…and this is a 
Christian-Fascism Awareness Week
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 11, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
David Horowitz (you all remember him, right? Deranged anti-intellectual wanker?) He has declared 22-26 October to be Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, to be represented with talks by such towering intellects as Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity.
Brian Leiter has a complementary suggestion: the week after should be Christian-Fascism Awareness Week.
Now I don't want to interfere with Horowitz's effort, which is in the spirit of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan: "fundamentalism is the enemy of all civilized humanity." So one week devoted to Islamic fundamentalism seems right; but why not devote the next week to Christian fundamentalism? The rise of Christian Fascism has gotten some attention lately, but not nearly enough in our "politically correct" culture. Sure, the Christian Fascists aren't quite as scary, since they rarely commit terrorist acts (except against abortion service providers); on the other hand, they're right here in our midst (even in the White House some say), while the Islamic Bogeyman-In-Chief is in a cave somewhere in Pakistan.
I'd suggest that the Christo-Fascists have done far more damage to our country than any Islamo-Fascist — after all, the Islamic hordes haven't been responsible for stripping away our civil liberties, nor did they force us to spend trillions on a fool's war, nor did they turn Jesus into Mammon, nor did they replace education and science with ignorance and piety.
I'm all for this suggestion. I'm sure that Santorum, Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, Perkins, Robertson, etc., etc., etc. will all happily join us in fighting this grave threat to American security and freedom, too.
Comments
Hmm. Well, good luck with that, PZ. I'd love to see it too, but I won't be holding my breath.
Posted by: Efrique | October 11, 2007 1:24 AM
Christ-o-rama awareness week. Dec 18th- 25th.
Posted by: John Danley | October 11, 2007 1:24 AM
Wow - they even managed to squeeze some global-warming denial into the event. Impressive.
Posted by: Wisaakah | October 11, 2007 1:24 AM
You hit it right on the head sir, the Christians are far more a danger to us than the Islamics are right now.
Posted by: Ex Patriot | October 11, 2007 1:25 AM
You saw this coming- but you can't call a group fascist without first understanding what the word fascism means.
Just because they do it doesn't mean we have to descend to the same level.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 11, 2007 1:32 AM
I'm a pedanto-fascist. Here's Eric Blair talking about the use of the word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 11, 2007 1:38 AM
"Just because they do it doesn't mean we have to descend to the same level."
I'm not for wantonly tossing around terms like "fascist" either, but if it's for satirical purposes I have no problem with it. This strikes me as one of those instances.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 11, 2007 1:39 AM
I found Cal Thomas's recent column on this to be particularly disgusting.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas100907.php3
By the way, John, Christowareness Week isn't Dec 18-25; it actually runs Jan 1-Dec 31.
Posted by: MikeM | October 11, 2007 1:43 AM
Perhaps more to the point, here's Benito Mussolini quoted in the same article that Christian Burham links to in #6 above:
Posted by: another | October 11, 2007 1:46 AM
One thing finally occurred to me, and that is the definition of what a terrorist is. It finally hit me that the definition is, "Escalation." If you attack me and take out 100 of my innocents, you can be sure I'll aim for 150 of yours next time. Now, I know that means you'll aim for 200 of mine next time, but aren't you deterred by the fact that you know I'll take out 250?
And so on.
By that definition, I really think W is a terrorist. And, of course, he has enemies that are willing to go along in this game. "Hmmm, we got 2,750, and you got 100,000. That's gonna be tough to top, but heck, I'm sure I can do it."
And he'll try. And then we'll try.
The "bigger person" eventually starts de-escalating. Increasing violence doesn't help, and I am certain that neither W nor bin Laden understand that. So while I 100% agree that Osama meets my definition (if it's a valid definition), then so does W. So I would urge these supporters of W to recognize who it is they're following; the decider, the escalator.
What we've done in Iraq and even in Afghanistan will shame our nation for generations. I'm so sad that I see no way out, and following a self-loathing warthog like Coulter, who thinks women should not be allowed to vote, is a shameful act.
I was appalled when I read Cal Thomas's column, referenced above.
We live in a scary time, where our president, who leads the largest military the world has ever seen, believes in escalation to the present degree. This is a very dangerous combination.
Once in a while, I go off like this. Sorry.
