given the sensitivity of relations between Islamic and Western worlds at the moment it is certainly an eyebrow-raisingly controversial choice, especially given the large British Muslim populations. Whether or not it was actually wrong is a different question, however.

Knighthoods are given to people who have achieved a lot and represented the state in a good light across the globe throughout their life- according to many people managing to get a fatwa issued against him doesn't put him in that category.

'Managing to get a fatwa issued against him'? Well he hardly would have chosen it, would he? Surely you should be querying the people issuing fatwas as a form of hysterical literary criticism rather than someone who has committed no greater crime than write a book.

And as to the award being political, well there's nothing wrong with that - people are given knighthoods for political achievements all the time. Perhaps having had the courage to live under threat of a fatwa for twenty years whilst continuing to pursue his artistic goals is an achievement of significant merit which should be applauded.

Muslims express their regret at the Queens decision as it seems that without the fatwa Salman would not be as known or have a knighthood.

This is a possibility, although it seems to me that your beef should be with the Ayatollah. He issued that imbecilic fatwa and elevated Rushdie to celebrity status, so if the fatwa has increased Rushdie's exposure and reputation then it is squarely the fault of the Ayatollah, surely?

Posted by: Matthew Young | June 19, 2007 10:56 AM

I don't empathize with crazed maniacs who would call for a fatwa on someone's head because of an exercise of freedom of speech...Salman had the right to say what he did in his book...his book to be quite honest was a terrible book, if not one of the most over hyped books I've personally ever read...as a Muslim-Literist, I do not think this book would have been on anyone's radar had the Muslims not made such a big fuss about an individual who tainted certain pieces of information in an attempt to paint a coherent picture that does not exist...if Muslims wanted a rebuttal, they should have written a book in response and left it at that...I, as a Muslim, agree with you that Muslim Extremism needs to stop...
BUT I will also add that western instigation into these types of situations do not help...here are some quotes by Salman's own peers who are NOT MUSLIM...

Roald Dahl who called him "a dangerous opportunist", Germaine Greer who called him "an Englishman with dark skin" and Hugh Trevor-Roper who said "I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims should waylay him in a dark street".

Posted by: Muslim | June 19, 2007 11:00 AM

"Some months ago, there was a flap about a Dutch cartoon

You missed the point on this one. We (educated westerners) put a guy in prison for denying the holocaust yet we laugh at another beliefs (the largest religion in the world I believe) deity. A little biased isn't it?

My position - God doesn't exist and this thread is created by someone to have a metaphorical wank as a substitute for his weaknesses.

Posted by: Mikey | June 19, 2007 10:47 AM"

That comparison is off based and way to close to the reasoning of the recent Iranian Holocaust Denial show. The Holocaust is a historical fact. (Caused by the "enlightened" west.)This event remains true no matter how many people believe or deny the facts. The number of believers has no effect on if a religion is true.

And for the record, I do think that jailing Holocaust deniers is going to extremes.

And I laugh at all believers, especially when believe leds the people to conflicts with facts.

Posted by: Janine | June 19, 2007 11:07 AM

Let's all just stop this cruelty and bullying, please.

Which cruelty and bullying are you referring to -- the writings of Westerners, or the violence of Muslim extremists?

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 19, 2007 11:08 AM

If the Muslim majority is peace loving then why don't they clean house and get rid of the small violent minority of their brothers who want to murder and destroy everything they get upset about?
"Oh please stop this cruelty and bullying." Oh, how pathetic.

Posted by: Melvin Leppla | June 19, 2007 11:08 AM

Yes Steve Lowman, we here at this blog are partly to blame for the fatwa placed on Rushdie's head. If we were to shut up and say nothing and, oh, let some of these Muslims have there way and murder him, all will become mush more peaceful for all of us.

Sorry but at least most of us here are not calling for the murder of people who we disagree with with. We just wish they would be sane.

Posted by: Janine | June 19, 2007 11:12 AM

How on Earth did this become the fault of the U.S. and Tony Blair?

Posted by: RK | June 19, 2007 11:17 AM

Well done Britain. Another excellent example of sheer arrogance coupled with ignorant incompetence. I am sure Mr. Rushdie is a fine upstanding gentleman and thankfully we live in a civilised society where people can speak and write their minds. However, was there any great need to award someone with such lavish attention given it would directly insult any and all Muslims around the world. I am a British Soldier and I am not the only Soldier thinking this way. I respect all religions. It makes me sick to see such flagrant disregard for others. We need to do away with this excuse for a monarchy. This will make it even harder for our troops out in the Middle East trying to win hearts and minds.

Posted by: Derek Jones | June 19, 2007 11:19 AM

All of the MAJOR religious leaders have sparked violence through their rebelious/radical teachings. Face the facts folks... Jesus was a pissed off rebel with absolutely NO intentions of following his government. He proved it many times over. Read his biography. And his followers are the same, seeking freedom, not secure bondage. I applaud the knighthood of Sir Salman Rushdie. It shows a comittment to truth and knowledge that obviously the offended parties don't care about.
What we must remember is that some people value truth. Others don't. Those who don't care about the truth of the real world will get their feelings hurt, and demand appologies etc.. The irony to me is the fact that these "muslims" who are upset are threatening to act in the exact way that Rushdie prescribed. How does that work? Fighting fire with fire only fuels the flame. Water is a better solution. Try something different. You have 3 options when faced with a dilemma: 1) Fix the problem (since they are speaking out against a man who supported violence, violence is NOT changing anything). 2) Leave. 3) In the immortal words of Bill Hicks... "Shut the fuck up".

Posted by: Merlintoad | June 19, 2007 11:24 AM

isn't it funny how an award for salman rushdie tickles ' those 'islamic nuts'( pun intended)...why ..any award would!!!

and we have guys like ejaz ul huq , the pakistani religious affairs minister justifying suicide attacks. Pigs like these need to be sent to 'planet' pluto which needs a desperate dose of upgradation.. and i believe these epitomes of piety will have everything favorable ...on 'planet' pluto!!!! allah o akbar!!!!!!!!

Posted by: aarvey | June 19, 2007 11:24 AM

Seriously, all these comments are great. I have nothing against the muslims or the muslim world, but I hate these f*$^ing religious fundamentalists bet it some US southern christian cults or islamic fanatics. They should be set on each other like dogs....and the Pakistan government...duh?..that country was created on islamic grounds that the population of that area was largely islamic..overall its an abberation, it doesn't have a right to exist..Rushdie deserves a knogthhood for his services to literature and if anyone has a problem with...go to hell or blow yourself up at home...big shit..

Posted by: Bill Dome | June 19, 2007 11:27 AM

"Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan Khan Niazi who branded Rushdie a "blasphemer.""

Is his last name a spelling error? OK, my apologies to the Nazis.

