Dispatches from the Culture Wars

I wonder why people think saying "no offense, but..." excuses the fact that they're about the say something unimaginably offensive.

Posted by: JohnV | November 9, 2009 9:42 AM

Idle thought - I wonder what the reaction of all those folk would be if this Muslim managed to persuade some native Americans to give those folk the same treatment - glaring at them and muttering 'F-ing whiteskins', 'Go back to your own country', etc, etc, etc?

Posted by: Zmidponk | November 9, 2009 9:46 AM

I wonder why people think saying "no offense, but..." excuses the fact that they're about the say something unimaginably offensive.

Posted by: WScott | November 9, 2009 9:50 AM

...but to pretend that there isn't a radical stream in Islam that doesn't encourage violence among its followers is disingenuous in the extreme.

Who the fuck is pretending this, exactly? If you're going to make inflammmatory accusations, you should at least be willing to name names and cite sources.

And yes, it looks like the Ft. Hood shooter turned from devout Muslim to radical Islamist and that this might have indeed played a big role in why he did what he did.

It also looks like -- in addition to all the other pressures he faced -- the Ft. Hood shooter was harrassed by his colleagues for a long time because he was a Muslim, despite having done nothing wrong or illegal up to the shooting. Do you think that might have "played a big role in why he did what he did?"

PS: I notice the original media reports of his harrassment are now being eclipsed by talk of his radical Muslim associations. Am I the only one who thinks there might be a connection? This is starting to look like yet another case of uneducable bigots creating their own enemy -- and ordinary people paying the price.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 9, 2009 10:00 AM

"...Everybody said: 'what shame that he's dead.
But wasn't he a most peculiar man.'" - DJ

Posted by: DIngoJack | November 9, 2009 10:08 AM

It's interesting that there is a direct comparison of this incident to a similar case in the adjacent Texas town of Killeen where the Luby's restaurant massacre occurred in the 1990s. In that case it was also a lone gunman shooting up a group using two handguns. Of course that was a simple case of someone going crazy (since he wasn't muslim!)

Posted by: Sigmund | November 9, 2009 10:29 AM

DJ:

I don't find the reference appropriate. The character in that song only killed himself.

Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 9, 2009 10:44 AM

RagingBee @8:

Who the fuck is pretending this, exactly? If you're going to make inflammmatory accusations, you should at least be willing to name names and cite sources.

OK, fair enough, she wasn't pretending that she wasn't aware of this fact in her letter.

It also looks like -- in addition to all the other pressures he faced -- the Ft. Hood shooter was harrassed by his colleagues for a long time because he was a Muslim, despite having done nothing wrong or illegal up to the shooting. Do you think that might have "played a big role in why he did what he did?"

Possibly, although plenty of people get harrassed without resorting to shooting their fellow soldiers while shouting "Allah Akbar!". Mikey Weinstein's own sons, Jews, were harassed. We know atheists in the military get harassed. Blacks, Catholics, Asians.....the list goes on and on. Harassment is not an excuse for murdering people, period.

PS: I notice the original media reports of his harrassment are now being eclipsed by talk of his radical Muslim associations.

With good reason. It sounds like those radical Muslim connections played more than a minor role. The same way that those extremist Christian sects that promote shooting abortion doctors have historically played more than a minor role in those types of shootings as well.

This is starting to look like yet another case of uneducable bigots creating their own enemy -- and ordinary people paying the price.

Bigotry and harassment, while regrettable, absolutely do not justify shooting. Furthermore, nobody goes through life without getting some sort of harassment. The civilized and sane response is to develop a thick skin and to take non-violent actions to remedy this behavior on the part of other people. Stop trying to absolve this execrable shooter of his crime by claiming how the poor widdle Muslim guy was harassed for believing in (and proselytizing for!) a backward and misogynistic religion. Even though this is true--and, by the way, I have not read anywhere that this extended to anything beyond verbal harassment and minor damage to his car--- that doesn't excuse his actions in the least.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 11:28 AM

Would we react the same if it was a fundamentalist christian? Probably not. We're surrounded by christians, and the vast majority do not launch attacks on the public.

Actually, the vast majority of Muslims don't launch attacks on the public either.

Posted by: Chilidog | November 9, 2009 11:34 AM

What if some christian had committed a horrific crime, killing as many as say, 168 people with a truck bomb in Oklahoma City? I bet then people would condemn any christian sects he might have been associated with.

Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 11:51 AM

Kristinmh@9:

No, there'd be a giant round robin game of "No True Scotsman" - everyone would be shaking their heads about how he turned his back on his Christian values.

This is demonstrably false, though, in light of the widespread media examination of whether Christian fundamentalist beliefs encouraged the Matthew Shepard attack and the attacks on abortion clinics. Didn't Katie Couric do a special on this supposed connection? I think she interviewed outspoken Xtian pundits like Falwell and grilled them about the extent they were contributing to a climate of hate against gay people in this country.

If a Muslim person goes nuts and commits a mass murder, it HAS to be because of his religion, and it reflects on ALL Muslims.

Well, in this case, the evidence so far indicates that the shooter was indeed a believer in the type of Islam that encourages acts of vioence, including murder.

If a Christian does it it's because he was crazy; religious fanaticism might be part of his personal craziness, but it doesn't tar all Christians as potential homicidal maniacs and make people agitate for their expulsion from the country.

I've seen on this very blog some wishful thinking about the desireability of expelling or having Christian loonies self-secede from this country. Remember the "Jesusland" maps posted online after the Kerry/Bush election of 2004? Whereby people were posting maps of what the resulting countries would look like if split along the red/blue state divide? Yeah, ok, that was all tongue-in-cheek, but there was a grain of truth to those jokes too.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 11:59 AM

Adrienne - You are aware that Major Nidal Malik Hasan (Yep, despite being a Muslim, he does have a name) was a psychiatrist? Psychiatry is a very stressful profession, Major Hasan may have heard terrible things from soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Usually people doing this kind of work are closely supervised. These supervisors act as 'the shrink's shrink", helping them to deal with the psychological stress of the job. Why didn't the Army arrange proper supervision?
Also, why did the Army think that a devout Muslim was the right person to hear soldier venting about the terrible things they had seen and done in Muslim countries? Did they not consider the cognitive dissonance this might cause? Did they consider moving him to another task or giving him more support?
If Major Hasan was talking to more radical elements of the Muslim community (and there is no hard evidence of that, this early into an investigation) then why didn't the security apparatus (who were, presumably, monitoring these 'radical elements') warn the Army that one of there own was possibly being 'radicalized'?
Harassment and minor damage to his car were NOT the cause of this shooting, they were the TRIGGER for the shooting.
If Major Hasan was unable to tell right from wrong, if he was 'insane' at the time, then, no he was not responsible for his actions. Just the same as Christians, Jews or atheists who kill many people in a welter of gunfire whilst mentally unbalced.
Do I think what he did was good? NO. Am I trying to understand, by going beyond the easy stereotypes, why he might of felt he had to do it? YES. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 9, 2009 12:03 PM

Stop trying to absolve

Explanation != absolution. Stop pretending it is. A better understanding of the event will allow us to avoid it happening again without violating the rights of minorities that are already threatened. Nobody is claiming that the man's actions are acceptable or excusable, but insisting on a retard explanation is helpful to nobody.

Posted by: pough | November 9, 2009 12:05 PM

DJ:

Yes, absolutely, you are correct that the US military was hugely culpable here, no argument there.

Yes, he might have been insane enough not to know right and wrong, but the evidence so far doesn't indicate that. The attack was clearly premeditated. He had terminated the lease on his apt, had given away his possessions that morning. That doesn't sound like the actions of someone so far gone as to not know right from wrong.

But, he is still alive, so they may have a chance to interview him and try to assess his mental state at the time.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 12:06 PM

@19 Adrienne.

You lost your argument as soon as you placed gay-bashing bigots in an analogy with regular muslims. The former deserves criticism for their intolerance, the latter does not deserve harassment (unless there are other factors that come into play).

Your analogy hinges on the idea that all muslims are guilty, thereby justifying the harassment.

Posted by: Jordan G | November 9, 2009 12:10 PM

Yes, there is. We don't believe in a medieval, backward, harmful, and ridiculous religion that encourages violence. BIG difference.

speak for yourself. I grew up Catholic, which is certainly a medieval, backwards, harmful, ridiculous religion and is still encouraging violence in Northern Ireland. True, I don't believe anymore, but up to ten years ago I did, very sincerely. Was I a danger to society? Should my parents (who are still religious, unfortunately) be driven out of the country?

Posted by: Kristinmh | November 9, 2009 12:14 PM

Possibly, although plenty of people get harrassed without resorting to shooting their fellow soldiers while shouting "Allah Akbar!".

And lots of people crack under various pressures (especially during recessions like this one), and end up killing innocent people (sometimes their own kids) and/or themselves, without shouting anything in Arabic or having anything to do with Islam. (Example: back around 1989-90, a native-born white American put his kids into one of those huge kettles used for melting and pouring metals, tipped it upright, and turned the heat on.)

With good reason. It sounds like those radical Muslim connections played more than a minor role.

First: "it sounds like" based on what, exactly? Second: it also "sounds like" the harrassment I mentioned "played more than a minor role" as well. Do you not think such bigoted harassment may have hardened his view of America as an enemy of his chosen faith? Do you not think that maybe he would have had less extreme views had he not been mistreated for being a Muslim?

Bigotry and harassment, while regrettable, absolutely do not justify shooting.

Adrienne, do you really not understand the difference between "explaining" and "excusing?" Are you really that much stupider than you've seemed in the past? People need, and want, explanations for events like this; but what good are explanations if they're automatically brushed off as "excuses?" We're not "excusing" anything, any more than a prosecutor is "excusing" a defendant by describing possible motives for his crimes.