Posted by: MikeM | October 11, 2007 1:57 AM
the disclaimer for Cal's article states:
The problem arises when folks PRINT out articles and discard them in, say, the trash.
which is actually more effort than his article is worth.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 2:01 AM
This highlights an interesting schism within the New Atheist movement (and larger atheist community): those who view Christian and Islamic (and Jewish) fundamentalism as equivalent in fanaticism and dangerousnes, those who believe that Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalism is more malign and more dangerous than militant Islam, and those who view militant Islam as currently the greatest threat.
Posted by: Colugo | October 11, 2007 2:25 AM
I thought that Fascism had as one of its elements an alliance with corporate interests some how I never would have thought fundamentalist Islam was very interested in what the corporate world was up to Islam does not condone the charging of interest. but the western right wing conservative parties are all about corporate interests.
can there be such a thing theocratic fascism?
I heard an interview of Horowitz in which he told of his early days working with the Black Panthers. sounded like a strange duck to me, might be some personal issues there
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 11, 2007 2:38 AM
I have to agree with DiPietro (#7). Since the word is already being abused using it for the purpose of satire may help illustrate to those abusing it the error of their ways.
However, it is interesting to note that heathens, atheists, secular progressives, et al., are not the only ones making comparisons of the Christian right to fascists, Christians are doing it as well.
I find it funny that a major theme of the week is "the oppression of women in Islam" and Ann Coulter is a speaker. After all, she has been at the forefront of equality for women! One fine example of her advocacy:
It will be good for female college students at USC and Tulane (located in New Orleans, that city Republicans did so much for after Katrina), to hear the wisdom of this bastion of women's rights.
Posted by: Atheotatous | October 11, 2007 2:49 AM
I don't know if anyone's noticed- but A** C****** has been receiving much less in the way of publicity this time around.
Her book is currently at #18 on the Amazon.com 100 list- which sounds OK, but in reality it's a disaster for C******.
Maybe we should get savvy and stop pointing out C******'s idiocy at the times when s/he's promoting a book.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 11, 2007 3:07 AM
I've been saying for some time that one of the grossest and most dangerous mis-characterizations of recent years is the claim that the Islamic terrorists were/are "attacking our freedoms." The fundamentalists killed innocent people on 9/11, but that did nothing to threaten our freedom.
Except that it enabled the neo-cons to actually start stripping away our civil liberties. It's amazing that the right-wing flag-wavers who pay so much lip service to "freedom" are so willing to toss out our basic civil rights. (Or maybe it's not so astounding, once you realize that they don't actually understand what freedom, justice, etc. are.)
Posted by: Physicalist | October 11, 2007 3:41 AM
As part of Prof. Leiter's careful examination of whether religion deserves to be singled out for special treatment legally, Why Tolerate Religion?, he identifies three distinguishing characteristics of religion:
It's not too hard to see why that's a recipe for potential disaster when combined with government.
Posted by: melior | October 11, 2007 3:45 AM
Yep, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Posted by: MH | October 11, 2007 4:58 AM
PZ says: "...after all, the Islamic hordes haven't been responsible for stripping away our civil liberties, nor did they force us to spend trillions on a fool's war, nor did they turn Jesus into Mammon, nor did they replace education and science with ignorance and piety."
Hyperbole for sake of dramatics? OK among friends over a few too many beers maybe.. but dangerous when we are in forums that are trying to promote reason, fairness, facts, reality, etc. Sorry but I somehow feel we have to hold ourselves to higher principles (e.g., factual presentations, properly labeled reasonable opinions). I am on the same page as you and can read the gist and agree (AMEN brother!), but (and I am NOT asking for framing here - god no!!) we must not sound like "them" as we profess disdain for "them." My 2 cents PZ, understand it comes from a "friend."
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | October 11, 2007 5:07 AM
"David Horowitz (you all remember him, right? Deranged anti-intellectual wanker?)"
That reminded me to comment on a phenomenon I've noticed that is very widespread among US conservatives: the very sort of whiny victim mentality they like to project onto traditionally downtrodden groups like blacks or the poor. They whine about things like political correctness, the "liberal media", "liberal academia", Native Americans operating casinos, feminism, "evolutionists", climatologists, abortion, and not receiving enough minority votes. There must be something in conservatism that attracts so many whiny types.