My favorite comment?

"Germaine Greer who called him "an Englishman with dark skin" "

The only difference between Germaine Greer and a filled air-sickness bag is that the air-sickness bag was of some use to someone at some point in time.

Can we get a fatwa on her, please?

Posted by: Brian Law | June 19, 2007 11:29 AM

While all religions are idiotic, in my opinion, Islam is also a criminal one. For some people to follow an illiterate blood thirsty bandit from dark ages, who claims a word for word memorization of his hallucinations experienced in a cave, could be only a sign of massive psychosis as a result of a societal brainwashing.

Posted by: Mike Platt | June 19, 2007 11:33 AM

Ed's turned on his Looney Magnet once more.

Posted by: Matthew Young | June 19, 2007 11:34 AM

Wow, someone tried to link a Sony game and Christians getting angry. I'm an atheist, and until I see the CoE people killing each other over the video game, I'll just continue look upon Islam with disdain.

When Christian leaders espouse Suicide bombings over books, then maybe you'll have an argument.

Posted by: Chris | June 19, 2007 11:42 AM

Hey Harold, sure your name isn't Muhammad? It's funny, this article laments violence as the eternal solution for offended Muslims. Then you show up and talk about AQ violence towards the author for writing this article. Won't you idiots ever get it? Probably not, that's why your kind still lives in the dark ages. Islam is an evolutionary cul-de-sac. You are a stupid man and undoubtedly a Muslim.

Now, let's see more violence come towards this post. Oops, got to it first, now they try to save face and try to just attack my character so they won't look bad. Losers! Jihad! Jihad!

Posted by: Steve | June 19, 2007 11:45 AM

Has everyone forgotten why Ruhollah Khomeini condemned Salman Rushdie to death?

It was the chapter in The Satanic Verses, 'L-O-N-D-O-N', that parodied Khomeini, who was exiled in Paris and was the laughingstock of the French press every summer during their silly season, when they would give long interviews with him and publish every word. Khomeini loved the attention and the thought of the Westerners pouring over his learned wisdom.

The joke was that Khomeini's speciality was religious instruction of small children, too young themselves to read, particularly their toilet habits. The thought of an old man imagining that little boys and girls needed help going potty from an old geezer threw the French into paroxysms of laughter.

This went on for years, at least through 1974 that I know of, and stopped only when one of Khomeini's faithful at last clued him in. He'd been furious about it every since.

And then Rushdie poked fun at the old fool, and the rest is history.

Posted by: Gork | June 19, 2007 11:46 AM

Hi Matt Penfold,
I do agree with you. But, I think it's an exception to the rule. As a rule, Christianity - except the age of Crusades - places much emphasis on loving and forgiving. It may have taken some time for Christians to wake up this realization. But at least there was something to wake up to that talks of loving and forgiving. But, what can a Muslim wake up to that talks of loving and forgiving? Is there any Muslim amongst us to comment on this?

Posted by: Jimmy | June 19, 2007 11:49 AM

islam isn't the problem, religion is.

if you believe in any god you are part of the problem.

wake up people.

Posted by: adrian | June 19, 2007 11:52 AM

It is humerous when someone tries to link present day Christian extreme fundamentalism with their Islamic counterparts. Christian fundamentalists do not go around blowing up infidels because God ordained it. And violent Christians are so few as to be insignificant. They pale in comparison to Islamic whackos who would as soon slice your head off slowly as to contemplate your infidel existence. So wise up and bugger off you illogical knotheads.

Posted by: Cecil | June 19, 2007 11:54 AM

Personally I think the moderates would explode if the people in those areas went constantly killed and attacked by the western world either militarily or economically.

Do you really need multimillon dollar bases with McDonalds and the ability to nke anyone nearby and keep Russia and China out.

Americans are scummy and empirish in world affairs, and we know it.

Posted by: Neil | June 19, 2007 11:57 AM

Christianity mostly tamed down after the Enlightenment (and, along with that, a couple of notable revolutions), not of its own accord. There is nothing intrinsic to Islam that would prevent the same thing from happening, especially since at several stages of history the Islamic world was more civilized and tolerant than the Christian world.

Quite.

Posted by: Matthew Young | June 19, 2007 11:58 AM

The point should be that everyone, whatever religion if any, is a person with all the responsibilities and rights that entails. Throughout history there have been crazies everywhere populations have put down roots. Now, probably becuase the world is getting overcrowded, and the media is everywhere, we all know almost immediately what's going on in the world. I am very happy to have a lot of close Muslim friends, and each one is as appalled as everyone else is about these nuts killing people all the time. They should be called homocide bombers. I remember wehn my kids went to school in the middle east,and there were always about 70 or more different countries with kids of all colors represented. They always got along. Strange!!

Posted by: bob | June 19, 2007 12:03 PM

The violence is on both sides. Surely that is obvious. The fact is that some of you guys here are writing like you are pathetic, bullying psychopaths. It is easy to say Hitler's power was caused by appeasement, but it is not true. It was caused by lots of stuff, including the craziness of World War I, the bullying of Germany after they had lost, and a whole lot of other bad mistakes.

The fact is that if conflicts are not resolved peacefully, and if people keep on cranking them up by insulting one another, then all hell tends to break loose. We can see it happening right now, and we all know it could get so very much worse.

What can possibly be constructive in all this bullying talk? It seems to me that the USA is starting to lose its grip on world power, and some of its more paranoid, control-freaked citizens are letting this drive them even more crazy.

So I say, let's take a step back from this, and learn that bullying words and behaviour will only make things worse. Just try looking at things from the other guy's point of view, before it really gets too late.

Posted by: Steve Lowman | June 19, 2007 12:11 PM

Well, we got the white-power nuts who are trying to project Islamic radicalism to all of Islam, and we got the athiest nuts who are trying to project Islamic radicalism to all religion. As soon as the people who actually support killing Rushdie get here, the real fun can begin.

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 12:18 PM

You are also extrimist and extrimists are violent at any type.
Although talking about killing Rushdi for his writings is insane, he has offended ideas of billions of people and it is not a honoring task. I beleive he is a good writer and I like his writings, but some of the writings are offending to a lot of people and such writings shall not be honored.
I say again, I hate the insane ideas of Islamist extrimists but I can not understand the reason of honoring Rushdi. There are lots of better writers in the world who have never offended a single person.

Posted by: Naiem | June 19, 2007 12:20 PM

"Another excellent example of sheer arrogance coupled with ignorant incompetence"

Posted by Derek Jones

Derek:

I think of the writing of a "fatwa" calling on the followers of said "religion" to kill someone who has "offended" them, "hurt their feelings" - or any other petulant, thin-skinned, childish whining nonsense they might care to name - in whatever country in the world they can find him, in total contempt for the law in that country, and I call THAT arrogance! You respect that?!