Furthermore, nobody goes through life without getting some sort of harassment. The civilized and sane response is to develop a thick skin and to take non-violent actions to remedy this behavior on the part of other people.

He was TRYING to remedy his situation, by trying to get out of being deployed. Apparently he wasn't successful, possibly because the Army was so overextended they couldn't afford to lose even ONE skilled officer unless they caught him doing something REALLY dangerous, like smoking a joint or kissing another guy -- both of which Islam forbids.

When in danger, people tend to react strongly. During WWII, people looked at German-Americans with suspicion, and we put the Japanese Americans in camps. And currently, we are under attack by radical Islam.

You're absolutely right, Comixchik. And now that you're shown you understand that people react strongly (and irrationally) to situations like this, I trust you'll be perceptive enough not to join in the irrationality yourself.

So far, I really don't think this shooting was anything remotely like a pre-planned terrorist act. For starters, a terrorist wannabee would most likely infiltrate a technical or intelligence field, not psychiatry. This is just a guy who cracked under a lot of pressure, after trying some inadequate coping strategies, among them an embrace of one extreme religion in response to extreme religious bigotry. The Army needs to hold him accountable for what he did; but they also need to hold themselves accountable for creating a needlessly hostile environment for officers whose skills and caring they CANNOT do without.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 9, 2009 12:15 PM

RB @34

First: "it sounds like" based on what, exactly?

The various news reports that have come out about his history and his beliefs.

Do you not think such bigoted harassment may have hardened his view of America as an enemy of his chosen faith?

Possibly, but....

Do you not think that maybe he would have had less extreme views had he not been mistreated for being a Muslim?

No, because 1) his history of extreme views as reported in the press and 2) his associations with imams, etc. who promoted extreme anti-american and violent views. Radical Islam does just fine as a motive without harassment getting in the way.

Adrienne, do you really not understand the difference between "explaining" and "excusing?" Are you really that much stupider than you've seemed in the past?

I understand the difference, yes, I have already said that, and I hope not.

So far, I really don't think this shooting was anything remotely like a pre-planned terrorist act.

Oh, he planned it alright. Days or weeks in advance, but it was planned. And he knew the people he was shooting would be unarmed, too.

...among them an embrace of one extreme religion in response to extreme religious bigotry.

Really? You don't think that maybe he could embrace extreme religion without the "extreme religious bigotry"? And what was the "extreme religious bigotry" he suffered? Getting mumbled insults and his car keyed? How is that *extreme*?

...they also need to hold themselves accountable for creating a needlessly hostile environment for officers whose skills and caring they CANNOT do without.

And how was his environment "needlessly hostile"? If a soldier can't take a few jibes for his religion, then what is he doing in the military in the first place, where he'll have to deal with bombs and killing?

This is the Army's fault, alright--for not weeding out an increasingly radical and anti-American Muslim before he could kill for Allah.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 12:34 PM

Actually, let me restate this:

And how was his environment "needlessly hostile"? If a soldier can't take a few jibes for his religion, then what is he doing in the military in the first place, where he'll have to deal with bombs and killing?

That sounds like I'm excusing harassment, which I am not. But, I still disagree that any of the harassment that the news has reported on re: Nidal Hasan was "extreme". "Extreme" to me would connote physical harm/beatings, etc, not merely verbal insults and minor property damage. I believe the person who performed the car damage to Hasan's car was also caught and punished for it.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 1:05 PM

Raging Bee, methinks there is a difference between 'dude who is a Muslim (religion, by definition, damps down a person's sanity to at least some extent) and is otherwise sane', 'dude who is a Muslim and is batshit about something not related to Islam', and 'dude who is a Muslim and is batshit about something related to Islam'.

Posted by: Katharine | November 9, 2009 1:12 PM

Adrienne, I have to say I don't know the whole story yet, but do we know for sure that his batshittery was connected to his religion?

Posted by: Katharine | November 9, 2009 1:14 PM

It might be worthwhile to factor in what his family has to say on the matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.suspect.muslim/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/nidal-hasan-cousin-of-mal_n_347850.html (I hate linking to HuffPo, but it has video)

It's a more complex situation than the media, the right wing, or frankly anyone who doesn't look at it carefully is painting it to be. There's a lot of variables here .

Posted by: Katharine | November 9, 2009 1:24 PM

But what I disagree with is the implication that the anti-Muslim harassment must have somehow driven the shooter to do what he did. [snip] It looks as though Islamist thought *did* contribute to the killing.

Well, which do you think is more likely to drive a person crazy enough to kill, mental abuse or ancient text (some of which mentions violence)?

IMO, a big part of the problem of mentioning religion when it comes to cases like these is that people come away with the impression that the craziness flows directly from the religion to the person. Since most religions have enough documents for anyone crazy to find justification and since most religious people are not currently shooting up their workplaces, it might be smarter to look somewhere else. And if you're wondering why Islam seems to be such a fine source of murderous crazy lately, perhaps you might wonder what other things might be affecting them as a group. They haven't always been like this, nor is any other religion static.

Again IMO, a good place to look for reasons isn't in the text or even practice of a religion, but in the social, economic and cultural trappings that surround it. Besides, what exactly would you do about it, anyways? Ban a religion in the land of the free? Round them all up and force them to live in the Statue of Liberty?

Posted by: pough | November 9, 2009 1:30 PM

Ian @41

Do you actually know and Muslims? Have you actually met any of them? Do you know anything about Islam? Or do you just accept the rantings of bigots wholesale?

Yes, my best friend in high school was a Pakistani Muslim. From a very secularized and progressive Muslim family. She has no love for her crazy violent coreligionists either.

I'm also good friends with a woman who spent two years in her teens in Saudi Arabia. Guess what? She's not pro-crazy-Muslim either. She's thrilled to be back in the US where the morality police don't make her wear a tightly knotted headscarf.

And Ian, race and ethnicity, to use your German and black examples, are unchanging characteristics. Unlike one's religion, which is a fully voluntary association(or maybe not, if you live in some repressive Islamic regimes where you will be put to death for converting out of it).

Where did I ever say I thought a Muslim couldn't be a member of decent society, btw? Hmm? All I said was that it isn't irrational to wonder, when you hear about a Muslim committing violence, how much that person's religious views influenced that violence.

And, obviously, those being less politically correct times, there's no way they would have been dumb enough to let a German American anywhere near the US military, especially not in Europe. Right?

To make your analogy more accurate, try "There's not way they would have been dumb enough to let a Nazi anywhere near the US military, especially not in Europe. Right?" To which the answer is, "Right."

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 1:32 PM

Adrienne @ 22:

"This is demonstrably false, though, in light of the widespread media examination of whether Christian fundamentalist beliefs encouraged the Matthew Shepard attack and the attacks on abortion clinics. Didn't Katie Couric do a special on this supposed connection?"

There is no "supposed" about the connection to the attacks on abortion clinics--it's a fact.

Adrienne @ 33:

"And given how violent a religion Islam has become, is it wrong to automatically wonder if, when you find out a Muslim has committed a violent act, just how much of a part his/her religion played in that act?"

Islam is NOT a religion of violence. It is a religion. Some of its adherents are unhinged homicidal shitheads.

Adrienne @ 36:

"Oh, he planned it alright. Days or weeks in advance, but it was planned. And he knew the people he was shooting would be unarmed, too."

It amazes me that you KNOW this. Are you now in the CID's pipeline? Are you privy to investigators' notes?

Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 1:40 PM

Pough @46:

IMO, a big part of the problem of mentioning religion when it comes to cases like these is that people come away with the impression that the craziness flows directly from the religion to the person. Since most religions have enough documents for anyone crazy to find justification and since most religious people are not currently shooting up their workplaces, it might be smarter to look somewhere else.

Smarter to consider the "many variables" theory. But to completely look somewhere else? Not necessarily.

And if you're wondering why Islam seems to be such a fine source of murderous crazy lately, perhaps you might wonder what other things might be affecting them as a group. They haven't always been like this, nor is any other religion static.

Islam has always been a violent and conquering religion. There, as yet, has not been an "Islamic enlightenment". I hope for humanity's sake that one happens someday.

Also, consider this: in the Middle East and Israel, you have a lot of Israeli-Palestinian violence and many religious extremists who are both Jewish and Muslim. But only the Palestinians do the suicide bombings. There's no shortage of crazy Haredi Jews, but they don't strap bombs on and run into crowds of Palestinians to blow themselves up. My take on this has always been that Judaism frowns on suicide and doesn't exactly encourage martyrdom, whereas Islam absolutely glorifies suicidal martyrdom to the nth degree.

What's your take on the difference (serious question)?

Besides, what exactly would you do about it, anyways? Ban a religion in the land of the free? Round them all up and force them to live in the Statue of Liberty?

No and no. But being on the lookout for signs that someone is going extremist and lauding violence, as the Army could have and should have done in this case, is certainly a start.

Scott Simmons @47:

So, you believe that the fewer adherents of Christianity there are, the better, as well, correct?

Correct.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 1:48 PM

RB again @49:

It's also rational to recognize that religion is not, by any stretch, the only thing that motivates violent actions.

Strawman. Never made this claim.

First you label Islam a violent religion (while carefully, yet still idiotically, pretending you're blaming the religion, not the people who follow it)

Well, it's hard to separate the two at times, isn't it? Given Religion X, which has scriptures that encourage violence, some percentage of adherents to Religion X, given the time and circumstances, will indeed take the X scriptures at their word and use Religion X to perpetrate violence. Others won't.

And yes, Islam is a violent religion. Its founder, its sacred text encourage violence. It has a history of spreading through violence and conquest. In the present day, it is the religion of a number of very repressive regimes. Christianity is also a violent religion (see the history of Europe), although in its current form it is certainly less violent in the present age than it was in previous centuries.

...then you lump my father's religion with said "violent religion" in the same sentence, then you say that people can be a threat to society just by following such religions in any form.