Posted by: Brandon P. | October 11, 2007 5:08 AM
There must be something in conservatism that attracts so many whiny types.
the kinky sex?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 5:14 AM
I was born in Spain in 1960, and so was raised in a post-fascist pseudo-theocracy. From my perspective, I consider there is a historical linkage between Catholicism and Fascism.
Posted by: John Morales | October 11, 2007 5:43 AM
Well, here in Spain they waged a war against the legitimate regime and sustained a dictatorship that lasted 35 years and allied itself with the nazis and the fascisti. Meanwhile the catholics of the world, Americans included, nodded their heads and talked about the great work against the atheist hordes that plagued republican Spain and the regeneration of the moral order that the Church was doing.
The Spanish catholic hierarchy even had enough time to recant his own sins (in part, of course) and form part of the late antifrancoist movement.
Since then the time of repent has passed, and now they are preparing for canonization a bunch of their "martyrs" of the Civil War. Meanwhile loathe the initiatives of the actual government to find the mass graves of republican combatants and give the families of the murdered some rest.
As you can see Christian-Fascism has much more sense in some parts of the world than Islamo-Fascism, at least in an historical sense.
Posted by: Draco | October 11, 2007 5:50 AM
Ichthyic:
I have a friend who is one of those rare gay conservatives and this may explain it....
Posted by: Jared | October 11, 2007 5:55 AM
Draco, I went back to Spain in 1993 and it did feel peculiar to walk on Franco's grave-marker*. He was an exemplary Catholic and I was taught to look up to him.
*call me cynical, but I wonder if his bones really are there.
Posted by: John Morales | October 11, 2007 6:08 AM
The kinky sex part sounds quite attractive until you realise it involves struggling into two scuba diving outfits.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 11, 2007 6:23 AM
The "Valle de los Caídos" (Valley of the Fallen) were Franco's remains are placed, among those of prominent "national-catholics" (the term used to define the blurry and adaptative francoist doctrine) was built by thousands of forced laborers as a pay for his religious sins and political responsibilities committed during the Republic and the Civil War.
So much for the exemplariness of catholic values.
Posted by: Draco | October 11, 2007 6:26 AM
PZ,
I'm sure that rant was fun for you, but the fact is that we've lost far more liberty to plain old fascists like FDR than we have to any efforts of the christians. Roosevelt imprisoned tens of thousands of US citizens for nothing more than their ancestry. GWB has done some things that are certainly out of line, but he never tried to add judges to the supreme court and just increase their number until he had a majority.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 11, 2007 6:47 AM
If the organizers were smart, they would syndicate the speaking series with the nation's Comedy Club chain. They're missing a great marketing opportunity.
Posted by: Ex-drone | October 11, 2007 6:50 AM
Brian Leiter certainly means well, but geez, every week is Christian-Fascism Awareness Week. One week it's James Dobson obsessing over a guy who makes naked statues of Jesus out of dark chocolate, saying it's the worst insult to Christianity since the Romans fed them to the lions. Another week there's some pathetic Falwell acolyte found dead, encased in two scuba suits with a dildo rammed in his butt.
What would be far better would be one entire week when these people didn't make us aware of themselves. Just one week - one teeny week! - of Christian-Fascism non-awareness. Is that too much to ask?
(grin)
Posted by: tristero | October 11, 2007 7:01 AM
PZ, I just want to thank you for inspiring that Greasemonkey killfile script. I don't use it often, but I'm glad it's there when I need it.
Posted by: HP | October 11, 2007 7:04 AM
So... Horowitz wants to stop the Islamo-fascist oppression of women so that they can have the freedom to become sub-par composers and mathematicians? Well, I guess that's a start.
Posted by: Jonathan | October 11, 2007 7:51 AM
"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
AC didn't say, but of course she meant WHITE men. African Americans are much too smart to vote in droves for the repugs.
Posted by: sailor | October 11, 2007 8:04 AM
I would support such an effort. :)
Posted by: Reginald Finley Sr | October 11, 2007 8:06 AM
Anybody who has spent any time in the talk.origins newsgroups is familiar with the term "Loki." A Loki attempts satire to ridicule "Kookdom" in Talk.origins as in other forums, whether to pretend to be a flat-earther, a creationist, ID'er, etc. They keep it up until someone else catches them at their game.
With that introduction, I call Loki on Concerned Joe.
