What's Wrong with the World Comments

(12:44) Kevin on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Kevin
Date: May 16, 2008 12:44 PM

Paul, We can all agree this is an act of cowardice perpetrated by geldings frantically working to postpone their own richly deserved demise. Note, the "artist's" penchant for porn is not the reason for his arrest. Says it all. "...the cartoonist was arrested as a suspect for the criminal offense of “publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3257

(11:48) Rob G on Gaseous Clouds of Self-Deception

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:46:16 -0500

Author: Rob G
Date: May 16, 2008 11:48 AM

"I make flat out emphatic declaration that IT IS NOT TRUE that all contemporary wars MUST directly target civilians." Never said that. What I said was that all modern wars DO directly target civilians, by virtue of the fact that 'total war' is the current M.O. of warfare. "All wars are sinful, period, even if they are sometimes necessary. This is morally incoherent. If it is truly necessary, then it is morally allowable. If morally allowable, then not sinful." Afraid not. Does the phrase "lesser of two evils" ring a bell? Is the lesser of two evils necessarily a good? "Any theory that says a war is sinful but necessary cannot be taken seriously in trying to come to an intelligible stance on war." Not so. "Sinful" does not necessarily imply culpability, at least in Orthodox thought.

(11:47) Zippy on Gaseous Clouds of Self-Deception

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:46:16 -0500

Author: Zippy
Date: May 16, 2008 11:47 AM
URL: http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com/

If these conditions are present, then killing enemy soldiers and accidentally killing civilians is morally identical to a policeman shooting an armed and enraged berserker and killing a bystander accidentally. Good summary - though an important point which often becomes blurred is that the specific deaths of any specific noncombatants must in fact actually be accidental; and "I wish I didn't have to kill them to achieve my goal" as a sentiment does not render their deaths accidental. For example, in a 'decapitation strike' on a public restaurant which happens to be where the enemy leader is having dinner, the deaths of civilians are not accidental.

(11:42) Kevin on Gaseous Clouds of Self-Deception

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:46:16 -0500

Author: Kevin
Date: May 16, 2008 11:42 AM

doubtingT, What did JPII say about our bombing of Belgrade, either before, or after it happened? Trading on his moral authority requires more than a vague assertion. You are correct when saying there are worse things than material defeat in war, which makes your strained, theoretical defense of modern warfare somewhat baffling. If you can't give specific, recent examples of wars conducted by moral means, perhaps the theory is false.

(11:11) doubting t on Gaseous Clouds of Self-Deception

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:46:16 -0500

Author: doubting t
Date: May 16, 2008 11:11 AM

Eastern Orthodox teaching - as expressed by you - has no just war "theory". That is not logically equivalent to saying all wars are unjust under such teaching. It could be that there is no body of knowledge treated as a single group to be called "just war theory" but that there are individual teachings which are compatible with certain wars being just. Even if Eastern Orthodox teaching is against all war, that does not prove your point that they all wars are sinful - it more proves that Eastern Orthodox teaching is defective. All wars are sinful, period, even if they are sometimes necessary. This is morally incoherent. If it is truly necessary, then it is morally allowable. If morally allowable, then not sinful. Any theory that says a war is sinful but necessary cannot be taken seriously in trying to come to an intelligible stance on war. I make flat out emphatic declaration that IT IS NOT TRUE that all contemporary wars MUST directly target civilians. Whether all of recent vintage have in fact targeted civilians is a question of historical determination, not of categorical or moral necessity. It is always possible to act morally. If, in a given situation, it is morally appropriate to wage war, then there is a moral manner in which one could execute that war. You might lose in doing so, but it is (morally) better to lose a war having fought morally than to win having fought immorally.

(10:32) Paul J Cella on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Paul J Cella
Date: May 16, 2008 10:32 AM

the technological advances have out-stripped our moral development. Let's not pretend otherwise, or be so sanguine about the application of force. Fair enough, Kevin. I'm sympathetic to this concern.

(10:23) Lydia on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: May 16, 2008 10:23 AM

"Most of your other concerns are addressed by the law presently." Really? I was under the impression that we were _increasing_ Muslim chaplains. We also are so far from encouraging clear and true speaking that we are proscribing the word 'jihad' in our State Dept. and fired a knowledgeable advisor from our security organizations who spoke clearly about the Islamic jihad. But perhaps you haven't read through my entire list of suggestions. Go down the comment to the paragraph in response to Kevin. I don't expect most of them to be followed until hell freezes over. But I make them in response to Kevin's demand for a plan. And again, Muslims shouldn't get "offended" when I "insult Islam" if I am speaking important truths which they need to face. It has nothing to do with "condemning my culture." NOthing whatsoever.