Again, I give credit to Sam Harris for that idea. And yes, I do think that people practicing any religion or other form of sanctified superstition are in fact harming society. Catholicism has a long and bloody and repressive history, so if your father perpetuated it by believing in it, then your father was doing harm to society. Obviously on the grand scale not a huge amount of harm but rather a very tiny amount...but harm nonetheless.

And despite all this, you completely failed to explain how an educated, consciensious career bureaucrat like my father actually threatened anything.

He helped perpetuate and gave loyalty to an oppressive and backward institution (the Roman Catholic Church).

This is the kind of hole that people like you stumble into when you take one human characteristic and pretend it explains everything.

Another strawman. Never said "religion explains everything". I do say that "religion is harmful". Superstition is harmful. Irrationality is harmful. Again, the degree to which these things are harmful varies. But they are harmful.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 1:56 PM

What "ignorant remark" about your father?

Gosh, where do I even start? First you label Islam a violent religion (while carefully, yet still idiotically, pretending you're blaming the religion, not the people who follow it), then you lump my father's religion with said "violent religion" in the same sentence, then you say that people can be a threat to society just by following such religions in any form.

Raging Bee, is Fred Phelps your father?

Posted by: Chilidog | November 9, 2009 2:03 PM

adrianne, it wasn't an imam in the US who praised his actions - the guy is in Yemen. He's been there since 2002.

Posted by: dean | November 9, 2009 2:06 PM

Yes, I condemn Islam. I condemn KKKristianity. I condemn Phelpsism. I condemn Judaism. I condemn Santeria. I condemn Wicca and neopaganism.

And you condemn all of them without understanding any. Do you really think that treating all of them the same, and refusing to recognize any differences, of any kind, between them, is MORE sensible than condemning only one of them?

Posted by: Raging bee | November 9, 2009 2:25 PM

In related news, SCOTUS just denied a stay of execution for John Muhammad, the beltway sniper.

So it looks like he will be getting his last meal tonight.

Posted by: Chilidog | November 9, 2009 2:32 PM

@62:

Good. Justice will finally be served, then. I'm not generally in favor of the death penalty, but this scumbag more than deserves it.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 2:36 PM

Wow, looks like there's already a battle raging here...

I just wanted to say that part of why this frustrates me so much is because this type of inane jingoism makes it difficult to make legitimate criticisms of these practices. Take the hijab. I have an issue with the hijab, because of the symbolism behind it and the fact that only women are made to wear them. It seems to me to be a rather anti-feminist statement, even if those wearing them don't intend it to be.

But with bigoted redneck assholes wandering around saying "Get out of our country!" to women in the hijab, it makes it difficult to make a nuanced criticism of the hijab without being labeled a bigot yourself. My message to those wearing the hijab is not "Get out of our country," but "Cast off this symbol of oppression and realize your full potential!"

Anyway, given the excoriating of Adrienne, etc., it seems certain people in this thread are not interested in allowing any religion to be criticized about anything. So I'll duck out now...

Posted by: James Sweet | November 9, 2009 2:41 PM

Adrienne:

These:

"Hating a pathological religion that idolizes and promotes violence is totally sensible."

are your words, not mine. Hating a religion; not part of a religion, not most of a religion--A complete religion. I'm not sure why, but whenever a thread about religion starts to heat up, you start making wild statements and then pretending that you didn't. It seems like you're having a psychotic break. Is Opus Dei to blame for your inability to separate religious extremism from religion?

Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 3:05 PM

Hating a religion; not part of a religion, not most of a religion--A complete religion.

That's right. I hate radical Islam. I hate "Islamism". That's not psychotic in the least.

Boy, you guys attacking me love to stray into either 1) insulting me, 2) accusing me of saying things I never said and 3) attacking my supposed mental health.

Aren't you afraid that your repeated insults are going to push me over the edge and make me strap on a bomb and go walk into my local mosque to blow a buncha rad Muslims up?

Either way, their actions do not represent all of their respective countrymen (certainly not the ones they targeted, who outnumbered the bombers), and therefore cannot be said to represent Islam in general.

As I said earlier, if you exclude the Tamil Tigers (who are targeting one political system and one area of the world), most suicide bombers are Muslims. A tiny percentage of Muslims are suicide bombers...but a huge percentage of suicide bombers worldwide are Muslims.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 3:11 PM

Adrienne, if you intended to aim your comments only at radical Islam, why did you write this about the woman who emailed Mikey?

Yes, lady, if you hold to stupid religious beliefs and a religious faith that tends to encourage violence against its non-adherents, you are going to get called out on the carpet for hewing to stupid and illogical religious beliefs, no matter if you are Muslim, Christian, Jew, animist, or whatever.

I know Gordon Klingenschmitt considers the MRFF a radical group. But I'd be surprised if you agree with him in that regard. ;-)

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 9, 2009 3:24 PM

Adrienne:

It's not that I think you're nuts, it's that you're acting like it. You are completely unhinged on this subject. You know nothing about the shooter in the Fort Hood incident except what you've heard second, third or fourth hand. You condemn "islamists", not "radical islamists"--I think to you there is no difference. That is delusional thinking. Just as the idiots who think the Koran tells them to kill all infidels you lump about 1.6 billion people into one group.

For a period of years, 1970 until the mid 1990's, the IRA was set off more bombs in Northern Ireland and England than most folks, put together, did during the same period. I lived in the Boston area during that period and being of Irish extration and raised a RC I feared for my life. Often, when I was shopping or going about other daily tasks, people would glare at me and say things like, "You fucking micks are scum. You're nothing but blood smeared religious extremists. Why don't you go back to your own country?!". Oh, wait, they didn't do that, actually.

I think you're probably right though. It takes a bunch of honest hard working christians to put those filthy falafel snappers in their place. Thank GOD for men like Slobodan Milosevic and his brave christian knights. If it hadn't been for that bastard Clinton they would have rid Greater Serbia of those muslim lice.

Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 3:31 PM

RB If a "huge percentage" of people perpetrating some other horrific crime were, say, Catholics, would that justify condemning the whole of that faith, and all of its adherents, for the crimes of a tiny minority of its adherents?

If Catholic scriptures and clerics encouraged suicide bombing, then hell yes, it would. At the very least, it would justify condemning the forms of Catholicism that encouraged suicide bombing, don't you think?

(Oh, and if Islam in general really is a violent and conquering religion, we'd be seeing a lot more than suicide-bombings -- we'd be seeing WW-III.)

Why do you think Israel is so worried about Iran getting nukes? Why do you think the US is so worried about Iran getting nukes?

they fit the pattern of an ordinary guy cracking under personal pressures he wasn't handling well..

You can't seriously believe your own horsepoop, can you? An "ordinary guy"? Please. An ordinary Islamist, maybe....

DC It's not that I think you're nuts, it's that you're acting like it. You are completely unhinged on this subject. You know nothing about the shooter in the Fort Hood incident except what you've heard second, third or fourth hand.

Obviously you haven't bothered reading up at all on this case. And because you can't refute or deny the truth of what I'm posting, you resort to the ol' "She's come undone! She's hiiissstaareickal!" attack, which has more than a few sexist overtones. How progressive of you.

You condemn "islamists", not "radical islamists"--I think to you there is no difference.

"Islamist" is the name the media has given to "radical Muslims who embrace violent ideology". Oops, don't you feel foolish now? If you saw a Jew write "G-d", you'd probably think that was an insult, wouldn't you? LOL.

I think you're probably right though. It takes a bunch of honest hard working christians to put those filthy falafel snappers in their place. Thank GOD for men like Slobodan Milosevic and his brave christian knights. If it hadn't been for that bastard Clinton they would have rid Greater Serbia of those muslim lice.

Yes, because raising flags about Islamism and the violent streams in current Islamic thought is JUST like calling for a widespread genocide of Muslims. You're so overblown, dc, Ed could have a fun time fisking your comments.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 3:42 PM

Does anyone remember when this was called "going postal" and not "Islamic terrorism?"

Posted by: Chilidog | November 9, 2009 3:45 PM

An "ordinary guy"? Please. An ordinary Islamist, maybe....

Right -- the fact that he was a Muslim, and critical of US policies in the Muslim world, makes him so alien he can't possibly think or act like other humans do. Even when he does something clearly deranged that clearly deranged non-Muslims are also known to have done, it has to be for a different set of reasons.

Last warning, Adrienne: your emotions are leading you into a quagmire of undisguised bigotry.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 9, 2009 3:55 PM

Last warning, Adrienne: your emotions are leading you into a quagmire of undisguised bigotry.

Move over, Chuck Norris. There's a new kid on the WND block.

And yes, I'm quite bigoted against violent Islam/Islamism. And quite proud of it too! Only I call it "opposing ridiculous and misogynistic supernatural beliefs and being against religiously motivated killings", not bigotry.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 3:59 PM

Kierra, #81

It just seems like a double-standard that this is seen as evidence that he was a "radical Muslim."

Maybe. That is an interesting thought. But what must be factored in is that we as a nation are engaged, at the moment, in the killing of devout Muslims on the soil of Muslim nations.

If we were engaged in killing devout Christians on Christian soil, then I would agree with you 100%--a soldier's devout Christianity would be cause for some concern.

Posted by: heddle | November 9, 2009 4:08 PM

WND? Carlos Rey Norris the birther looser? Don't you want to compare yourself with someone like Pat Boone? Ooops, sorry, he has no relevance either.

Posted by: Chilidog | November 9, 2009 4:10 PM

How soon 'till someone chimes in with,

"Won't someone please think of the (Muslim) CHILDREN???!!!!"