Too many "quotes," Joe. That's how I caught ya.
Catholic support for Franco is one of the things that led to me question my faith. How can the Church support a brutal dictator so opposed to freedom, and yet at the same time denounce such clerics as Archbishop Romero for Liberation Theology? It didn't accord with what I had learned in catechism classes about the church's role in promoting freedom and liberty. Well, the Church is not so great at supporting freedom, especially when it perceives a threat from Communism and their bully buddies stand in strong opposition to socialism.
And as for Christian Fascism Awareness week; if the atheists and secularists were as effective as the Christian Church Leagues at creating think tanks and throwing money at anti-Muslim speakers, we might be able to put something like this together. I would be happy to join in a blogosphere version of such a thing.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | October 11, 2007 8:19 AM
I guess I was a little surprised to see UM-Morris on that list.
Sorry to hear that, PZ...
Posted by: Bob | October 11, 2007 8:26 AM
Could someone possible tell me when the last time there was a concerted effort by a group of christians to actually execute people for being homosexual? Or who the large scale christian group are that wish to deny basic education to girls? Or who put out death threats against people for the books they write? Or for leaving the christian church?
Yes, there is an issue with people trying to impose a moral set that many of us disagree with. But calling it fascism, and comparing it to the rank and disgusting evil that is done in the name of Islam is not just sloppy thinking and moral equivalency at its worst, it also manages to play into the hands of the christians who we do oppose.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 11, 2007 9:26 AM
Have you been paying attention at all, Donalbain? Or are you just allergic to "The Google"? They are fascist, in the most strict definition of the word. Not just the godwinned "we don't like them" fascist, but "the unification of corporate, government, military and religious power under an exalted, worshipped leader figure for the purpose of advancing a uniform, authoritarian order on the populace, and destroying all opposition through any means."
Posted by: Stogoe | October 11, 2007 10:15 AM
Is this Fascism big 'F' or fascism small 'f'?
The former is a political and historical phenomenon, the latter a world-view that I have seen characterized as "the tendency to treat other people as property" or "the denial of fully human status to certain social groups".
I've long held the belief that any denominational religious affiliation is, to a good approximation, fascist at its core. Firstly, the deity owns your soul, forever; secondly, if you're not a believer you merit lesser treatment.
Posted by: quantok | October 11, 2007 10:16 AM
FDR was a fascist? Who knew?
Personally, I dislike broccoli. I think broccoli was a fascist.
Posted by: Mark M | October 11, 2007 10:53 AM
Stogoe: I notice that you failed to answer my question.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 11, 2007 10:56 AM
"Collusion" (Carlo Bonini, Giuseppe D'avanzo, James Marcus (Translator)) is a rather interesting read.
Posted by: Gaurav | October 11, 2007 11:02 AM
Would this include information in regards to sex? Or perhaps scientific education? If so, that wouldn't be so hard to find. If not, then you need to be clearer on what you mean.
Posted by: Bob | October 11, 2007 11:04 AM
I think a better idea is to promote a "Anti-Christian Liberal News Reporter Awareness Week" or "Christian America is the Cause of All the World's Problems Week" "Let's Offend the Hypocritical Christians Week". Your opinion of Christians in America is judgmental and ignorant. Of course, those are both traits you ascribe to Christians but as you have demonstrated Christians hold no monopoly on them. Your basic premise is Christians are far worse than the murdering hordes of the Islamo-Fascists. You are worse than the Islamo-Fascists yourself. The freedom you enjoy to express yourself would not be possible under the reign of Sharia Law. It is only by the grace of Christian Fascists that brought you the Bill of Rights that you can express your hatred against them. You are a drain of good people of this land. Move to Pakistan where you can live smugly and flip your middle finger to those Christian Fascists that have so wronged you. You just plain SUCK!
Posted by: Bruce | October 11, 2007 11:36 AM
MikeM (#8):
Really? I mean, it's Cal Thomas, so of course it's heavy on the stupid--but as far as I can tell he's just saying "Christianity = Good, Islam = Denies Basic Beliefs of Christianity, therefore Islam = Not Christianity = Bad."
That doesn't seem "disgusting" to me, at least by the usual standards of Wacko Fundie discourse.