My religion (Catholicism) is criticized (sometimes for good reason, I'll even admit) and insulted everyday, sometimes in forums like this one, and my response to a canonical court decreeing terrorism and mayhem against those who engage in the insults would be that you should put on your soldier boots and go and get them! We have a civilized rule of law in western countries and we are letting fear of violent Islamic fanatics undermine that. This is a huge mistake.

Consider 911. Consider the Muslim raids against Western Europe and the conquest of Sicily in the 8th and 9th century (totally unprovoked). Consider the conquest of Spain (again, totally unprovoked) and the 850 years of Islamic occupation of Spain that followed (in reality anything but the "Golden Age of Andalus" that some ideologues portray it to be). Consider the Turkish attacks on Europe thwarted at Lepanto in 1572 and Vienna in 1683, and the ruthless jihad of the Barbary Coast pirates in the 18th and 19th century - finally defeated by American forces (and again, totally unprovoked - other than by their own incomprehensibly psychotic, supremacist, hateful mindset). Consider also that there are many, many non-Muslim peoples all over the world who have major grievances that beggar those found among Muslims (whether its Israel and the Palestinian question, Iraq or any other question) and in no case that I can think of has this given rise to the kind of global campaign of terror that reaches into every continent around the world that we see in connection with the Islamic Jihadist movement. Ask yourself, "Why is that?"

Recent opinion polls seem to indicate that many of your British Muslims don't feel that they should assimilate to British law and custom, but that your country should assimilate to them, and that British law should be replaced by Shariah law. I'd call THAT arrogance!

You may be disheartened by the Coalition's blunders in Iraq, but I can tell you that if Iraq were not available to use as a pretext, they'd simply come up with something else. If you wonder why, then crack open a copy of the Koran in English translation and read through it, if you can make your way through its dense contents, or if its too difficult, read about the Medinian verses, the career of Muhammed as reflected in the Koran and the Hadiths, read about Shariah law, and about Jihad conquests and "dhimmitude" throughout history, and you'll see why.

Don't lose heart!

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 12:23 PM

"and the 850 years of Islamic occupation of Spain that followed (in reality anything but the "Golden Age of Andalus" that some ideologues portray it to be)"

I have to take issue with this; while al-Andalus certainly had its ups and downs, I'd much prefer living in the better periods of Andalus (like the Umayyad period) than, say, Spain during the Inquisition.

Posted by: MJ Memphis | June 19, 2007 12:33 PM

MJ Memphis,

Or how about Spain under Franco ? He did after all have the backing of the Catholic church.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 12:40 PM

It is unfortunate that the world views the British monarchy as anything more than a tourist attraction for the UK. They cost the UK taxpayers a mint and in return they get what???

I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Derek Jones, the British Soldier who wrote "It makes me sick to see such flagrant disregard for others... This will make it even harder for our troops out in the Middle East trying to win hearts and minds."

Would HRH Liz have given this to Mr. Rushdie if Harry were over there? I doubt it. Weren't they afraid for his safety so they kept him home? Now Liz pisses off the Muslims without any thought or concern for all those soldiers over there who aren't related to her.

I respect the religions of the world. It is not for me to say what is right, and I'm not the one handing out the OBEs, MBEs or knighting authors and/or rock stars; but Queen's knighting of Rushdie is questionable - what has Rushdie really contributed?

How about recognizing the citizens who dedicate their lives and careers to help others (e.g., scientists working on research for disease prevention or cures or educators)? These people aren't pocketing the millions or billions made entertaining people, but they are more deserving?

Posted by: meg | June 19, 2007 12:41 PM

"I seem to remember being taught the principle of religious tolerance. That still seems good to me."

Religious tolerance does not mean you have to shut up to avoid offending anyone's religious sensibilities. It does, however, mean that you don't get to threaten violence against people who offend your religious sensibilities.

Posted by: MJ Memphis | June 19, 2007 12:43 PM

The Imperialistic superiority status that Islam is seeking as both a religion and a way of life, which goal is to bring into submission the entire world, is deeply-rooted in the inferiorly complex of people who can not achieve a significant contributions to the modern science, technology, culture and humanity, ironically, because of their strict and submissive following of Islam.

Posted by: Mike | June 19, 2007 12:50 PM

Ed,

You really are a pathetic idiot. You speak of the "Queen of England", not realising that the last English Queen died in 1603. That she had any involvement in bestowing a knighthood on Salman Rushdie is unlikely but you seem to think it is so. If in fact you meant the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Which is what the current monarch is) then say so. In meantime if you do not understand the British constitution you would better of shutting up. England is NOT the same thing as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the Welsh, Scots and Irish will tell you.

With regards my comment about Christian terrorism, your clearly have not read your blog fully. There have been a number of people saying that there is a problem with Islam and terrorism, as indeed there. I was merely pointing out that terrorism and relgion is not merely an Islamic problem but one faced by Christianity as well. That you think it is pointless to criticise Christianity as well as Islam for terrorism just shows what an appeaser you are.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 12:55 PM

Ed, sorry for my double post. Not sure how that happened. Could you please delete one of those posts, and this one?

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 12:56 PM

Just so Ed knows, Queen Elizabeth II is head of sixteen countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the United Kingdom. Note that not one of them is England.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 1:10 PM

"how about Spain under Franco ? He did after all have the backing of the Catholic church"

Posted by Matt Penfold

Franco was a bastard, and the Church deserves to be raked over the coals for its role in Spain. But Franco did what he did in Spain (only) and the Spanish Church did likewise (with whatever complicity and/or consipiracy of silence on the part of the Vatican). Neither of them sought to spread terrorist violence all over the world in the name of Catholicism.

As for your point about Paul Hill, you can't possibly be serious in comparing isolated nuts like that with the massive global networks of international terrorists working around the world in the name of Islam!?

I will grant that there are occasional militia movements that might pop up here and there even today (although really the only one I can think of by name is "The Lord's Resistance Army" in Uganda), but that just doesn't even begin to reach proportions comparable to today's Jihad.

The reason is quite simple and clear. Christianity has essentially come to terms with the Enlightenment. The Bible, which simply does not have the same authority or place in Christianity that the Koran does, has been opened up and penetrated by critical scholarly methods that the Enlightenment and modern science provided, so that the delusion that it is the absolute and literal "Word of God" can be held only by theological individualists and misfits, each wanting to be his own "Church".

But Islamic theology resists the influence of these methods, insisting that the Koran is an absolutely closed text, not subject to any analysis or criticism - and sometimes does so violently, with the typical cries of "blasphemy" and publication of fatwas.