That's the level of discourse this thread has reached.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 4:24 PM

Chilidog: none of know the answer to your question. What we DO know, however, is that other people have snapped and killed people indiscriminately for obvious personal reasons having nothing at all to do with religious belief or political opinions. I've been reading and hearing news about such incidents for as long as I can remember, and the one factor that links them all together isn't religion or politics, or race, creed, nationality or any of that; it's nearly all guys (very few women) reacting to personal problems made worse by financial stress -- guys who just lost their jobs, can't find jobs, can't stand jobs/bosses they can't quit, didn't get a raise or promotion they expected, can't support their kids, can't pay their bills with the wages they have, or are seeing their lives and families fall apart due to messy divorces or some other crisis, that sort of thing.

Remember John Allen Mohammed? VERY few people blame Islam for what he did, because it's obvious he had other stresses pushing him to violence, such as losing his wife and custody of his kid. Same goes for other US veterans who have snapped due to PTSD, same for others who join the military and can't take the pressures of that profession, same for Hasan. There's really no need to bring Islam(ism) into this at all. I mean, one could blame Islam(ism) to the extent that if he had just embraced the majority religion, there would have been less harassment from bigots, so that may have made him less likely to snap; but given the other circumstances, even that's a stretch.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 9, 2009 4:26 PM

EP @91:

"And I agree with Adrienne, and I'll go one step further: the fewer Muslims there are in the USA, the better. It is one of the few things we can control with immigration policy. "

Wow, OK, I can't agree with that. Precisely because it doesn't differentiate between secularized Muslims and radical ones. But I do think we ought to remove those Muslims (and non-Muslims for that matter) in the armed forces who express sympathy for Islamist sentiments post haste. And keep careful watch on those civilian Muslims who likewise sympathize with Islamists.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 4:54 PM

Chappy, isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? Is it your personal goal to make the word "christian" synonymous with "lying sack of shit"? Because you're doing a really good job of representing your cult as a pack of dishonest hacks who worship slander.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 9, 2009 5:01 PM

Wow; brilliant comeback phantomreader! Good thing Weinstein's a secular Jew, or he might have something to say about your calling his God "imaginary." You seem to have almost a Clintonian concept of truth, too. Man, I'm impressed. First in your family to graduate kindergarten?

Posted by: Chappy | November 9, 2009 5:06 PM

Abby:

If you’ll accept the feedback, it seems to me you went rather out of your way to grind that axe.

You might be right. When I reread the letter, I still see that implication in her statement, though.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 5:07 PM

Quoth Raging Bee:

Right -- the fact that he was a Muslim, and critical of US policies in the Muslim world, makes him so alien he can't possibly think or act like other humans do.

Even when he does something clearly deranged that clearly deranged non-Muslims are also known to have done, it has to be for a different set of reasons.

Last warning, Adrienne: your emotions are leading you into a quagmire of undisguised bigotry.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 9, 2009 5:11 PM

So, Chappy, for the record, you don't see anything wrong with lying, as long as your lies say bad things about Mikey Weinstein. Making shit up is just fine with you, you can't bring yourself to find anything morally wrong with dishonesty, as long as you're the one doing it. You don't give a flying fuck if what you say is true or not, as long as you can throw a hissy fit about some imaginary conspiracy against your cult.

Is that what christianity means to you, Chappy? Blatant, shameless lying, with no remorse or comprehension?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 9, 2009 5:15 PM

Abby Normal strained his mush and came up with:

Speaking of which, will you be consistent and condemn women who wear wimples for making "a declaration of purity, with the implication that all women not so covered are impure and thus 'fair game'."

Show me anything comparable to this that has not been roundly condemned by other Christians as well as secular society, and I will kiss your butt.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 9, 2009 5:19 PM

My politics are not Politically Correct (aka Gramscian Marxist).  If you have a problem with that, you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 9, 2009 5:24 PM

He was no different from the freaks who murder doctors to stop them from providing abortions. NO DIFFERENT.

EP, you're flatly ignoring observable reality. Go fuck yourself. In a poetically-engineered way, of course.

Posted by: Raging bee | November 9, 2009 5:25 PM

Part of the problem here is defining "bigotry".

We seem to all agree that the following things are evidence of unreasonable bigotry towards Muslims:

1) Telling Muslims to "go back to their own countries" whether born abroad or not.

2) Assuming all Muslims are Islamists or sympathetic to Islamist ideas.

What we appear to differ on is whether the following two things constitute bigotry:

3) Criticizing Islam itself, most especially for the violent teachings contained in its scriptures and espoused by some of its most outspoken clerics.

4) Suspecting that a Muslim who commits an act of violence might have been influenced by his/her religion in committing that violence.

While I agree with RB, dc, et al. that #1 and #2 are acts of bigotry, I do not believe that #s 3 and 4 are bigoted at all.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 5:28 PM

The above is indeed an act of bigotry when you keep on doing it despite (and clearly ignoring) a preponderance of evidence indicating other causes, which has been pointed out right here, in plain English, by more than one respondent.

The allegation has been made, but given the existing evidence as reported by the news outlets thus far, Hasan's Islamist views very clearly did play a part in this act of violence. Were there other contributing factors? Absolutely. Did his Islamism tip him over the edge? Quite possibly.

And it's even more an act of bigotry when you FAIL to do it in regard to other similar incidents involving perps of different religions.

No argument there.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 5:40 PM

Bee, why are you so eager and so insistent that Hasan's Islamism played *no role whatsoever* in this shooting?

You're not even allowing any possibility that it could have provided any sort of motivation--even just one among many--for his desire to gun down American soldiers.

There's no way to know if his Islamism was *the* tipping point that pushed him into violence, but there's no way of knowing it had *nothing to do with it* either. The latter appears to be your assertion. And you are repeating it so histrionically as to make me suspect you're pulling a Poe.

Also, non-Muslims have a pretty good track record of not inciting ridiculously violent backlashes against Muslims, even when Muslims act as the aggressors. I don't recall hearing stories of mass Muslim lynchings/burnings/roundings up after the Muslim riots in France or the Danish cartoon brouhaha in Europe. No, all of the violence came from the Muslim side.

And why would you be worried that this shooting would trigger a violent anti-Muslim backlash in this country when 9/11 failed to do that? If anything would have caused mass anti-Muslim violence it would have been 9/11--which was perpetrated by Muslims.

Going by historical precedent, we non-Muslims have much more to fear in the way of violence from Muslims than the other way around.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 5:49 PM

If there were other contributing factors, as has been pointed out here and as you just acknowledged, then, ipso facto, we can't blame Hasan's religion for his actions. Thank you for admitting that. That wasn't so hard, was it?

We cannot *solely* blame Hasan's religion for his actions. But--again, given the evidence so far--can also conclude that his religion played a part in motivating his actions. Was it THE prime motivator? That remains to be seen, yes.

But given his postings on suicide bombings, etc., AT THIS TIME it does appear to have been *a* factor. Would you not agree?

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 5:57 PM

Adrienne,

And given how violent a religion Islam has become, is it wrong to automatically wonder if, when you find out a Muslim has committed a violent act, just how much of a part his/her religion played in that act?

I might be a little fuzzy here, but I seem to recall you having some rather anti-Islamic sentiments on past threads. Seriously, if this is the case, why? How is Islam any more insane than Christianity or Judaism? How is it any more violent? You could argue, just as strongly, that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was heavily influenced by his Christianity. The deaths in Iraq caused by this invasion, this "crusade" if you will, has caused far more deaths than 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the fort Hood shooter combined and multiplied by tens of thousands.

This guy was seriously disturbed. Like the woman in this letter he was an adherent to a religious system that is considered, by many, as an "outsider." He was harassed for his beliefs, like you and a few others on your side have either stated or alluded, he was likely harassed to quit his religion, join another, stop living in the middle ages, etc. None of these are causes, they are more like throwing dynamite at a bonfire. Islam isn't any more militant, hateful, or backwards than any other religion. Where Islamic countries have backwards laws, brutal laws, etc., look at Christian nations in similar regions or similar states of development, they tend to be just as brutal, just as patriarchal, etc.

Yours is a false argument, it is contradictory to the evidence, and it is, in many ways, bigoted. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus ... it really doesn't matter, all of these groups, and countless others have killed each other and others within their groups based on their religious beliefs. If atheism were to ever become a majority (lack of) belief, odds are good people would simply find other reasons to kill one another. Your argument is vaguely similar, and roughly as silly as people arguing that Metallica songs caused Columbine.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 9, 2009 6:52 PM

Adrienne @101

To be fair, I find the "I'm an X first" as problematic with Christians as with Muslims. It implies that a Christian is A-OK with taking orders from a superior until such time as that order conflicts with his/her religious beliefs, in which case.....he or she gets to follow God's law instead of the CO. Which I think is wrong. You're supposed to follow the Constitution and your commanding officer, not what you think your god or your interpretation of your holy scriptures are telling you to do.

Posted by: Kierra | November 9, 2009 6:55 PM

I might be a little fuzzy here, but I seem to recall you having some rather anti-Islamic sentiments on past threads. Seriously, if this is the case, why? How is Islam any more insane than Christianity or Judaism? How is it any more violent?

Look at the Islamic regimes of today. Notice how they treat their women, for starters? Now look at the "Christian" countries of Europe and the US. How do they treat their women?

Do you know what the most frequently committed crime is by Westerners in Saudia Arabia? Women going out of doors without a male escort.

Tell me, which European countries of today routinely hold executions, stonings, etc in sports stadiums? Or blame rapes on the women who had the temerity to not wear the proper body coverings?

Christianity and Judaism in ages past were just as bloody and violent. But in today's world, Islam holds that distinction. Islamic thought and culture has never advanced past the middle ages.

Islam isn't any more militant, hateful, or backwards than any other religion.

Demonstrably false statement.

Yours is a false argument, it is contradictory to the evidence, and it is, in many ways, bigoted.

If you think that you or anyone else on here is going to intimidate me into silence by crying "bigot", think again.

If atheism were to ever become a majority (lack of) belief, odds are good people would simply find other reasons to kill one another.