Posted by: Rieux | October 11, 2007 11:41 AM
> I thought that Fascism had as one of its elements
> an alliance with corporate interests
# 13, that's known as the Dimitrov definition of fascim - that fascim was the puppet of big business (an oversimplification, and a potentially dangerous one, wich might have hindered the fight against fascim, for it failed to explain why fascim appealed to the middle and lower classes). It was formulated by Dimitrov in 1934 and was obsolete - even by Dimitrovs own standards - about one year later, when the Komintern decided that an united front with the western democracies against fascism was preferable to radical anticapitalism.
This said, corporate interests exist in fascism, as in any other poloitical movement. Corporations want to get along with politicians, and vice versa. But what is meaned by the term "corporative fascim" is not cooperation betweewn private enterprise and fascists, or that fascists are just capitalist puppets, but a corporative or cooperative state, like the Portugal of Salazar or the Argentina of Peron. Such states may actually use anticapitalist rethoric. Fascists are usually unprincipled when it comes to economic policy. They try to play out different classes and econmic interests against each other to consolidate their power. They might try to endear themselves to corporate interest as antisocialists or as protectionists that keep away foreign competition. Or they might try to endear themselves to the lower classes by acting as anticapitalists. Fascist economic policy is therefore very eclectic, and might range from national bolshevism to an alliance with big business.
> I never would have thought fundamentalist
> Islam was very interested in what the corporate world
There probably is a lot of Saudi oil-money behind Wahabism, Salafism and other such radicaal Islamist groups.
> can there be such a thing theocratic fascism?
What about the Ustasha? Very fascist and very Catholic.
Posted by: johannes | October 11, 2007 11:44 AM
Bruce (#44):
I call "satire"!Who was it who wrote that Bill of Rights thing again? Oh, yeah--it was this guy:
Posted by: Rieux | October 11, 2007 11:48 AM
HP:
DON'T KILLFILE ME, BRO!!!!!
Posted by: Physicalist | October 11, 2007 12:15 PM
Donaldbain, it would appear that Bruce is a victim of the very anti-education bent of Xians you asked us to demonstrate.
Posted by: Brownian | October 11, 2007 12:16 PM
Bruce,
Really? So anyone who compares certain Christian movements or Christian fundamentalism to Islamofascism inherently holds that position? That doesn't seem right does it? In fact, it seems you have created a false dichotomy here by assuming that their are only two options, either you don't compare Christians and Muslims fundamentalists or you do and believe Christians are worse. However, you could compare Christian fundamentalists to Muslims fundamentalists and believe that while Muslims are responsible for more violence, Christian fundamentalists are a greater threat to the integrity and rights we have established in our Constitution because they are a powerful lobbying group within our country. Does this mean they are "worse"? Well, that depends on how worse is defined I suppose, and also on what you are addressing by worse. In the aforementioned example, I suppose Christian fundamentalists are "worse" in the sense that they can successfully lobby to reduce or infringe human rights through legislation while Muslim fundamentalists are "worse" in the sense of the violence they use in an attempt to exert influence. Then again, you could think that the two groups are equally bad and then your false dichotomy just goes right out the window doesn't it?
Really? I don't seem to remember atheists bombing abortion clinics or government buildings for godlessness. I don't seem to recall atheists lobbying to exclude homosexuals from having equal rights. I don't seem to recall atheists advocating slavery based on biblical principles during the civil war, or later using the same argument to justify segregation. I don't seem to recall atheists arguing against the Constitution because it was a "godless" document and any nation that relied on it would be damned to failure by an angry, wrathful god (I guess the anti-Federalists were wrong about that one).
I already partially addressed this in my last paragraph but I'll elaborate a little more. The Federalist papers, wherein those supporting the Constitution advocated for its adoption, do not contain one citation to the Bible. The anti-Federalist papers, advocating against the Constitution, do. The man mostly responsible for the authorship of the Constitution, James Madison, was not a Christian by the standards of most Christians today. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinitarian concept of god. He, like Jefferson and other key founders, were theistic rationalists who had not quite accepted a non-intervening deity. The Constitution itself does not contain a mention of any god. Additionally, the concepts embedded in the First Amendment, such as freedom of speech, the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause, come from enlightenment thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau. These ideas were not part of any Christian government and do not descend from Christian principles, especially the Free Exercise clause which directly contradicts the First Commandment. Moreover, as Jefferson noted, English common law, from which our common law descends, comes from pagan institutions that existed prior to the establishment of Christianity in northern Europe. Not only was our Bill of Rights brought to us by non-Christians, it is in conflict with the basic Christian principles.