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 1:14 PM

Trinary_Code,
Maimonides had the misfortune to live at the time of the Almoravid and Almohad Caliphates- probably the least tolerant of the rulers of al-Andalus. However, I would point out that 1) Maimonides, after his exile, did not head for Christian Europe (where he would likely have had an even worse reception), but instead ended up in Egypt and 2) while there was persecution of non-Muslims in the later years of al-Andalus, there *was* still a significant Jewish and Christian presence throughout al-Andalus throughout the more than 8 centuries of Muslim rule. Compare that to the treatment of Jews and Muslims after the Reconquista- both communities were either killed, forcibly converted, or exiled within months of the resumption of Catholic rule, and even the converts were severely persecuted afterwards.

Posted by: MJ Memphis | June 19, 2007 1:17 PM

So the issue is not over what is done but how many people do it ? So you real objection to Islam is that those Muslims who engage in terrorism are better at it ? That hardly seems to be a very coherent argument.

Christianity in much of the world has come to terms with the enlightenment. However the US would see to be an exception. There, as the figures show, a substantial part of the population (>40% if the rejection of theory of evolution is a guide) are not part of enlightened christianity.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 1:19 PM

MJ Memphis:

You said:

"Compare that to the treatment of Jews and Muslims after the Reconquista- both communities were either killed, forcibly converted, or exiled within months of the resumption of Catholic rule, and even the converts were severely persecuted afterwards"

Fair enough. Let's bring things up to date though. In the modern West, embodying cultural remnants of the former Christendom, Muslims are welcomed, mosques and Islamic schools and other institutions are built freely and efforts are even made to accomodate Islamic cultural peculiarities. None of this is true in reverse. Christian, Jewish and other minorities experience great discrimination and restriction in nearly all Islamic countries.

As I said to another commenter above, this intolerance will continue, and spread, as long as Islam insists on the absolute supremacy and impermeability of the Koran.

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 1:32 PM

"So the issue is not over what is done but how many people do it ? So you real objection to Islam is that those Muslims who engage in terrorism are better at it ?"

Posted by Matt Penfold

No. I'm simply saying that Islam is a particularly intractable source of that kind of terrorism. I suppose that, by implication, I'm also saying that Western nations need to take account of this in their law and security policy.

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 1:36 PM

Another thought...

Could anyone imagine if a Bishop, Cardinal or the Pope issued a religious order calling for the death of someone who drew a cartoon of Jesus that they felt was insulting? What if Christan religous leaders regularly issued their own fatwas? Would we stand for it? If not, why are we accepting this type of backward behavior from several Muslim clerics? I am tired of everyone tippy toeing around these issues because they think to do otherwise would be intolerant of another religion. This issue is not going to go away anytime soon and we can't ignore it...unfortunately.

Posted by: Mike | June 19, 2007 1:38 PM

Trinary Code said;
"But I do think its unlikely that Spanish Catholicism would have developed that way if it hadn't had to fight for its life against Islamic rule for so many long centuries."

I do agree that Spanish Catholicism was, for whatever reason, an especially virulent strain. But we are speaking of a matter of degrees, and fine degrees at that. The Languedoc was never under Islamic rule, and yet the Catholic Church felt sufficiently threatened to launch the Albigensian Crusades.

If Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, in it's present form, is more enlightened than Islam, it is because it has been dragged, kicking and screaming, from it's tyrannical throne by science.

Posted by: Lorri Talley | June 19, 2007 1:42 PM

[quote]Also, I don't think Ed Brayton and many of the commentors above are any different than the muslim fundamentalists. According our philosopy verbal assault is as abominable as physical assault.[/quote]

I find this absolutely hilarious. Yes, "anon," saying "those people are crazy" is equivalent to blowing yourself up and murdering hundreds of innocents. Is saying "Fuck You," now an equivalent to rape?

Posted by: Chris | June 19, 2007 1:46 PM

"If Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, in it's present form, is more enlightened than Islam, it is because it has been dragged, kicking and screaming, from it's tyrannical throne by science.

Posted by Lorri Talley

But Lorri, when the Enlightenment set in in Europe, the Christians of Europe did not resist with a campaign of terror all over the world. Not even against the rulers and elites of Europe.

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 1:49 PM

DuWayne,

I am not the person who claimed "The Queen Of England" bestowed a knighthood on Salman Rushdie, it was Brayton.

In saying that he was incorrect, and since he refused to acknowledge he made a mistake I assume he really meant to say the Queen of England. He made several mistakes:

1) The last Queen of England was Elizabeth I, who died in 1603.
2) The Act of Union of 1707 abolished the separate monarchies of England and Scotland and established the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1800 that became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. After Irish independence this changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
3) The present Queen does not have a role in deciding who will be granted an honour with the exception of being awarded the Order of the Garter. Rushdie was not awarded the Order of the Garther, despite what Ed says.
4) Honours in the UK are awarded by an Honours committee which consists of civil servants, not politicians. The committee accepts nominations for honours from political parties and from members of the public. Nominations are then vetted for suitability. Honours are given twice a year, at the new year and on the Queen's official birthday. There is one exception to this, and that is when a PM leaves office, when they are allowed to submit an list of honours they would like awarded.
5) Calling the UK, England is an insult to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish.

So Duwayne, I take it that you condone Ed's inaccuracy and lies, and also condone his insulting the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Seeing as how I am Welsh I can only tell you to go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 1:55 PM

Holy crap, it's like some tornado of lameness just swooped down on Ed's site. I could almost feel the average IQ dropping. What really gets me is that when you criticize some religion, any religion, you invariably get called a bigot. Or a racist, which is even funnier.

The only thing Ed... I wish you'd say "Fuck your religion" to Christians more often. You know. To be fair >=D

Posted by: Leni | June 19, 2007 2:02 PM

Trinary Code,

When the Enlightenment moved through Europe, the world was a smaller place. Populations were not mobile, communications were slow, or non-existant. The church took the steps necessary at the time; with individual heretics, in individual ways, under the auspices of the Office of Inquisition. When the church felt threatened in larger ways, it responded in larger ways, with crusades.

Todays world is, well, global. Populations are extremely mobile, and communications are instant. If church dogma had been threatened by heretics with the capabilities of the internet at it's disposal during the time of Copernicus and Galileo, what would it have done? I think that an organization that felt justified in lauching crusades and murdering its own people for the smallest deviance from dogma, that justified the conquer of lands and people with the idea that non christians were fair game, would have been quite capable of the kind of terrorism that we see done in the name of Allah today.

Posted by: Lorri Talley | June 19, 2007 2:06 PM

On a subject of religion.

I do believe that God created men, but this happened AFTER men created God.

If you want to know what will happen to you after your death, just recall what happened before your birth - NOTHING.

Posted by: Mike | June 19, 2007 2:17 PM

"A question to Muslims.