True, but just because people will always find ways to kill each other doesn't mean that certain religions or systems of thought won't give certain folks handy excuses for killing...not to mention the promise of eternal orgies with willing virgins.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 7:21 PM

@Kierra #120,

(say if they were ordered to torture a prisoner or slaughter defenseless children). The only difference is that some people call their internal moral compass "God"

The difference, Kierra, is that those two items, specifically, are against U.S. law. The Conventions Against Torture, signed by Reagan, and put into law by the Congress, made torture illegal. The "slaughtering of defenseless children" is probably against the Geneva Conventions, but I'm not sure. I would be surprised to find out that was legal, given the My Lai massacre.

Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 9, 2009 7:25 PM

Pat Donohue @117:

Western standards of modesty are different than Arabic/tribal standards, yes. But if you think women who violate those standards (skirts too short, low-cut tops, etc, etc) aren't seen as 'dressing provocatively' and 'asking for it', I have a bridge to sell you.

How often do women in Western countries get beaten to a pulp for being dressed too provocatively? Or have acid thrown in their faces?

If a bunch of adolescent girls were in gym shorts and running from a burning building in the US, what police force would chase them back into the fire because the police decided that the girls were not dressed modestly enough to be outside? This situation actually happened in Saudi Arabia. The girls died.

If you walk outside in a low-cut top in the US or Europe, will a police officer stop you on the street and tell you to cover up, do you think?

My friend who spent two years in her teens in Saudi Arabia was stopped by the police one day because her headscarf was knotted too low, thus showing off too much of her chin and neck.

And if you smile at the wrong man and you live in a Western country, what are the chances that your family will either beat you up, kill you, or disown you?

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 7:36 PM

Has anyone investigated the possibility that the shooter was a Darwinist? As a psychiatrist, I'm assuming he has a reasonable background in the sciences, after all.

Posted by: kehrsam | November 9, 2009 7:50 PM

There isn't a Christian state that I know of (well, maybe the Vatican) so let's make one up. Suppose the descendants of John Calvin regained power in Geneva and established a Presbyterian theocracy. If we attacked them, should you be concerned with hardcore conservative Presbyterian soldiers who had expressed sympathy toward theonomy, dominionism, and Christian theocracy based on OT law?

Congratulations, you've debunked your own argument. There's a very big difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, and several different sects and cults. A group of Pakistani Muslims in the UK are going to have very different beliefs than the ruling class of Saudi Arabia, for example. You can't demand we not paint all Christians with one big brush, then do the same to Islam.

Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 9, 2009 8:26 PM

I keep seeing people posting stuff to the effect of "Islam cannot be that bad."

Yes, it can be that bad.  It IS that bad!  From Pharyngula today:

Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries.

And that includes the very Afghanistan we liberated and built a new government for; just search for "Abdul Rahman" with some combination of "Italy apostate death penalty" and you'll find it.

This is fact.  Islam is not warm and cuddly, it is every bit as bad as its critics say it is.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 9, 2009 8:47 PM

Heddle:

Gee is that what I'm doing? I had no idea. I thought I was making an altogether different point.

You were. It just happened to go over your interlocutor's head.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 8:50 PM

DM @133:

This is, I believe intentionally because I mentioned a specific response to this in my post, an apples and oranges comparison. The Islamic countries of the world are, using the old Cold War designation, generally 3rd world nations. You can't compare them to 1st world advanced industrialized countries and then cry foul.

First of all, Islam and its culture plays a part in keeping those nations third-world nations rather than allowing them to advance.

If, on the other hand, you compare them to more similar 3rd world countries that are predominantly Christian you see similar draconian laws, similar patriarchal legal systems, similar legal second class status for women.

OK, such as? I'm aware of the witch-burnings in African countries embracing evangelistic Christianity, but where are the suicide-bombing third-world Christians?

You honestly believe I am trying to somehow "intimidate" you on a blog? Seriously?

What else is the point of calling someone here "bigot" except to 1) make yourself secure in your own self-righteousness and 2) try to shut down the conversation? Yes, that's a form of attempted intimidation.

You haven't provided any evidence that Islam is inherently more militant or violent than any other belief system.

In the modern world, it certainly is more militant and violent than the other belief systems. The form of extreme Christianity that pushes people to murder abortion doctors is really rather "fringe". But could the same be said about violent Muslims? I don't think so. They aren't as "fringe" in the world of Islam as you seem to be arguing.

But hey, if it makes you happy, then I'll say this again: Christianity can be just as bloody and barbaric and violent as Islam. And if this guy had been a violent Christian rather than a violent Muslim, I bet there wouldn't have been one remark on this thread about how he was just an "ordinary guy" who "snapped".

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 9:02 PM

But hey, if it makes you happy, then I'll say this again: Christianity can be just as bloody and barbaric and violent as Islam. And if this guy had been a violent Christian rather than a violent Muslim, I bet there wouldn't have been one remark on this thread about how he was just an "ordinary guy" who "snapped".

And if he were an atheist? "Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one."

Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 9, 2009 9:06 PM

Shawn @129:

In Brazil and India, unpunished "honor" killings aren't unheard of. Those (in my opinion) evil practices you're speaking of seem like a cultural artifact, with some religious justifications.

The problem wrt Islam in this case is that honor killing is considered a virtuous act in the context of Islam itself, so much so that it's encouraged by Muslim clerics. So where does the cultural artifact end and the religion begin, or vice versa?

You see the same issues with female genital mutilation. That practice predates Islam in parts of Africa, but now the Muslims in those areas have adopted it and justify it on the basis that it's mandated by Islam (it isn't).

The short answer is that there isn't an easy answer. But any religion that is as obsessed with violence and with female purity and modesty as Islam is certainly not helping to *eradicate* these practices.

Do U.S. Muslims (I'm thinking Nation of Islam, specifically) treat the women in their communities anything like that? I don't know, and am asking in order to learn.

Some Muslim communities in the US do practice female genital mutlation, I know that much.

I know there are problems in the UK with radical Muslims and Muslim beliefs and practices regarding women. This is a heartbreaking essay of one doctor's experiences: http://www.city-journal.org/html/5_2_oh_to_be.html

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 9:11 PM

Gray Falcon @138:

And if he were an atheist?

WND would have a wonderful time crowing about how evil atheist morality was responsible and how long until the next atheists guns someone down, etc. etc.

But this is problematic too, because not all atheists think the same thing. You'd have to pick something more specific. Like say, a Communist.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 9:18 PM

Problem is, he didn't say anything like that.

Yes, actually, he did.

But hey, if Heddle is around, he could clarify exactly what he was trying to say.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 9:20 PM

Gray @143:

Hasan was a psychiatrist and not a psychologist and yes, he did express radical sympathies. I suggest you go read up on the case.

At least half of the commenters here screeching about bigotry, etc., are clearly unfamiliar with the stuff that's already been unearthed regarding Hasan's background.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 9:22 PM

JD @139:

Surely those same people will have an equally passionate defense when someone indicts all of Christianity for the sake of an individual.

Indeed, I hope you call them on it with alacrity. It should provide for some very amusing commentary.

The next time an evangelical Christian American shoots an abortion doctor or beats up a suspected homosexual, we'll have to ask ourselves: Was he suffering religious discrimination for his devoutly held beliefs? Was he just an ordinary guy (or gal) under pressure from finances, the bad economy, etc? Did something totally unrelated to his fanatical brand of Christianity happen to make him snap and reach for that gun/beat the crap out of that lesbian?

OK, nighty night all.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 9, 2009 9:32 PM

First of all, Islam and its culture plays a part in keeping those nations third-world nations rather than allowing them to advance.

Yeah, because colonialism and the mandate system had nothing to do with their economic and political development. I mean we all know that Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia have all completely recovered from these setbacks and are all dominated by advanced democratic governments completely lacking in backward traditions or legal systems. [/end sarcasm]

OK, such as? I'm aware of the witch-burnings in African countries embracing evangelistic Christianity, but where are the suicide-bombing third-world Christians?

Ummm Rwanda? One major part of the ethnic battle was the fact that the Catholic Church taught the Tutsi that they were a "superior race." Of course in the process they had to adopt Christianity.

What else is the point of calling someone here "bigot" except to 1) make yourself secure in your own self-righteousness and 2) try to shut down the conversation? Yes, that's a form of attempted intimidation.

You might want to reread my actual post, I said your argument was bigoted, I didn't say you were a bigot. But by all means, put words in my mouth as I "intimidate you." Please, please, I must apologize for "victimizing you." What could I have been thinking?

But hey, if it makes you happy, then I'll say this again: Christianity can be just as bloody and barbaric and violent as Islam. And if this guy had been a violent Christian rather than a violent Muslim, I bet there wouldn't have been one remark on this thread about how he was just an "ordinary guy" who "snapped".

Actually he was an "ordinary guy" who snapped, regardless of his religious beliefs. Benedict Arnold was an "ordinary guy" who snapped. Simple fact is, the Major, like many people in times of conflict, was put in a situation where his faith came into conflict with the majority. Arnold wasn't recognized for his efforts, his victories were stolen, his loyalties questioned, etc. He ultimately snapped and betrayed his friends and compatriots. In the fort Hood case the gunman was placed in a similar situation. His core belief system was challenged. It was attacked by those around him. He was seen, by many like (apparently) you, as inherently untrustworthy, the enemy, etc. I would assume, many (again apparently like you) would push him to convert, make statements like the woman who wrote this letter about not belonging here, make knee-jerk threats or arguments that he should be kicked out of the military, etc. On top of that he spent his military career hearing the very worst aspects of a war he didn't support in the first place. I would not be at all surprised if some of his patients took out some of their frustrations on him.

All of these factors pushing upon a strong, healthy individual would have been bad enough, but on someone who apparently had some serious mental issues, it snapped him like a twig.

But really, you continue to strike the victim pose as you ignore the mountains of evidence that really suggest your position is a bigoted one. Certainly, you must be correct, all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world must be evil, bloodthirsty savages. Let's forcibly convert them all to wonderful, loving Christianity and those that refuse we can vaporize, that'll make it all better, right?