That's right, if you don't like it, move! What a mature, tempered response focused entirely on a rational approach to those you are trying to persuade. May I suggest a few classes, such as logic, Constitutional law, and American history?
Posted by: Atheotatous | October 11, 2007 12:21 PM
I find it sadly ironic that the westerners who most vehemently defend islamism are the first people the islamists would kill/imprison/forcibly-convert if they acheived their geopolitical goals.
It is possible to be both anti-islamist and anti-christianist, but it requires the courage to step outside of liberal or conservative orthodoxy and endure the back-biting of one's (former) political allies.
Posted by: AnthonyH | October 11, 2007 12:27 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 11, 2007 12:34 PM
Donaldain, it would appear that Bruce is a victim of the very anti-education bent of Xians you asked us to demonstrate.
Oh c'mon. Rieux nailed that one. 'Bruce' ain't for real. Can't be. No way.
No, no, tell me he can't be. Please. We can agree on this.
Anyway. Two things:
1) I think 'fascist' generally applies to the movement(s) described in the Leiter Reports link given in the post (a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/christian_fasci.html">this one, again, for clarity). Ya gotcher authoritarianism, your mysticism, yer antidemocratic tendencies, sense of grievance, xenophobia, hatred and demonization of the 'other', threats of retributive violence, fixation on 'moral failings'... the notion of the nation as a unified whole is a little more slippery here, and it's so common to political movements, I'm not sure how diagnostic it could ever be; guess maybe considering relative emphasis, it's useful. On balance, anyway, I'd still say using the term in this case is reasonably descriptive. Folks messing around with what exactly the term means could quibble, sure.
And 2) as to this accusation that PZ has drawn a false equivalence between the Christian extremists of the US and the Islamists, I don't find this at all. He wrote, specifically that the former 'have done far more damage' to the US than the latter, and I think this is a defensible comment. I'd broadly say the Islamists are several degrees nastier and more dangerous where they're actually influential, yes, but they just aren't that influential in the US, nor partircularly likely to be, any time soon.
Note, tho', that I said just 'defensible'. It's a bit of a call, I guess, since, despite their stated and abominable aims, calling which recent US outrages you can actually ascribe directly to 'Christo-fascism' (Gauntanamo? Extraordinary rendition? A ruinous war fought on a tragicomically, hilariously transparent pretext? Or just the raising of a zombie horder of admirers who'll shout their support for the idiot-in-chief who presided over said disgusting messes and who generally just poison the political atmosphere with their idiot braying for brains?) is complicated, and yes, the Islamists do have some 3,000 plus murders pretty directly on their plates...
That said, I take it as being a generally appropriate comment, in the context of satire, nonetheless, apart from how you weigh that call. Seein' as saying, broadly, to Horowitz et al, no, the Moslems probably aren't really the problem we should be worrying most about, not here, not now, at least, is entirely appropriate.
So yeah, let's have that following week. Makes sense to me.
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 11, 2007 12:38 PM
Bob. No. I mean basic education aliong the lines of being taught to read. THAT is the sort of thing that is banned in the name of Islam. The problems of the Bush administration pale into feeble insignificance in comparison.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 11, 2007 1:14 PM
The atheist schism: 'Which is the greater threat: fundamentalist Christianity or militant Islam?' This overlaps with the debate over whether both, neither, or only one of the two is appropriately characterized as "fascism."
1. militant Islam
Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens
"the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face"
Sam Harris:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
"Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise -- Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists -- but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain
"The mistake that Blair and Bush made is that they called it a War on Terror, whereas in fact, it's a War on Islamic Fascism."
Steven Weinberg:
http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html
"Dawkins treats Islam as just another deplorable religion, but there is a difference. The difference lies in the extent to which religious certitude lingers in the Islamic world, and in the harm it does. Richard Dawkins's even-handedness is well-intentioned, but it is misplaced. I share his lack of respect for all religions, but in our times it is folly to disrespect them all equally."
Michel Onfray, vehemently (and equally?) opposed to all three major Abrahamic faiths, nevertheless notes in The Atheist Manifesto:
"Indeed, we could call the last hundred years the fascist century. Brown and red in Europe and Asia, military khaki in South America. But green as well, which we too often overlook."
