There are some people who are so much up to their eyeballs in bullshit they can’t see it any more. I try to respond reasonably to reasonable people, but you’re too far gone for me to salvage.

Go away.

Armstrong makes a simple statement that singling out any people for discrimination is a betrayal of western values. Then the right-wingers go on their hate tirades about all the evil things Muslims do, so Armstrong is wrong. Wrong about what? Wrong about discriminating against Muslims. And I say that I agree that there are Muslims do terrible things, and I think it is good and just to speak out against those terrible things. But that doesn’t justify discrimination against all Muslims.

As long as people abide by the law, it’s a betrayal of western values to discriminate. Those individuals who break the law or who are collaborating with terrorists certainly deserve to be introduced to the criminal justice system, but I’m talking about individuals, not the entire group, guilty or innocent.

Strongly condemning Muslim conduct and mores is entirely vaild.

Yes, when it’s deserved, that’s fine, but that’s not what people were doing. They were slamming all Muslims for being Muslim.

I see precious little discrimination against Muslims anywhere.

There isn’t much in the U.S. — yet — but that it not for want of trying on the part of some on the Right, who are determined to stir up hate against Muslims. However, Armstrong was writing from Britain, and they’re having a dicier time of it there.

Can you imagine what progress we could have made regarding this goal if even half of what has been spent on the Iraq war had been spent on this worthy mission?

Along similar lines, I acknowledge there is “a spirited” debate on religion on the Guardian’s (free) website, but i can’t see that the paper’s overall thrust is anything other than broadly disdainful of traditional Judeo-Christian social and cultural beliefs.

watch your own hyperbole. I have read many right wing blogs–and while there is PLENTY of opinion i dont agree with, and comments that I strongly dissent from–this hate and hysteria you reference is illusory.

Strongly condemning Muslim conduct and mores is entirely vaild. I see precious little discrimination against Muslims anywhere.

Well, let’s begin with this idea that “right-wingers” who don’t embrace Muslim incursion into Western society “hate Muslims.” This use of the term “hate” is as trite as it is useless, except as leftist demagoguery. It reduces well-thought-out opposition to Islamic cultural imperialism to a “knee-jerk” emotional reaction. At that point, of course, it’s easy for the likes of Maha to dismiss it. Failing to embrace Islam, warts and all, is not motivated by “hate” any more than failing to embrace the Iraq War was motivated by “cowardice.”

Armstrong’s claim that “free speech implies respect for the opinions of others” is nonsense, easily refuted by Maha’s own attitude to “right-wingers,” whose opinions she clearly holds little respect for. That’s not to say Maha is against free speech: she simply knows that Western notions of free speech require only a respect for the right of others to hold an opinion or religious belief. (Then again, maybe not: after all, she is “intolerant of intolerance”…)

Armstrong also conflates two very different episodes of what she perceives as “Islamophobia”: the publication of Mohammed-mocking cartoons in Jyllands-Posten and the attempt to block the construction of a huge mosque in London. One was an exercise of free speech, which happened to be offensive to Muslims — which was the entire point, since the paper was protesting against existing pro-Islamist self-censorship in the Western press. The other was a more clear-cut case of restriction on Muslims in the West. Armstrong incorrectly — but quite deliberately — makes them out to be the same thing: to her, mocking a religion is the same as restricting religious worship. To call this “wrong” is the mother of all understatements: it’s anathema to the real liberal principles of Western Civilization. (And once again, we have “Islamophobia”: reducing well-founded opinions to irrational fear — an odious tactic that the Left seems to have embraced enthusiastically. Apparently, all opinions must be respected, except those that disagree with the Left’s dogma.)

Finally, Maha begs the question that publishing the Mohammed cartoons, or even preventing the building of that humongous mosque in London, is “discrimination against all Muslims” in retribution for the wrongs some of them do. Yet again, this trivializes many people’s issues with large-scale Muslim presence in Western society, to mere childish tantrum. The presence of large numbers of Muslims in western society is not without consequences, as India, Persia, Malaysia — and now Thailand, Spain, the UK, and France are finding out. Surely it’s valid to ask how much of a footprint Islam should be leaving on one’s society, especially given its ingrained intolerance of principles we supposedly hold dear? (And no, it’s not just limited to “some” “small numbers” of Muslims, as a quick glance at Muslim societies would tell you.)

Armstrong’s conflation of speech and oppression, and Maha’s “[intolerance] of intolerance” seek to prevent even the asking of the question. Funny how they still consider themselves “liberal.”

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/03/a-free-speech-question/

Coming as this does in the pages of The Guardian is logically baffling, given the often brutal (and occasionally necessary) treatment afforded traditionalist Jewish and Christian views, be they religious, political or cultural.

The Guardian “comment is free” web site frequently posts arguments both for and against Christianity and Judaism. For example, it might post an anti-religion argument by an atheist a la Richard Dawkins, followed by a pro-religion response from someone else. The Guardian enables a free exchange of views, in other words, without taking sides. The notion that the Guardian has an anti-Christian editorial policy is just hyperbole and hysteria.

We can parse the book of Matthew all we wish; the fact is, Western socieities are inherently secular. Condemning the barbaric and inhumane treatment of women, gays and religious minorities in Islamic culture is both fair and just.

I agree completely. I suspect Karen Armstrong agrees also.

Again, the point she was making, and the point I am making, is not that we must forgive and overlook atrocities committed by Muslims. The point is that it’s wrong to discriminate against all Muslims because of what some Muslims do. And “they hate us” is no excuse for hatred.

I didn’t say Christians were haters. I’m saying specific right-wing bloggers and their followers are haters. And by indulging in hyperbole you reveal your own bigotry.

I have a long-standing policy of defending Christians and Christianity, actually. The only Christians I criticize are faux Christians who make real Christians look bad.

Your point about Kennedys and the windmills is actually good, although I’ll turn it around on you. The fact is that the Kennedys (as I understand it) didn’t want windmills in a specific place, because it would spoil the scenery or something. They aren’t really against all windmills, which I’m sure you know. This is making a distinction between some windmills versus discrimination against all windmills.

There are all manner of things going on in the Middle East, committed by Muslims, that I consider to be atrocities. Honor killings do come to mind. However, I have a Muslim friend who is gentle as a bunny and would never do such a thing. Is discrimination against him justified because there are Muslim whackjobs who commit atrocities? I think not.

My understanding is that the honor killing thing is an aspect of culture that crept into some sects of Islam. Cultural contamination is common in all religions, including Christianity and Buddhism. I do not tolerate atrocities, but I don’t judge atrocities by who does them but by what is done.

Coming as this does in the pages of The Guardian is logically baffling, given the often brutal (and occasionally necessary) treatment afforded traditionalist Jewish and Christian views, be they religious, political or cultural.

I would argue that there is too often a double standard in addressing Islam–and Islamicist, more importantly–concerns and sensibilities. Some kitchens are hotter than others, naturally, but the tiresome and telling “Muslim rage” coming from their communities over “blasphemies” is all too telling.

We can parse the book of Matthew all we wish; the fact is, Western socieities are inherently secular. Condemning the barbaric and inhumane treatment of women, gays and religious minorities in Islamic culture is both fair and just.

One tries to love his fellows as best he can, through God’s agency. But recollect that his Son refused to hide his anger and bitterness over appalling and un Godly behavior on multiple occasions.

with respect,
McGruder