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 9, 2009 9:42 PM

Hey, it's JD, GOD'S own fighter pilot. Dude, are you posting from the office? Are you on a government owned computer? Do your superiors know of and approve your KKKristian advocacy? Just a few questions.

Adrienne @ 114:

"Also, non-Muslims have a pretty good track record of not inciting ridiculously violent backlashes against Muslims, even when Muslims act as the aggressors. I don't recall hearing stories of mass Muslim lynchings/burnings/roundings up after the Muslim riots in France or the Danish cartoon brouhaha in Europe. No, all of the violence came from the Muslim side."

Yep, that Sikh feller,Balbir Singh Sodhi, who was killed in Phoenix because he was a "muslim" shortly after the WTC bombing of 9/11. Then there was the Sikh temple in Palermo, NY (near where I lived for about a year) that was burned to the ground by young, drunk teenage arsonists who wanted to "get even" with those muslims. That violence was perpetrated by good ol' murkins.

Adrienne @ 123:

"If you think that you or anyone else on here is going to intimidate me into silence by crying "bigot", think again."

Boy, we know that ain't gonna happen. But you will become a lot more strident.

Adrienne @ 125:

"But we weren't killing them *for being Muslims*. The US waged war against a country and its dictator, not against the religion of Islam."

Do you really think that the Iraqis killed because of Mr. Bush's Great Adventure really give a fuck that they weren't killed because they're muslims? They were killed because they got caught between the hammer of the U.S. military and the anvil of their brutal ruler's intransigence.

It's a feaure of your comments that they become more righteous and more defensive as you go along. You also seem to have the empathic range of Ted Bundy. You don't like dark people, you've made that pretty clear. How would you feel about Islam if it was a Danish religion?

heddle:

"If we were engaged in killing devout Christians on Christian soil, then I would agree with you 100%--a soldier's devout Christianity would be cause for some concern."

then you draw this distinction:

"Fair enough, but let me clarify. I am talking about what would happen if we were killing Christians in a Christian state. Or killing Christian rebels in some land who wanted to establish a Christian state. That would me more analogous to what we are doing in Afghanistan."

Really? Afghanistan is NOT, at least currently, an Islamic Republic, nor is Iraq.

As far as our christian soldiers killing other countries' christian soldiers, Alvin York--quite famously--was both a christian and a stone killer. I'm fairly certain that nobody thought it was that big of a deal.

Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 10:33 PM

Oh, and Bush Jr. also said he invaded Iraq because his god told him to. And some of his generals bragged about how their god was bigger than the other guy. "War against Islam?" I'm shocked SHOCKED and hurt HURT that anyone would think such a thing THING.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 9, 2009 10:50 PM

"Good and evil aren't who you are, they're what you do. You have become, through your words and actions, that which you hate the most: A religious bigot."

Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Paging Dr. Dawkins to the white courtesy phone....

Posted by: Adrienne | November 10, 2009 3:33 AM

Dogmeatib @150:

Yeah, because colonialism and the mandate system had nothing to do with their economic and political development.

That's a factor, sure, but Islam is further retarding progress. How could it not, given its ridiculous anti-science, anti-inquiry, and anti-woman tenets? Much as Catholicism helped to retard Spain's progress in the 15th & 16th centuries compared to neighboring countries. In addition to its medieval backwardness, Islam the religion promotes or at least fails to mandate against the widespread Islamic cultural practice of inbreeding. We all know how well that worked out for European Christian royalty.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 10, 2009 3:48 AM

You guys don't get out much do you? I've known quite a number of Muslims, some devout some not. All are extremely law-abiding & honest people. Rates of crime amongst Muslims are far lower than the population as a whole (I am trying to find the data, so cool your boots). This whole 'Muslim therefore killer/terrorist' meme is nonsense pushed by the media to boost sales.
Firstly, Maj. Hasan did not try to proselytize anyone in Ft Hood. He tried to do so When he was a student, no complaint or disciplinary action was made against his in his current position. Secondly, there is little evidence that he was 'radicalised' in anyway. Such a report may have appeared in the media, but remember the first law of journalism (apologies to Ed): "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story". Let's wait for actual evidence before jumping to bigoted opinions shall we? Thirdly, if you think Islam is a religion of violence lets have evidence. What are the Suras that promote violence? What do they say in Arabic? How (and who) is doing the translating? Show the wars they have fought and I'm sure Christianity could match (and exceed, in some cases) them life-for life, horror-for-horror, destruction-for destruction.
Should one condemn the nice Jewish man who does your taxes because 2600 years ago his ancestors committed genocide against the Caanites? Is the German woman who runs the local day-care guilty of participating in the holocaust? Is the Christian guy who returned your wallet, guilty of the actions of some crazed Bomber who claims Christ made him do it?
Stop reaching for the simple knee-jerk and look deeper. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 10, 2009 6:47 AM

Maybe only women should be allowed to carry guns.

Or maybe handguns should be ban or severely restricted.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 10, 2009 7:05 AM

JD @ 138 stated:

As an advocate of religious freedom . . .

That's the biggest lie I've heard this month. JD, you've clearly solidified your position in this forum as someone who supports Christians unconstitutionally using the resources of the military to extend the objectives of their religion even when it denies other military personnel their rights. You've even extended your defense of military Christian personnel acting contra to military regulations in a manner that compromises and even harms our military objectives in places like Iraq. Your defense has come in spite of such practices being contra to military regulations, the Constitution, and the ideals ratified in the Constitution.

You've established your religious objectives supersede any fealty to the Constitution. In fact when called out on this repeatedly, you've failed to even defend the Constitution while always defending Christians in the military leveraging the powers of government to encroach on the rights of other military personnel.

JD @ 138 stated:

it's refreshing to see such an aggressive defense of Islam here by those who don't think Hasan represents his religion. Surely those same people will have an equally passionate defense when someone indicts all of Christianity for the sake of an individual.

Indeed, but not surprising. Our principles stand on firm ground and can be ably and consistently applied, and are. We surely can not say that about you given your continued support for Christians not acting in their country's or fellow soldiers' best interests. I would argue you have no moral authority to weigh in on this matter.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 7:37 AM

Ah Heddle - you did actually read the thread, right?
Adrienne seems to under the impression that Islam (and all other religions, although clearly to a lesser degree) make people go nuts and kill people (or something) automatically. However her evidence for this relationship being true for Islam seems based on what Right-wing Shock-jocks spout, rather than anything concrete.
So just to be absolutely clear here, are Muslims our enemies here (as you seem to think, since the only available evidence is that Maj. Hasan talked to Imams), or not (George the Least, eventually, was told not to say so, it wasn't productive for his ambitions in the Middle-East)? It can only be one or the other.
If you're trying to connect Maj. Hasan to Al-Qaeda, where is your extraordinary proof, I'm sure the Military investigation into this shooting would find your conclusive proof extremely helpful. Or is it some random meme you pick up from Glenn Bek (or his ilk?

Posted by: DingoJack | November 10, 2009 7:49 AM

Words of wisdom re: Islam from Major Hasan:

If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.

AND

Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam.

AND

We love death more then [sic] you love life!

So Muslims love death more than non-Muslims love life. Sure sounds like a non-violent religion to me!

He also wrote:

Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.

Now that's a recommendation I can get behind.

To read more about Hasan's enlightening PowerPoint presentation on the American military and Islam, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903618.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: Adrienne | November 10, 2009 7:55 AM

Lesson:

All religions are totally fucking wacky.

I think we can all agree on that.

Posted by: Katharine | November 10, 2009 8:25 AM

Oh yes, certainly, I'm the one who's becoming more strident. The people repeatedly and increasingly viciously attacking me on this thread? Not strident at all. Nosireee Bob.

Of course twisting what they actually say into a version that attacks you has nothing to do with those "increasingly vicious attacks you perceive, right?

That's a factor, sure, but Islam is further retarding progress. How could it not, given its ridiculous anti-science, anti-inquiry, and anti-woman tenets? Much as Catholicism helped to retard Spain's progress in the 15th & 16th centuries compared to neighboring countries. In addition to its medieval backwardness, Islam the religion promotes or at least fails to mandate against the widespread Islamic cultural practice of inbreeding. We all know how well that worked out for European Christian royalty.

Again you fail to provide evidence that this is a purely Islamic issue. You have failed to refute the far more significant evidence that other former colonial regions are just as stunted in their development (in many cases more so), but instead add this new "inbreeding" argument. I also note that you failed to respond or reply to the Rwanda aspect of Christianity playing a major role in extreme violence.

Sorry Adrienne, on this issue you remind me very much of creationists and KKKonservatives (before you jump up and down screaming accusations, note I said on this issue and REMIND me). You jump from sub issue to sub issue, constantly adding new arguments while allowing those that have been refuted to simply drop away as if they don't exist.

As long as you insist that a religion of 1.5 billion people is as violent, backward, vicious, and effectively evil as you are trying to claim, your position is a bigoted one.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 10, 2009 9:15 AM

Again you fail to provide evidence that this is a purely Islamic issue.

I have said nothing is a "purely Islamic issue". Sure, Christianity hurt Rwanda. I know that. But Rwandans killed each other, they didn't go about suicide bombing non-Christians.

Recovering from colonialism is a long haul, but then Islam is retarding that haul. Muslims would be better off without Islam (especially female Muslims). The world would be better off without Islam.

Islam is a barbaric religion that promotes violence. Sure, most Muslims are non-violent. But those Muslims who are violent are rather hard to ignore, especially as they have the unholy and unfortunate tendency to attack civilians and riot and burn down/blow up things when something happens that they think insults their religion (see the Danish cartoon controversy). Perhaps as a percentage they are no more violent than the same percentage of Christians who are violent compared to the overall whole. Wonderful. But that doesn't make Muslim violence any less pernicious or real.