If you claim that Islam, as a religion and a way of life, is superior to all other religions, how would you explain this fact:

From 1910 to 2006 Muslims, who account for 23% of world population (1.5 billion) produced only 7 Nobel prize winners, while "inferior" 15 million Jews (0.25% of world's population) produced 167 Nobel prize winners???"

Mike, I'm sorry, but what you are saying is mostly really bigotted stuff. Every religion and political movement has its moderates and its extremes. Every historical situation is different, so you can't always say a particular lesson learned then applies to this now. But surely, it must hold true that it is quite pointless and provocative to pick out a few statistics in such a snearing way.

...when the Enlightenment set in in Europe, the Christians of Europe did not resist with a campaign of terror all over the world. Not even against the rulers and elites of Europe.

Trinary Code, did you ever hear about a thing called Imperialism. I believe it has been practised quite extensively and brutally by some Europeans since this Enlightenment thing happened. I don't thing we can claim that any of our main cultures have been without their very aggressive periods at times, and the current major powers have been putting a hell of a lot of pressure on Muslim cultures, recently.

Technology makes the world a smaller place, so the fact that terrorism is currently more international may be partly due to the generally greater degree of geographical mobility that we all have now, compared to previous decades and centuries. It's not necessarily an intrinsic attribute of the current perpetrators of imperial terrorism (e.g. USA) or paramilitary terrorism (e.g. Al Qaeda).

Posted by: Steve Lowman | June 19, 2007 2:19 PM

Damn but Steve Lowman and Trinity Code makes my head hurt.

Yeah, we are such bullies here, not liking any religion and saying so. And pointing out when any major religion does terrible things. Guess what Mr Lowman, even with out we bullying atheists, followers of different religions will do terrible things to each other. When one in certain that the ultimate truth backs them up, it give them licence to rip into other nonbelievers. No amount of 'respect' will stop this. Just look at the history between the various christian sects, the conflict between Sunni and Shiite and the conflicts between the so called children of Abraham. If we bullying atheist are responsible for this, we are truly more powerful then we thought we were.

As for TC's claim the millions were killed by the Soviet Union to advance the atheist cause, that is a loud of bullshit. Yes, millions were murdered by Lenin and Stalin. Yes, they were both atheists. But they did not kill for the sake of atheism. They were killed in order for for the Soviet Union could stay in power and those victims were seen as being a threat to it's power.

Posted by: Janine | June 19, 2007 2:28 PM

I love your blog, Ed, but sometimes you really do attract the crazies. Anyway, good post, and keep up the good work.

Posted by: Jerry | June 19, 2007 2:33 PM

"But they did not kill for the sake of atheism. They were killed in order for for the Soviet Union could stay in power and those victims were seen as being a threat to it's power"

Yeah, sure. That's just as true of most of the religious conflicts that Christians have had amongst themselves, and its probably true to some extent also in todays conflicts among Muslims. It was often observed of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and it was certainly true of Medieval Europe's religious conflicts as well, that what was really at stake were the competing claims to resources and status of different groups and their elites (political power struggles are never far from any of these ideological conflicts), for whom religion was just the symbolic marker used to establish identity and loyalty. The same was true of much of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

I really don't see the relevance of any of this. Are any of these crimes less apalling if they're committed in the name of atheism, rather than of religion - or vice versa?

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 2:39 PM

Janine, you're falling for the same con as the religious extremists if you think secularists are incapable of becoming obsessed with the rightness of their own cause and getting into oppressing religious people. It happens! What stinks is the obsession that drives people crazy, the group hysteria that drives them crazy in ... groups, and all the power crazy stuff - you can see that among religious and non-religious peoples, unfortunately. It's not religion that's the root of the problem! Really not!

If people want to worship, for Pete's sake (he's divine, you know!), let them do it without some atheist coming along and telling them they're all wrong for doing it. Pete! Please spare us from obsessive fundamentalism whether it be political, secular, religious or whatever!

Posted by: Steve Lowman | June 19, 2007 2:40 PM

Steve Lowman:

You are whining about secular fundamentalists who are trying to oppress religion. Yet the best examples of those you call secular fundamentalists do no such thing. They write books and teach classes. Sure some of them have been hostile to religion and those who believe it, but that hostility is confined to words.

To compare them to those who would kill and maim to honor thier beliefs is absurd and dishonest.

And if you want to believe in whatever silly garbage you want, well I won't stop you. But please don't pretend that my calling your silly beliefs just that... silly, is anything other than me expressing my own opinion.

So here's one... get over it.

Posted by: Robert | June 19, 2007 2:50 PM

Mike -

I am not trying to say that the killings in communist countries, was anything but political. Just that the killings were justified by Atheism, at least in part.

As far as the Russian Orthodox Church, under Soviet rule, from wiki;

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.

I am not saying that this could be called legitimate atheism, either. Just that the killing, was indeed done in the name of Atheism. Also, I am capitalizing atheist to denote that ultimately, it was a religious notion, as used under communism.

If there is a God I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to kill each other in his name. If he does then we're using the wrong name for him!!

Absolutely, 100% agreed.

Posted by: DuWayne | June 19, 2007 2:51 PM

"Yeah, we are such bullies here, not liking any religion and saying so. And pointing out when any major religion does terrible things"

I sure hope you're not lumping me in with that one, Janine. I sure didn't say anything like that. Go ahead and criticize if you wish.

But I just can't get my head around your suggestion that every crime committed by someone who adheres to a religion is a crime committed in the name of the religion, whereas no crime committed by an atheist is ever a crime committed in the name of atheism. That's just plain dishonest. And I said above, irrelevant. Clearly atheism is no more elevating than religion.

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 19, 2007 2:51 PM

[clap],[clap],[clap],[clap],[clap],

Ed, let me just say that this has been an impressive display today. This one post is like a zoo with crazies from every walk of life ariving spewing something and then moving on. Did you join some Bloggin network or something? I'm guessing in the time that I write this a billion more comments will be posted. I always enjoy a good conversation over Ed's posts, but this one really wakes one up!

Posted by: Scott Reese | June 19, 2007 2:58 PM

Trinary_Code:

I really don't see the relevance of any of this. Are any of these crimes less apalling if they're committed in the name of atheism, rather than of religion - or vice versa?

No. But it is worth thinking about what drives people to do such things. Ideologies, and in particular, ideologies that claim to have the final answers to the question of destiny, have often motivated that. Yes, that often gets mixed with more prosaic political purpose. But it has been a potent brew in its own right. Catholics really did massacre the Cathars for the purpose of stamping out heresy. Muslims in centuries past really did fight to spread Islam. People really did believe in Communism, as man's ultimate destiny.