(10:22) Kevin on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Kevin
Date: May 16, 2008 10:22 AM

Lydia, Warfare has come a long way since the days of Charles Martel. The technological advances have out-stripped our moral development. Let's not pretend otherwise, or be so sanguine about the application of force. Civilization or barbarism. It's hard to obtain the former by resorting to the latter. Witness Europe since WWII. Hell, look at us! I agree with your proposals with the exception of the Palestinian issue. Far too complex to sign-out without greater knowledge. Now, peaceful co-existence - still an illusion? force. Paul, I am against a military resolution because it will be, as recent history graphically shows, a moral and humanitarian disaster. And because it will further erode our already creaky, listless foundation. Quietism is a red-herring in this thread. The greater danger is a position on Islam that further conforms Christianity to secular norms.

(10:15) M.Z. Forrest on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: M.Z. Forrest
Date: May 16, 2008 10:15 AM
URL: http://discalcedyooper.wordpress.com

We owe no deference to the doctrines of the Islamic religion. We owe no particular respect to that religion's prophet. You will not find support for that anywhere. You can argue the floor is too high, and I would tend to agree that it is in our PC culture. There is however a floor where decent men out of respect for their fellow man will not go below.

(10:12) M.Z. Forrest on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: M.Z. Forrest
Date: May 16, 2008 10:12 AM
URL: http://discalcedyooper.wordpress.com

You missed the point Lydia. It was a rough substitution of: I should be able to insult Islam and Muslims shouldn't get offended if I insult Islam because that would be a condemnation of my culture. I'll keep my eye out for foot bathers. Most of your other concerns are addressed by the law presently. Some that aren't I would be willing to support. In my various first comment I stated I would support proscribing some things if they served the social interest.

(10:07) Paul J Cella on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Paul J Cella
Date: May 16, 2008 10:07 AM

I afraid I don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Forrest, on the "Harvard or wherever art student being provocative and edgy with her abortion art," so I can't comment on that. As for this idea of playing "this little game of defending vile garbage" with respect to the Danish cartoons, I'm calling BS. Have you actually seen the cartoons? "Vile garbage" my foot. Some where pretty much worthless; some were pretty innocuous; some were too-clever-by-half; and some were, in my mind, perfectly legitimate satire or caricature. All together now: We owe no deference to the doctrines of the Islamic religion. We owe no particular respect to that religion's prophet. Now, the reason I feel "compelled to defend" the Danish cartoons is because the lunatic reaction of the Islamic world, abetted by Jihadist provocateurs, put at risk and under severe strain the people of Denmark, a small country which has long been our stalwart ally. I remember back during the controversy doing a bit of back-of-the-envelope math comparing the military contribution of the Danes to Iraq. It was considerable. Which brings us to this: You [Lydia] really think a shooting war is a viable option. So do I. I did oppose the war in Iraq, but in no way would I foreclose the possibility of future (just) shooting wars against the Jihad. Would you, Kevin? And the argument that because we are sunk in Liberalism and decadence, we cannot do anything effective militarily against the Jihad, is one I just don't buy. Europe was sunk in religious strife, internal dissolution, rebellion, corruption, simony and imperialism when Pius V organized the Holy League to sail against the Turks in 1571. This League included the imperial Spaniards, then at the height of their capture of the Inquisition for statist, secular purposes; it included the worldly Capitalists of Venice. In short, it seems to me that quietism in the face of the latest assaults from the Jihad -- quietism based on a despair for reformation in American morals -- is as much a problem among Christian as is truculence and militarism. Or at least it could be.