If you think that makes me bigoted, so what? Reality and the actions of Muslims say otherwise.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 10, 2009 9:35 AM

@ heddle:

...if you have a soldier in uniform who may have, for example, attempted to make contact with the enemy, then you have a big problem.

First, there's no evidence that he made contact with anyone other than an imam who kind of agreed with the enemy. That's not the same as "THE ENEMY." Second, one reason such evidence was not acted on was that the Army was a bit overextended and couldn't spare even one psychiatrist. (Remember, he was a psychiatrist, not a field commander or intel guy; his contacts and research were noticed, and considered consistent with his need to understand what his patients were dealing with.)

The most recent news I've heard indicates that Hasan had tried a) to get the Army to allow Muslim soldiers consciensious-objector status WRT Iraq and Afghanistan; and b) to warn the Army of what he saw as a potential internal threat from Muslim soldiers with divided loyalties. So as I said before, this guy wasn't working with or for the enemy; he was trying to do the right thing (as he saw it) for our side, not succeeding, and coming unglued due to stresses he was trying the wrong way to handle.

This is not an occasion to bash Islam or religion in general. It's not "terrorism," it's just one guy "going postal." The Islamist connections are, at most, just a different icing on the same old cake. Let's not dishonor the victims by using them for a totally unrelated cause.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 10, 2009 10:04 AM

Scott Simmons @47:

So, you believe that the fewer adherents of Christianity there are, the better, as well, correct?

Correct.

Posted by: Scott Simmons | November 10, 2009 10:14 AM

Raging Bee, we agree that Bush the Lesser is an idiot.

I do not agree with you that Hasan "just happened" to flip out.  His attack came with ample warning, and it is inextricably linked with his religion.  Hell, 26% of American muslims aged 18-29 support suicide bombing to some extent:  http://www.jewishjournal.com/community_briefs/article/pew_poll_finds_some_us_muslims_support_suicide_bombing_20070601/

You can deny that ideas matter all you like (religion is a collection of ideas).  You might as well deny gravity.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 10, 2009 11:16 AM

Islam and shari'a law do not consider the life of a "kaffir" and the life of a muslim to have the same worth. The highest penalty under Islam for a muslim who kills a non-muslim is a fine, while any non-muslim who so much as attempts to defend themselves against a muslim's attack can be killed (for violating the "dhimma").

And how precisely is this different than the Christian treatment of non-believers over the last thousand years or so? Hell a hundred years ago Native Americans were forcibly converted, those that refused were (at best) marginalized and relocated. Of course those who did convert weren't treated that much better, they lost their lands and rights in the courts rather than at gun point. But again, how is this all different than Muslim attitudes towards non-believers?

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 10, 2009 6:31 PM

dogmeatib:  What you're missing is that all those abuses are long gone in the West, and no Christian sect runs the civil government of any significant area (even the residents of Vatican City are free to walk out at any time).  In extreme contrast, Islam IS the civil law in many areas of the world, and has a firm veto on the liberalization of civil law for a large part of the rest.  Islam is not a religion, it is also a politics and geopolitics (to borrow a phrase from Robert Spencer).  Any mosque following any of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence is a POLITICAL organization, and engaged in sedition at that.  Christianity says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", Islam preaches the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments by force.  Islam preaches that all must be conquered, but Christians and Jews may be allowed to live as "dhimmi"; all others must convert or die.  As an atheist, I can live with Christians, but Muslims are a mortal danger.

Raging Bee:  You have gone into delusion.  Many Islamic suicide terrorists gave signs of their carefully-planned acts.  They gave their goods away.  They shaved their beards and other hair.  They went to un-Islamic activities like strip clubs.  This is not a sign of insanity, this is a pattern of behavior inspired by teachings and example.  Hasan's contacts with the terrorist-associated imam in Yemen aren't a sign of insanity, they are evidence of premeditation.  Have you forgotten Najibullah Zazi so quickly?

I bet you have.  I bet you think that ANYONE who notices these patterns of murder, attempted murder, espionage, physical assault, legal bullying and other hostility from Muslims is "a hater" having "a narrow mind".  This is your delusion.  Perhaps someday you will come out of it.

In the mean time, chew on this list of Muslim soldiers convicted of terrorism or espionage since 9/11:
* NAVY SIGNALMAN HASSAN ABUJIHAAD last year was convicted of tipping off al-Qaida to battlegroup movements in the Persian Gulf, including disclosing classified documents detailing the group's vulnerability to terror attack

* ARMY RESERVIST JEFFREY LEON BATTLE in 2003 pleaded guilty to conspiring to wage war against the U.S., confessing he enlisted "to receive military training to use against America"

* ARMY RESERVIST SEMI OSMAN in 2002 was arrested for providing material support to al-Qaida and pleaded guilty to weapons charges after agreeing to testify against other terror suspects

* MARINE ABDUL RAHEEM AL-ARSHAD ALI trained at a suspected al-Qaida camp and was charged with selling a semiautomatic handgun to Osman

* ARMY SGT. ALI "THE AMERICAN" MOHAMED trained Green Berets at the elite Swick warfare school at Fort Bragg before stealing classified military secrets for al-Qaida and helping plan the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa

* ARMY SGT. HAMMAD ABDUR-RAHEEM in 2004 was convicted of terror-related charges

* ARMY SPC. RYAN G. ANDERSON in 2004 was convicted of leaking military intelligence to al-Qaida terrorists, including sensitive information about the vulnerabilities of armored Humvees

* ARMY SNIPER JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD was sentenced to death after fatally shooting 10 in the nation's capital a year after the 9/11 attacks

* FORMER ARMY LINGUIST AHMED FATHY MEHALBA in 2005 was convicted of stealing secret documents listing, among other things, the names of al-Qaida detainees from Gitmo

* SENIOR AIRMAN AHMAD AL-HALABI in 2004 was convicted of mishandling classified documents as an Arabic linguist at Gitmo

* ARMY CAPT. JAMES "YOUSEF" YEE in 2003 was formally charged with mishandling classified information – including maps of a new Gitmo facility – as a Muslim chaplain at Gitmo.

If you are not too blinded by Political Correctness to watch a critique of it, view this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi0yeolwy-0

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 10, 2009 8:44 PM

One more tidbit of information:  the man Hasan was talking to as his advisor, Anwar al-Awlaki,

posted an article called "44 ways to support jihad," saying that joining or helping "holy warriors" fight the U.S. and its allies is "obligatory for every Muslim."

Failing to treat such contacts as treasonous, or even deeply suspicious, is dereliction of duty.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 10, 2009 9:40 PM

Adredienne - You keep saying that Islam promotes the spread of their religion by force^1., but can you tell us where exactly in the Koran this is stated? You keep stating that Islam promotes suicide bombing by promoting martyrdom^2., can you tell us where in the Koran, specifically, this is stated?
You keep making these positive claims of what Islam is, but do you actually know this, or is this what you have been told? - DJ
_________________
^1. unlike Christianity, say, that never won converts by conquest, never invaded the territories of 'infidels' and certainly never suppressed the beliefs of others by having them burned alive at the stake, oh no never. And before you say 'oh that was in the distant past', remember Islam is only 14 centuries old, and what was Christianity, say, like in the 14th century?
^2. Martyrdom was common in the early part of many religions. Christianity, for example, had many martyrs in it's early years, until the leadership put a stop to it for various reasons (it was a political 'vote-loser', it reduced the number adherents, it reduced the attractiveness of 'joining up', amongst other reasons). For more recent examples look-up Nicholas Ridley or Fox's Book of Martyrs.
___________________________
PS: On a small matter of history. Islamic scholars revived medicine from it's 'dark age' trough, invented new and useful branches of mathematics (ever used algebra?), revived and furthered astronomy (the brightest stars in the night sky have Arabic names), created modern chemistry, created beautiful new architectural and decorative forms (see Alhambra), not to mention new forms of music, poetry and art.
It was thanks to Islamic scholars in Spain that Europe began to drag it self out of the 'dark ages'.

Posted by: DingoJack | November 10, 2009 10:00 PM

DJ @188:

Adredienne - You keep saying that Islam promotes the spread of their religion by force".

No, Nidal Hasan said that. You know, the Islamist shooter?

Gee, and where have I *ever* given Christianity a pass on violence, oppression, and other evil things, DJ? Strawman.

It was thanks to Islamic scholars in Spain that Europe began to drag it self out of the 'dark ages'.

I'm well aware of that. Islam *almost* had an enlightenment back then. But then they reverted and stayed culturally and humanistically retarded. As I said, unlike Christian thought and culture, Islam has sadly never advanced beyond the middle ages.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 7:44 AM

Adrienne* - I don't remember Maj. Hasan posting on this thread, was it under a pseudonym? But you sure have been parroting that line, care to produce your evidence supporting this position now?
Did I ever say you 'gave Christianity a free pass'? If so, where specifically? Strawman
Of course the 'Islamic enlightenment' had hardly begun when the Christian states attacked them, it continued on for centuries until the west eclipsed the East during the 17th century, and then only off the back of the knowledge of the East.
Wouldn't feel too smug there. - DJ
-------------
*Sincere apologies for misspelling your handle earlier, it was not intentional and no slight was meant.

Posted by: DingoJack | November 11, 2009 8:03 AM

DJ @192

I don't remember Maj. Hasan posting on this thread, was it under a pseudonym? But you sure have been parroting that line, care to produce your evidence supporting this position now?

I posted a quote from Hasan's powerpoint presentation that the Washington Post had gotten a copy of. Scroll up a few comments. I'm sure you can find it. That's the lovely presentation when he says, "We [Muslims] love death more than you love life!"

Did I ever say you 'gave Christianity a free pass'? If so, where specifically?