Such ideologies can have atheism as a tenet. As did Communism. But it was the ideology that was motivating. People didn't fight and kill because they didn't believe in god. They fought and killed because they believed they were on the vanguard of a revolution that would topple the imperialist and capitalist powers, and that would usher in justice and equality and power for the worker. And they believed that that result was foreordained. Marx's dialectic and History may not have been gods in the traditional sense. But they served some of the role that traditional gods serve.

Posted by: Russell | June 19, 2007 3:01 PM

I completely agree with what you are actually saying here, but please understand, Ed, that this post is being read all around the world. It may be ok to say, "Fuck you!" in a casual argument with your friend in the pub, but it really is not ok to use this kind of insulting and obscene language in a highly charged, international political discourse.

I have to agree. Ed, you are a brilliant, principled writer who has an incredible ability to dig the truth out of any story. With your skill, you could do so much more good if you went about it in a different way. Nobody makes friends by calling them idiots or condemning their religion. Now obviously, we'll never get the fundamentalists and the radicals to listen to reason, let alone change their minds about anything. But perhaps a lot of this tension could be avoided in the future if we tried extending a hand in friendship instead of verbally punching people in the face.

And yes, I'm as guilty as anybody of being abrasive. Unfortunately, bloggers have to choose between making friends or having really entertaining arguments. The next time you want to call someone an idiot, ask yourself if this person is a nutcase who's only productive purpose is our amusement, or if this is a rational person who could listen to reason if we don't get him riled up from the beginning. I'm not telling you what to do, it's just something to think about.

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 3:02 PM

Robert, the ones who get on with their teaching, etc. I am not calling them fundamentalists. It's the intolerance and pointing the finger at religious people just because they have a religion. That's what I'm objecting to among some of the views expressed in this thread. I am a secularist myself, but I hope not a fundamentalist. Toleration is a very important value.

And Janine, I'm bisexual. I understand it is difficult to be tolerant in the face of intolerance. And it's even more difficult to live alongside those who won't tolerate our harmless, private behaviour. I guess I'm just saying we should place the emphasis on positive engagement and toleration among those who can, and try not to get too caught up in attacking those who can't find the room in their hearts to tolerate on another. There is always hope that people can learn to understand one another better, but it won't happen so easily if we always jump to the offensive.

Posted by: Steve Lowman | June 19, 2007 3:04 PM

Any religion that believes that "infidels" should be put to death, and will put out a death sentence against an author, does not deserve respect. I think Ed was right on when he said "fuck your religion", and I'll say it too. Fuck radical Islam.

Posted by: Russell Miller | June 19, 2007 3:16 PM

GH -

I don't think there has ever been a crime committed due to atheism. There is simply no dogma to follow. I think crimes have been committed by atheists but that is a different idea.

The Soviets committed murder and tortured people, in an attempt to convert the population from religion to Atheism. This is more than crime committed by atheists. They specifically wanted everyone to reject theism. They tortured and killed to achieve that end. If trying to get people to follow one's point of view is not killing in the name of that point of view, then what the hell is it?

Posted by: DuWayne | June 19, 2007 3:20 PM

but still its clear that atheists can hold to various ideas as absolutes that prompt horrible crimes, and neither their atheism, nor whatever other ideology they hold, protects them from this or immunizes them from this abasement any better than religion does. So I don't think all of our indignation should be reserved exclusively against religion.

I think this is mostly correct. However the rational thinking and critical thinking that often accompanies atheism should help against all dogma type thinking if applied in other areas as well.

Not only that, I think it creates a prejudice that incorrectly assumes that everyone who holds a religious belief, and every religious authority, is by definition, an enemy of science, free thought, the enlightenment, etc.

Free thought maybe, science and the enlightenment no.

Posted by: GH | June 19, 2007 3:22 PM

But couldn't someone say to himself, "Religion is the source of all the evil in the world?" And couldn't that someone decide one day to do something about that "evil?" In that sense, you could say that militant atheism is indeed a dogma

Perhaps, but i wouldn't call it dogma simply because there is some evidence that significant quantities of evil are religion based. It's not an irrational thought if not completely correct.

But you can't seriously assert that the statement, "All religious people are evil and should be killed," is completely rational and not dogmatic at all. And you do acknowledge that not all evil is caused by religion, and religion does do some good, right?

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 3:38 PM

Sorry Ed, I should have been clearer. We will never, ever be able to reason with the Islamic radicals. I was referring to the people on this forum. The ones who think that radical Islam = all Islam, or even radical Islam = all religion. I'm sure some of them are nuts, but maybe some are just misguided, and in need of a little education? I do, of course, appreciate your dedication to rationality. We just differ on how to go about it.

And Russell, I'm not entirely sure I agree with you that atheism can't be a dogma, and I definitely don't agree that religion is responsible for most of the world's evil. But your arguments are very clearly thought out, and I respect you for that.

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 4:08 PM

Well said Russell.

When I originally suggested that millions had been killed in the name of one religion or another and very few, if any, had been killed in the name of atheism I wasn't suggesting that religion was the root of all evil. I don't believe that anymore than I believe every Muslim is a fanatic...which is to say I don't (have to be clear here). I do think it's an accurate statement to say that far more people would be on this earth today if it weren't for religion...now whether or not that's a good thing is another topic! You cannot say that about Atheism or Agnosticism.

Here comes the mud...

Posted by: Mike in VA | June 19, 2007 4:19 PM

Ed, did a post of mine get deleted from this thread? Or id it somehow get lost on the way from my PC to this server?

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 19, 2007 4:28 PM

GH -

DuWayne I'm surprised that you don't see this. What you are describing is a power play to be sure. But it is not the result of atheism dogma. Why? Because there simply isn't any. These people wanted control, they removed other competing control systems in the culture. This has more to do with individuals wanting power than an ideological system.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Simply stated. The goal was to get theists, to reject religion and become atheists. The reasons behind it are irrelevant.

Almost all religious violence, is about power and fighting competing power structures. Atheism (again, capital A, atheism) in communist countries is no different. This is why, both historically and currently, religious violence is most prevalent in societies where religion is most firmly entrenched in the political power structure.

In pre-communist Russia, Tsarism was inexorably tied to the Russian Orthodox Church, beginning in the seventeenth century. The Atheism of communist philosophy, was thus used to combat the competing power structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. It's the political ties that motivated the violence, not the philosophy itself. The same is true of most religious violence.

It even comes full circle to the topic at hand, Islamic fundies. Islam is at war with competing power structures. Politics is inexorably tied to that war. Look at the motivations of Osama. Look at the motivations of almost all Islamic terrorists. It is almost always political in nature. Religion just provides an excellent impetuous to motivate the masses.