(09:58) Lydia on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: May 16, 2008 9:58 AM

"vile garbage" What are you calling "vile garbage," Forrest? I've already agreed that things that really are vile should be condemned because they are vile, but not because they are inflammatory. And being inflammatory or insulting to Islam doesn't make something vile in itself. Lydia's argument amounts to little more than I should be able to walk around dressed like tart and no one should treat me as if I'm dressed like a tart because that would be a condemnation of my culture. Say what? I'm not sure I even follow this. _I'm_ the one saying it's okay to condemn people's culture. What are _you_ talking about? I would never say that it's wrong to condemn the way someone is dressed because it's "condemning a culture." I gather, Forrest, you haven't been around on this blog or its predecessor when I got going on the modesty bandwagon. Dressed like a tart? Do you know my opinions on dressing at all? Evidently not. But the comments of the rape sheikh (which your comment sounds uncomfortably like, if I'm understanding it at all) are despicable. Are you familiar with them? He's Australian. Women dressed improperly, he says, are "uncovered meat," and it's only to be expected that the "cats" will come and fight over it. I'm far more concerned about modest dress than many of my Christian friends. I'm extremely careful about it, as the mother of daughters, and I spend a lot of time and a certain amount of extra money pursuing it for them and myself. But I absolutely refuse to make common cause with the Muslims on this subject. Their ideas of modesty are based on a bizarre and perverted approach to the entire male-female relationship. They aren't just like nice Christian fundamentalists and would call even my friends whose daughters never cut their hair and wear dressed all the time "immodest." We need to get a clue there, too. I don't even know how the subject of dressing got into this conversation. Do you know _anything_ about the Islamic threat, M.Z.? If they confined themselves to "condemning my culture," we could have a discussion. It's the bombs, the sharia, the honor killings, the state-funded foot baths, the widespread scofflaw violence against the infidels, and on and on that I'm worried about. "Condemnation" isn't even on the radar here. Kevin, I merely put that in about not being opposed in principle to military engagement because I'm, in fact, not opposed in principle to military engagement. There was much that was glorious in the many years of war in which the West defended itself militarily. Our logo is, after all, Charles Martel. It was a darned good thing he didn't just sit down and have a blog discussion with the Muslim invaders rather than "resorting to violence." I wasn't agitating for attacking anybody in particular. Please stop seeing neo-cons under every rock. What am I proposing? I'm proposing blocking all Muslim immigration and beginning a phased revocation of the visas of all Muslims presently in the U.S. who are neither citizens nor legal permanent residents and subsequent enforcement, _by_ force if necessary, of their leaving the country. I'm proposing loud expressions from our country's leaders about the evils of Islam. I'm proposing firing all Muslim chaplains in the military and prisons. I'm proposing making sure no Muslim ever again gives the invocation to our Congress. I'm proposing stopping all aid of every sort to the PLO (aka Fatah) and calling it by its rightful title as a terrorist organization with whom no one should be pressured to negotiate. I'm proposing adoption of some version of Paul's jihad sedition laws. I"m proposing revocation of all sharia concessions already made--such as state-funded footbaths, the state-funded madrassah presently operating in Minnesota, and so forth. I'm proposing that all states and local communities make it loud and clear that they will not make any such concessions. I'm proposing that the National Labor Relations Board state as policy that it will not force employers to make accommodations for Muslim prayers. I'm proposing that the HSLDA (home school organization) make moves to exclude Muslims from membership or at least to make it clear that they won't defend anyone engaging in child-abusive practices typical of Muslim culture. That's for starters. YOu can get back to me when you've done all of that.

(09:49) Kevin on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Kevin
Date: May 16, 2008 9:49 AM

Let me disassociate myself from MZ Forrest's inane invocation of the Yalie art-student's abomination. Still hoping Lydia will flesh out her geo-political strategy that rules our peaceful co-existence as an "illusion."

(09:39) Kevin on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Kevin
Date: May 16, 2008 9:39 AM

"I'm not with him if he has illusions himself about carving out an era of peaceful coexistence." Really? What are you proposing? Please come out and say it. "What's the end game?" Good question.

(09:31) M.Z. Forrest on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: M.Z. Forrest
Date: May 16, 2008 9:31 AM
URL: http://discalcedyooper.wordpress.com

Was the Harvard or wherever art student being provocative and edgy with her abortion art or were people just over reacting Mr. Cella?

(09:30) Kevin on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Kevin
Date: May 16, 2008 9:30 AM

Fitna was aimed at sleep-walking Europeans and if it roused any, fine. I found it to be shallow and void of much insight. "I never said anything about winning a clash of civilizations by military means. Not that I am opposed to it in principle, but there are other and more urgent things we need to do..." Just as I feared. Lydia, this explains you're approval for some of the counter-productive tactics under discussion. You really think a shooting war is a viable option. I truly hope you come to your senses, otherwise, your contribution to a just and moral outcome, will be no greater than that rendered by those dessicated intellectuals who cower before the Crescent. Thankfully, there is more to our side than liberals struggling with their death-wish, and neo-cons angling for World War 4.