"like every form of fascism, Islamic theocracy rests on a hypermoral logic."
2. fundamentalist Christianity
Richard Dawkins:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/?pn=1
"We're seeing a rather unholy alliance between the burgeoning theocracy in the U.S. and its allies, the theocrats in the Islamic world. ... Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion."
Melissa McEwan:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/09/lordy-begordy_25.html
"movement leaders are looking for new ways to inspire the flock, with Daddy Dobson, for example, "breaking away from his traditional field of child psychology to argue that foreign terrorists are a threat to families" in order to get the Christofascists off their butts and into the voting booths."
Posted by: Colugo | October 11, 2007 1:21 PM
Oh! Earlier, some guy came into one of my classes to talk about this. He mentioned Ann Coulter, and it's only in retrospect that I realize he actually agreed with the quote he picked out.
Anyways, he gave all of us handouts. I made a paper crane out of it! I'd maybe look at what it said, but then I'd miss my crane.
Posted by: miller | October 11, 2007 1:33 PM
Still waiting for AnthonyH to tell us just who these people are who are "vehemently defending" Islamism. Come now, don't leave us in suspense!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 11, 2007 2:01 PM
AnthonyH @ It is possible to be both anti-islamist and anti-christianist,
That would pretty much define and atheist, now wouldn't it? Maybe I am missing something but I was under the impression that God, Allah, Pan, the Tooth Fairy are all BS to an atheist.
Posted by: Bob L | October 11, 2007 2:29 PM
Well Pan might be an explanation for the behaviour of politicians and security forces when faced by terrorism. Panic is a very useful thing to induce in the populace, when you are intent on creating an empire for yourself.
The damage to the economy and the enjoyment of life caused by actions of the government far outweigh the direct damage achieved by the terrorists.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | October 11, 2007 3:08 PM
Meaning, of course, that the terrorists succeeded brilliantly- that's exactly what terror attacks are intended to accomplish. (Of course they probably never dreamed that as a bonus they'd provoke us into getting bogged down in an endless occupation of Iraq.)
No wonder Bush put leaking the bin Laden video for political gain over capturing bin Laden himself. Objectively, they're on the same side.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 11, 2007 3:19 PM
As tragic as it was, the toll from the WTC is less than the number of traffic deaths each month.
Bush has instituted a series of criminal measures and unconstitutional laws to "protect" the public from what?
What are people so afraid of? They are so much more likely to die in a car accident. People should be more afraid every time they get in a car. Even if there were one 9/11 every year, would that be worth all the authoritarian measures introduced to prevent? It would still be more than twelve times less than the traffic accidents.
Imagine spending all this tens of billions of dollars on insuring that roads and cars were safer trying to prevent all accidents.
It doesn't make sense in mathematical terms to be so scared of a terrorist attack. Can't such an attack simply be called a sort of accident?
Posted by: bernarda | October 11, 2007 3:59 PM
I hereby declare Christian Fishism Awareness Week!
Posted by: lunartalks | October 11, 2007 4:08 PM
Crap tags don't work:
http://lunartalks.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/get-your-christ-outta-my-fish-piscology-now/
Posted by: lunartalks | October 11, 2007 4:09 PM
I mean basic education aliong the lines of being taught to read. THAT is the sort of thing that is banned in the name of Islam.
well, banned, unless it takes the form of forcing kids to memorize the Qur'an (in the original language, btw).
I recall some discussions either here or on PT based on some news stories about Muslim schools in NY that still practice the "traditional teaching methods" wrt to the Qur'an.
OTOH, there are plenty of bible-thumper schools that essentially force kids to memorize the wholly babble, too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 4:12 PM
And do those bible-thumper schools BAN the teaching of girls? Are Christians trying to make those the only legally allowed schools in the countries where they live? Are they actually giving death threats to girls and women who want to learn to read?
No. They are not. We may not agree with Christians on everything, but the moral equivilancy being displayed on this thread is really annoying.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 11, 2007 4:19 PM
lunartalks -
rather than abandoning the latin root, why not point out to the idiot xians that their holy fishy symbol was in fact stolen from pagans, and then had a new bit of rationalization attached to it?
works much better when you ask a xian why he has a horizontal picture of a vagina stuck to his bumper.