I daresay, that if there were a Christian theocracy, we would see larger scale violence, committed in the name of Christianity. I assert that it is not enlightenment or modern culture, that has led to the marginalization of Christian violence and terrorism, but the fact that Christianity is not nearly as firmly entrenched in any political power structure. Too, I would assert that at least some of the impetuous for support of the war in Iraq, is motivated as religious violence, stemming from Christians.

Posted by: DuWayne | June 19, 2007 4:30 PM

Royale,

Atheism is not a religion. It's a philosophical view that rejects theism (the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities).

Posted by: Mike in VA | June 19, 2007 4:33 PM

No no no, that's not what I'm saying. Let me give you an example. That Matt fellow, whom you banned because of his ranting about the queen. Now, obviously he was way off-topic with his comments. But instead of banning him from commenting, maybe you could have politely apologized for getting your facts wrong but noting that was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe he would have kept on ranting, but who knows, maybe he would have warmed up a little, and we'd have a new friend. That's all I'm saying, Ed. I never once criticized your viewpoints, and like I said, you're one of the least nutty and zealous people on the blogosphere. All I'm saying is that, just once in a while, it might be more productive to be nice than flame someone.

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 4:47 PM

One common thread that emerges from most of the emails is that muslims are extremists, intolerant and hateful. Posts of Pritt, Platt, Dome, Aarvey, Norman, Ed and the like show that these educated, thinking and tolerant people are no different. The only difference lies in what they think of themselves and what others think of them. A little introspection would show them what they actually are.

Posted by: KayEss | June 19, 2007 4:56 PM

KayEss,

There's a massive difference between the posts of anyone on this site, no matter how extreme or misguided their view might be, and extremist Muslims...nobody on this site is suggesting violence against the extremists. I'd say that pretty well keeps two in two very distinctive groups. All of us here are capable of having an educated discussion without threatening harm against one another. You might get offended here but you won't have a fatwa issued against you!

Posted by: Mike in VA | June 19, 2007 5:15 PM

A thing I find interesting is that most of the posts have been written on a working day during working hours. Dont you have anything better to do, like WORK! Oh mi gosh, I used the four letter word. Please excuse me.

Actually, speaking only for myself, I am working, as a writer and a father, while I keep track of this thread and posting on it. Being ADHD and mildly bi-polar, it's rather easy for me to do all of those things at the same time.

Also keep in mind that this blog has an international readership, so I suspect that some folks posting here are finished with work, others might work hours that aren't 9:-5: and still others, manage to keep up with it at work.

I fear, no one here is likely to excuse you though, there is really no excuse for expressing such colossal ignorance as yours.

Posted by: DuWayne | June 19, 2007 5:40 PM

Moderate Muslims do not threaten us with suicide bombers when they are offended and fundamentalist Muslims do so because they do not value freedom of expression as do Western societies. So we are all preaching to the converted.

Posted by: rosalind | June 19, 2007 5:58 PM

Even a casual reader of this blog should know that Ed is scrupulously fair in his opposition to religious fanatics no matter their affiliation - Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

There are some hardline ant-theists who don't say a peep if the fanatics in a particular incident happen to be Muslim because they patronizingly put all Muslims - reasonable and fanatic alike - in the 'righteous victim' category. Condescending hypocrites. Some of these double standard-using dopes thinks it's the height of hilarity to gratuitously blaspheme Jesus (which doesn't scandalize an atheist like me, I just think it's often immature), not realizing that they are also whizzing on a figure revered by Muslims. Case in point: bad-ass anti-Christians who were outraged by the Danish cartoons.

Posted by: Colugo | June 19, 2007 8:37 PM

this never fails to crush my slight traces of humanism just a little. i would deeply love to believe that we are all intelligent, but things like this seem to deny at least that we are all using that intelligence.

How can you fight terrorism while others commit blasphemy? Teach people that they have no right to kill merely because someone else offends them. That's called "sanity" and it's kind of important.

while i don't usually agree with your views of religion, this time, i applaud you, sir.

Lepht

Posted by: Lepht | June 19, 2007 9:21 PM

1933 Racicst Scum = Yew Haters
2007 Racicst Scum = Muslim Haters

Just the same stinky brown racicst fashist Shit

Posted by: Reseller Berlin | June 19, 2007 11:04 PM

Maybe the context of USA aggressive, paranoid, brutal foreign policy may have something to do with it Ed.

Tell us, Lowman, of all the countries currently harboring, financing, or otherwise supporting terrorism, how many of them have actually been conquered by the US?

And what about the brutal foreign policies of the USSR? How come that's never used to justify fatwas or terrorism against Russians?

Your anti-American non-sequiturs have become completely detached from reality.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 19, 2007 11:35 PM

Well I happy to see that the UK goverment hasn't kow-towed to the loonies.

Mr Brayton we have a Queen; not a lot you can do about it and I, a subject of her majesty, for one have no problem with it. Why should it bother you?

No worse than having a group of people treated with undue reverence (Carter the ineffectual & Clinton the sexual predator spring to mind, never mind your present one) just because they managed to be elected to office by citizens of the USofA.

Oh yes, I think Rushdie is a rubbish writer. I bought Satanic Verses because of the fuss at the time and a more turgid pile of verbiage it would be hard to find. So I don't think that he deserves a knighthood for his writing, but as many knighthoods are given to time serving civil servants it isn't a worry.

As for the reaction of muslims, especially those in the UK, they really should get a life and the muslim peer should be reprimanded for his disloyal & dishonest comments.

Posted by: Chris' Wills | June 20, 2007 3:09 AM

Boohoo! A nice old lady with no real power manages to piss a lot of people off. Personally I havn't got a problem with it; let's hope Dan Brown gets knighted soon too. At least HIS novel was an interesting read.

Posted by: Ahmed Zafar | June 20, 2007 6:04 AM

If your religion says that you have the right to kill anyone who criticizes your religion - fuck your religion.

Agreed.

If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's people who accuse me of being unable to tell the difference between a Muslim and an "Islamist". The former is safe to let into crowded railway stations, trains and airports while simultaneously carrying a loaded assault rifle, fifty pounds of semtex and the Koran. The latter is not.

Posted by: Justin Moretti | June 20, 2007 12:39 PM

..But I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of hardcore Anglophiles are lining up to complain that you're insulting the their queen, and are just 'ignorant' of their culture... lol Posted by: doctorgoo

In all honesty I don't normally expect those who live in "One Nation Under Canada" to have much understanding of what happens outside their borders.

Ed, is a happy exception to this.

The system works for us, not perfect but we bumble along as we have done for a few years.