You keep bringing up the evils of Christianity to contrast them with Islam. Your'e doing the reverse of PZ Myers's Christian critics who always say stuff like, "You wouldn't say that kinda stuff about the Koran!". They call it Koran envy. On this thread, you keep showing evidence of Bible envy.

Except that I think the Bible and Christianity are bad too. So why keep bringing up Christian malfeasance? Does it make Muslim malfeasance any less bad? No.

Of course the 'Islamic enlightenment' had hardly begun when the Christian states attacked them, it continued on for centuries until the west eclipsed the East during the 17th century, and then only off the back of the knowledge of the East. Wouldn't feel too smug there.

Smug how? OK, so you think it's Christianity's fault that Islam as widely practiced today is a barbaric religion? OK, fine. Why would that make me smug?

You remind me of that other Jack-- Jack Chick. Chick claims in one of his infamous Chick tracts that the Catholic Church is responsible for founding Islam. No, really.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 9:17 AM

Hanley to Engineer-Poet:

Let's just rip up the First Amendment freedom of religion thingy and just impale all the nasty Muslims, then disembowel them and burn their entrails, then draw and quarter them, then hang the remains by the neck until dead. Then we'll expel their bodies from America. Will that make you feel better?

Better idea: take all the "nasty Muslims" (if by that you mean the pro-violence, pro-murder, homophobic, misogynist Islamist ones), smear them all over with bacon grease, and then invite a bunch of dogs to come lick it off them!

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 9:35 AM

Adrienne - So your answer is basically no. You don't have any idea of what Islam is, nor a shred of evidence that it is, by it's own nature, a violent, misogynistic or anti-social belief system, you are just relying on second-hand opinions from the right-wing blogosphere at best.
And you seem content to keep within the confines of the 'received' right-wing history, far be it from me to prick your bubble, but ignore the realities of history at your peril. Don't expect anyone else to respect your security blanket, and don't expect reality to conform to your warped ideas of world. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 11, 2009 10:23 AM

It's not really clear at all, except, as democommie notes, your post at 196.

Wonderful. I'm glad I was able to articulate my thoughts in comment #196 well enough for you and democommie to get the point, Hanley.

Speaking of which, I nominate the fine Islamist clerics featured in the video linked to in this Pharyngula post to be the first candidates for the bacon-grease-and-canine-tongue-bath treatment: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/what_if_i_want_a_green-eyed_vi.php

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 12:06 PM

It appears that we need a new law akin to Godwin's law, because "bigot" has become the new "Nazi".

As in Godwin's law the person who calls the other "bigot" has lost the argument, because as we can see it has now become purely ad-hominem and substitutes for addressing the argument put forth.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 11, 2009 12:24 PM

As in Godwin's law the person who calls the other "bigot" has lost the argument, because as we can see it has now become purely ad-hominem and substitutes for addressing the argument put forth.

Maybe we can call that one "Poet's Law". :-)

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 12:39 PM

I'm aware of that. I guess I'm just picturing it kind of like a skit about a Gitmo detainee tortured by being forced to eat a ham sandwich... No, no, it is forbidden, UNCLEAN... (could you pass the mayo) oh this is terrible!

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 11, 2009 12:52 PM

Incidentally, that skit I mentioned aired on Iranian radio.

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 11, 2009 1:01 PM

Of course there are lots of devout Cath-O-Licks who still won't eat meat on fridays during Lent. And what about all those filthy orthodox Jews who ignore heddle's declaration that the OT is old hat and keep kashrut? Never mind those idiot SB's, Jehovah's witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Methodists and Hindus with their goofy ass dietary laws and prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages and such. Why does Adrienne think 80% of this fine nation's citizens are religiously besotted ignoramuses (ignorami?)?

And? That's it?!

What about the crazy ass Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Transcendental Meditationists, Quakers, Jainists, Buddhists, animists, Santerians, Wiccans, Hare Krishnas, Sikhs, Mormons, and all of *their* irrational and pointless customs and practices yet. You've got a few thousand more religions to get through yet. Keep going.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 1:14 PM

Adrienne:

Gloryosky, I guess you showed me up with your impressive add-ons to my partial list of faiths, other than Islam, which are a little strange in their beliefs.

So, howsabout those "provincial Muslim yokel relatives back home in Pakistan"--are they evil Islamists or just stupid, dirty people who don't think dogs are clean. You do realize that dogs are known to bite, to carry rabies and eat off of any surface they can reach? yes? And you do know that medical care for rabies is practically non-existent in many parts of the third world. And you do know that many people, not just muslims, eat while sitting on a floor or cushion and from a communal cooking vessel. Dogs being unclean to muslims is, I suspect, akin to pork being unclean to orthodox (or even other observent) jews. In the matter of things that affect my life such prohibitions are relatively meaningless. While I think that in this country, in this day, such prohibitions have outlived their usefullness, if they're not harming me, I don't have a beef.

Now, as to people cutting people's heads off with swords, shooting unarmed soldiers in a processing center or things of that nature. Well, I would like to see that sort of thing stopped of course. But, hey, if you're keeping score, GOD'S new and improved Chosen People-TM (that's us, USA!USA!!USA!!!) are way ahead of them (those filthy, unkempt, illiterate, benighted towelheads).

It's probably just as well that those murderous vermin DIDN'T have an enlightenment. WTF would have happened if THEY had embraced science and designed the internal combustion engine--while sitting atop seas of ME oil? I'm sure that being "enlightened" would have kept them from attacking, occupying and subjugating all of us goofy white folks.

Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 1:43 PM

You do realize that dogs are known to bite, to carry rabies and eat off of any surface they can reach? yes?

And domesticated cats carry rabies. And mice, and rats, and bats, and raccoons. And goats and camels...all of which are common in Muslim third-world nations. And camels like to bite and spit, you know.

And you do know that medical care for rabies is practically non-existent in many parts of the third world.

Keep on digging. I know you'll find a good excuse for every silly and irrational Muslim custom if you rationalize hard enough.

And you do know that many people, not just muslims, eat while sitting on a floor or cushion and from a communal cooking vessel. Dogs being unclean to muslims is, I suspect, akin to pork being unclean to orthodox (or even other observent) jews.

Because it's really annoying when your pet pig keeps trying to eat out of your communal cooking vessel, isn't it?

Oh, and Muslims consider pork unclean too. Did you know that?

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 2:11 PM

As in Godwin's law the person who calls the other "bigot" has lost the argument,

Second, the reason references to Nazis/Hitler are hyperbole, and suggest (not prove, but suggest) the user has lost the argument is because actual Nazis/Hitlers are very rare, so the probability of the term being accurately applied is close to 0.0.

But that's not true of bigots. Nazis are rare, but bigots are common. Really, really, really, really common. And one thing bigots tend to have in common with each other is they get offended when others point out that they are in fact bigots. So perhaps the definition for "Poet's Law" would be that "in internet discussions, the probability that a bigot will take offense at being called a bigot is 1.0."

Posted by: James Hanley | November 11, 2009 3:16 PM

James Hanley @ 216 - Damn dude, you're smokin' the past two days. People are goin' down in flames.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 4:20 PM

Impressive James, I have to agree with Michael, glad I'm not the skeet for the shots you've been making. ;o)

----------
'poet,

As has been pointed out, the bigotry/Godwin doesn't work. The biggest thing is, at least in my case, I didn't call anyone a bigot. Instead my actual statement was twisted into a sword so Adrienne could strike a martyr pose and throw herself onto it. Unfortunately for her, I never called her a bigot, this is actually what I said:

Yours is a false argument, it is contradictory to the evidence, and it is, in many ways, bigoted.

As you can see, I said her argument was, in many ways bigoted. Quite different from calling someone a bigot, and, given the scope of this debate, increasingly accurate.

Also, you make the argument that the brutal actions of Christianity are aspects of the distant past? This is a prime example of a great deal of hand waving and gesturing to ignore reality to support an already falsified argument. The genocidal campaign in Serbia was conducted by Christians against Muslims. Rwanda involved Christian bigotry that really created the conflict between two otherwise virtually identical ethnic groups. In Latin America today (within the last 20 years) there are cases where not only did Christians get away with murdering innocent non-Christian Native Americans, they were lauded for their acts.

As for your argument about spies in the current conflict, you're aware that during WWII there was one convicted spy ring alone that included 33 German-Americans, right?

I mean really, some of you guys are a hysterical scream away from arguing that we should pack up all of the Muslim Americans and send them to camps. Take a deep breath, look at one of your posts, replace Islam, Muslim, etc., with another group, and see if your arguments seem as valid.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 11, 2009 4:53 PM

As far as jews not wanting to have a pet pig eating out of their communal pot, I guess if I was any sort of an observant jew I would find such a comment repugnant, but as I'm not, I just find it somewhat stupid.

That's the problem with having sacred cows. Other people inevitably just don't hold your cow in as high regard as you do, and turn it into hamburger.

Jewish dietary customs and Muslim dietary customs are equally inane and antiquated. And equally deserving of ridicule. Except for the killing animals humanely part of kashrut/halal. That I can agree with.

Pity the poor Muslims and Jews who will never know what a bacon cheeseburger tastes like due to their silly religious prosciptions. Or a ham and cheese sandwich.

Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 6:20 PM

Adrienne - You well known expert on Camels, the Koran and Rhabdovirus*, share with us you towering wisdom, oh great one.
a) Provide concrete evidence that Koran is, in itself, more expressionistic and violent, than every other 'holy' book, and that all Muslims, because of Koranic teachings,
are more prone to violence than all non-Muslims?
b) Provide evidence that Camels, when properly treated, 'bite and spit' spreading the Rabies Virus. (Can you provide expert Camel handlers that can confirm this?)
c) Tell us what the treatment for and infection by the Rabies Virus is? What is the success rate?
We await your "divinely" revealed wisdom with bated breath. - DJ
---------------------------
* until actually asked to provide evidence for your 'godlike fiats', naturally

Posted by: DingoJack | November 12, 2009 7:22 PM