I'm sure you know of the history of the Vesica Pisces, before is was co-opted by the xians?
http://www.halexandria.org/dward097.htm
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsvesica.htm
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 4:19 PM
Are Christians trying to make those the only legally allowed schools in the countries where they live?
LOL
yes, they are.
In fact, if you look at the history of education in the US, that was defacto the standard (bible schools) only a hundred years or so back.
in the areas where creationism still reigns supreme, they ARE in fact trying to make it so the wholly babble is the primary source of educational material.
or hadn't you noticed the repeated attempts to insert it as such into the public high schools via the ID meme?
they just have to be more "subtle" about it here in the US in modern times, than those governments in the Muslim world that already have Mullahs running everything.
it's not smart to think that the bible thumpers want anything different from the Qu'ran thumpers wrt to control of reading material.
I would suggest you spend some time on forums such as those maintained by the "Christianexodus" folks.
http://www.christianexodus.org/
know your enemy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 4:25 PM
Walter Laqueur, historian, expert on fascism:
http://www.laqueur.net/index2.php?r=2&rr=4
"It is one of the ironies of the debate on Islamofascism that some of those who have argued that Islamic fundamentalism is at most a cultural but not a political or military challenge to the West have had fewer hesitations to call Christian fundamentalism in the US and elsewhere at least "potentially fascist"."
Posted by: Colugo | October 11, 2007 5:32 PM
As if Walter Laqueur does not have his own more or less hidden agenda.
Posted by: bernarda | October 11, 2007 5:52 PM
Steve LaBonne (#52, #57): I was away from my computer, not avoiding the debate.
OK, you're right - nobody on this thread was actually defending Islamism or Islamofascism. Apologies for overgeneralizing and not reading closely.
I still find it annoying when other atheists criticize people who publicly condemn islamism; I feel that islamism is a clear and present danger. Not expecting that all other atheists agree with me on this, though.
I still stand by my contention that many progressives tend to give islamists a pass, while vehemently attacking christianism. I can track down blogosphere examples if you're really interested; may take me a while to reply, though.
I personally experienced a situation where a lesbian pagan acquaintance went ballistic on a gay atheist friend. My friend was paraphrasing Sam Harris' arguments against islamism, and pointed out that LP would fair poorly under an islamist regime. That got my friend accused of racism, islamophobia, etc.
Posted by: AnthonyH | October 11, 2007 6:20 PM
Coulter? She is the wealthy republican-christian fundamentalist answer to the Scarlet Pimpernel. I've seen acne-faced young men shamelessly drooling over that thing. Literally. Simply unaccountable.
The language needs a word that is very much stronger than "grotesque".
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | October 11, 2007 6:21 PM
I feel that islamism is a clear and present danger.
the point is not to claim that Islam cannot be perverted to create a "clear and present danger", but that ANY religion can be easily perverted in the same fashion, and xianity has its full share of this as well.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 6:29 PM
BobL (#58) quoted my statement: "It is possible to be both anti-islamist and anti-christianist," and replied:
That would pretty much define and atheist, now wouldn't it? Maybe I am missing something but I was under the impression that God, Allah, Pan, the Tooth Fairy are all BS to an atheist.
I think you're confusing "anti-christianist" with "anti-christian." A christianist is someone who believes in a political system designed around christian values, ie believing in school prayer, publicly funded creche displays. Not all christians are christianists. One of the harshest critics of both christianism and islamism is Andrew Sullivan a practicing catholic.
Posted by: AnthonyH | October 11, 2007 6:31 PM
Donalbain in #37 asked "Could someone possible tell me when the last time there was a concerted effort by a group of christians to actually execute people for being homosexual?"
Would murder rather than formal execution satisfy your curiosity?
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/05/855
Posted by: salient | October 11, 2007 6:45 PM
Donalbain,
The last time I know of that christians killed homosexuals as a government policy (as opposed to individual closet cases going on a rampage) would have been in Germany during the holocaust. So, from the late 1930's through May, 1945.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 11, 2007 7:06 PM
"FDR was a fascist? Who knew?"
Any student of history.
Google for "new deal", "packing the court", and "japanese internment". Yes, he was a fascist.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 11, 2007 7:08 PM
Donalbain in #65 complained "the moral equivilancy being displayed