(09:29) M.Z. Forrest on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: M.Z. Forrest
Date: May 16, 2008 9:29 AM
URL: http://discalcedyooper.wordpress.com

If Mr. Cella is willing to concede the Danish cartoons weren't exhibitions of "artistic greatness or any such nonsense", then why be compelled to defend them? What's the end game? Almost all the commentators have adopted this little game of defending vile garbage for fear that reasonable argument would be supressed. Lydia's argument amounts to little more than I should be able to walk around dressed like tart and no one should treat me as if I'm dressed like a tart because that would be a condemnation of my culture. It is silly.

(09:25) Paul J Cella on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Paul J Cella
Date: May 16, 2008 9:25 AM

Actually, Lydia, I was talking about the Cartoon Jihad in the OP, but with minor adjustment, I could have been talking about Fitna as well. In any case, a couple further observations: (1) The quotation Benedict chose to cite, from the 14th century Byzantine Emperor, was a particularly intransigent one. In the teachings of Mohammad, you "will find things only evil and inhuman." Only? I wouldn't even go that far. So that's pretty provocative. (2) I wonder how the "let's not be inflammatory" folks feel about the imprecatory Psalms.

(09:02) Lydia on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: May 16, 2008 9:02 AM

I'm with B16 when he engages in the supposedly "inflammatory" activity of publically baptizing an outspoken and apparently rousingly illusionless convert to Christianity. I'm not with him if he has illusions himself about carving out an era of peaceful coexistence. I hope he knows better than that. And I wasn't with him when he apologized for his relatively mild remarks about Islam that provoked, from that oh-so-varied group of religious adherents, worldwide violence. ("Say we're peaceful or we'll kill you.") By the way, the complete lack of humor in Islam, esp. the lack of any sense of irony or self-humor, makes humor at Islam's expense all the more appropriate.

(08:57) Lydia on Islam and Free Speech.

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:14 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: May 16, 2008 8:57 AM

Winning hearts and minds is the goal here. I disagree with this sentence and with this strategy, especially when it comes with the idea that we should not be "inflammatory" to "win hearts and minds." (Anybody seen the recent news that the State Dept. has banned the word "jihad" by their employees, btw?) Islam has a billion adherents and comes in a variety of intellectual and spiritual strains. We need to undertake some internal reforms and forget the twisted notion that a "clash of civilizations" can be won by military means. This is the old and confused idea that because Islam is so big and supposedly complicated we can't make generalizations about it. It is false. Spencer's Jihad Watch is a good source of information here, and from that info., though Spencer won't say it in so many words, one can easily get to the conclusion that Lawrence Auster talks about clearly that Islam is the problem. Even those who don't engage in jihad often either a) feel sympathy for it or b) support the spread of sharia by "democratic" means. By the way, I never said anything about winning a clash of civilizations by military means. Not that I am opposed to it in principle, but there are other and more urgent things we need to do right away, like major immigration changes, that we are unlikely to do. Now, I want to point out that in the main post, Paul was talking not about cartoons but about Fitna, which _should_ win approval from Kevin as the sort of non-cartoonish engagement he says we should be pursuing. But it was condemned all over the world, including by many-a dhimmi European, because it was so "insulting" and "inflammatory," etc., etc. In fact, and bizarrely, the cartoonist of cartoon fame threatened to sue Wilders if he didn't take the Islam cartoons out of the movie. Why? Because, golly, the cartoons weren't meant to be aimed at "all Muslims," but he was just sure the movie was. So the movie was deemed _more_ offensive than the cartoons, and the cartoonist himself implied that he had had less insulting and purer intentions than the person engaged in more prosaic discourse. Interesting, that. It's really important for the "let's not be inflammatory" crowd to get a clue here. If we were talking about vulgar language or pornography, I'd be with you, but not because it would be inflammatory. But we need to recognize that any principle that we should not inflame Muslims, that we must be nice to them, that we must win their hearts and minds by refraining from "insulting their culture" is the road to dhimmitude. And a short road, too. Read about what's going on in the UK sometime--Muslim gangs terrorizing the infidels from the schools to the churches, and political correctness preventing either proper law enforcement or even speaking the truth about the nature of the problem. And the voice of the muezzin will soon (literally) be ringing out by loudspeaker over Oxford. I do not submit.