When you have perfected your system and invent a suitable name for yourselves (American is an odd term, America is bigger than the USofA) come and tell us all about it :o)

Posted by: Chris' Wills | June 20, 2007 1:52 PM

JS:

Your point about confiscation of Church property is quite true but I still think you underestemate the importance of a long history of Christian reflection on the respective roles of civil and ecclesiastical power, and I'll explain why momentarily. But first I want to state at the outset that I'm not trying to lionize Christianity or church leaders. They have a considerable number of black eyes to contend with for events like the various inquisitions, the excesses and abuses of the Crusades and so on, and this carries on in a number of more recent issues. But I want to encourage readers reacting to Christian fundamentalism to keep that concern in some sort of proper perspective. I know that this movement is obnoxious and that it is a particular headache for readers in the United States because of the ridiculous antics of fundamentalist Christians meddling with the political life of the country, screwing up the science curriculum with their idiotic rantings about Intelligent Design and Special Creationism, etc. But this concern ought not to be allowed to distract us from the much larger threat about which this latest Salman Rushdie story reminds us. Despite the fact that nearly six years have passed since 911 and the many terrorist attacks elsewhere since then, moderate Muslims are still no closer to producing a clear and consistent response that can permanently and definitively defuse Jihadi terrorist ideology in the Islamic community than they were before the attacks than they've been during all the long thirteen and a half centuries since the advent of the Islamic faith. We hear plenty of assurances and pious platitudes that Islam is a religion of peace, but Islamic terrorism is a growing menace all over the planet, despite the fact that the grievances of the Islamic world are no greater than those of many other groups, who endure tremendous repression under the influence of colonial masters ranging from the U.S. to China.

An examination of the written sources of Islamic tradition indicate why this is so. In the Koran's claim to be the absolute and perfect Word of God directly dictated to Mohammed and the traditional doctrine of the abrogation of earlier verses by later, of which the net results are the trumping of the milder verses by the violent and aggressive ones from the Medinian period of Mohammed's career, the last phase of his active life, and the later legal traditions that affirm all of this, we have the guarantees of the development of the ideal incubator for supremacist and expansionist violence. Despite periods of moderation throughout history and the variation found within Islam today, that is what Islam, historically, has been. Today's moderates find it extremely to shake this off and build a renovated, peaceful theology because of the constant threat of violence by the fanatics who refuse to allow the Koran to be opened up to any serious exegesis, and who follow to the letter the injunctions of the later verses of their holy book to fight the infidel everywhere until the entire world is brought under the control of Islam. The traditonal theology of the authority of the Koran and of its role in the Islamic community give the extremists a very secure platform for their position which more moderate elements in Islam can't match as long as the Koran's claims to be a closed and impermeable text is taken at face value, and this, plus the threat of violence that results, are a demoralizing factor that make the work of transforming Islam into a benign force difficult or impossible. On top of all of that, you have the reality that the Koran deplores the separation of religion and political life.

Not only is none of this true in Christianity, where Scripture does not represent such a tightly sown up absolute, but there is a much richer history of churchmen working to acknowledge and carve out separate spheres of activity for religious and civil authorities - to "render unto Caesar" as I've noted - than your comments above acknowledge. You have not considered the net influence of the long struggles over lay investiture of bishops in Germany in England during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, nor the fact that much of the role of churchmen in civil governance came about with the advent of feudalism in the ninth century across much of Europe which was necesitated by the collapse of all that remained of the traditions of civil governance there under the pressure of agressive raids against the continent - many of which were made by Muslim Arabs - nor the fact that in Italy the genesis of Papal rule was found as early as the fifth and sixth centuries when Popes like Gregory I and Leo I were the only authorities left standing who could organize and guarantee any kind of of order amidst the chaotic ruins of the Roman Empire. Churchmen did not seek the civil roles as magistrates and imperial officials that Roman and Byzantine emperors imposed upon them. In fact many of them were quite reluctant and reserved about all of this. Even the cultivation of independent papal rule in Italy for which the Popes sought the support of the German emperors was meant precisely to thwart the Byzantine reconquest of Italy and prevent the Caesaro-papist subjugation of the Roman popes that the Eastern emperors had imposed on the Patriarchs of Constantinople, in true theocratic fashion. Finally, I think it significant that despite Christian reflections on "just war" in moral theology that go back to St. Augustine (5th century), any notion of "holy war" as such was unheard of until Christianity's encounter with Islamic aggression (in fact it didn't appear until the 11th and 12th century).

When these conditions did eventually bring it about, the growing political power of Churchmen in Europe during the Middle Ages was the perfect storm for the development of Christian violence, but I just can not see how the kind of conditions that lead to it are likely to return any time in the foreseeable future, even in the U.S. I would say that the idiotic rantings of the ID crowd and other fundamentalist Christian stupidity are the predictable result of the individualism of American culture applied to theology. The protestant roots of the U.S. to which puritans and others actingon the theological principle of "sola scriptura", which eliminates all moderating tradition and accountability that can counteract the hardening of the text into a rigid straightjacket, have to be taken into account in understanding this and a way found of dampening this influence, but this more or less uniquely American problem does not reflect on Christianity as a whole, which, quite simply because it does not contain anything like the theocratic foundations of Islam, will likely never constitute the kind of potential menace to liberty that Islam does. For that matter neither will Judaism, nor, likely, will any of the other religions so far as I can see. On the other hand you have had precisely the kind of perfect storm of violence that conditions in Medeival Europe brought about as a more or less fixed and permanent feature in Islamic tradition for the past 1350 years (the entire history of Islam) and not only has it abated very little, it seems to be gathering strength again, with the Jihadist violence we're now seeing the predictable result. This, in the long run of history, is going to be the gravest threat to the security of not only the West but of the entire world, and the very remote and hypothetical threat of some sort of resurgent Christian violence should not distract our attention from this.

You mention the advent of a Middle Class in Iran as a means for defusing some of this. But there was a well established middle class in Iran prior to the fall of the Shah. When Jihadists, following the ideology of the resurgent Islam promoted by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, found a way to use Iran's grievances against the U.S. as a pretext for the violent advance of their agenda, it, along with every bit of progress it had brought about, was all swept away in the blink of an eye. In order to allow for economic development, you first need religious refrom in these countries. And I fear that that may have to come about by means of forceful confrontation with some of them.

Posted by: Trinary_Code | June 20, 2007 2:45 PM

You cannot reduce everything to simple cause and effect.

That's not a good enough excuse for refusing, as you do, to look at cause and effect AT ALL.

Your mistake, and I believe it's also Ed's in some respects, is to negate the importance of broad historical, social, cultural and political context.

YOUR mistake is to toss out facts, factoids, ideas and slogans virtually at random, assuming we're all supposed to see the connections, and saying "You have to examine X in the context of Y" without even trying to describe what, if anything, connects the two. Just because some tired, lazy whinge about US foreign policy sounds important to you, does not make it relevant in this or that policy debate -- especially when you toss out said critique with absolutely no reference to the facts on the ground.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 20, 2007 5:54 PM