Comments

1. mr guy wrote:

   The Creative Loafing Atlanta link.I read all the comments.Wow, just wow.Horrible.And what is it with the word jew being linked to everything from death, control of the world and oppression???!!! You even had people who trying to make excuses for them, like saying white people get hatred throw at them.

   Yeah, that happens.And it happens to asian, blacks, etc,etc.I don’t downplay it no.But like they say, two wrong don’t make a right.Or that White people aren’t allowed to be proud of themselves.

   I especially love how some of these guys try to portray themselves as honest republican conservatives.Yeah right.A complete joke.

   Posted 04 Mar 2007 at 7:22 pm ¶

2. kim wrote:

   Stormfront: This article was as scary, and poignant,for me as was an old NY Times’ article on neo-Nazis in the recording industry, suited up, professional and seemingly benign in business practice and presentation, forging a pathway into the minds and consciousness of America’s youth through music.

   So often, I do see these people as at the fringe, or safely gathering in their covens of like-minded, myopic, comfortable and xenophobic conservatives who inhabit an insular world outside of the everyday environs of the rest of us – who merely want to keep it that way. They move further and further out to the eastern parts of the desert, or further out into the rural or suburban features of our states in order to avoid contact with people they simply don’t want to see as anything like themselves.

   I encountered a few of the more virulent kind in Stone Mountain, Georgia, about twenty years ago, while leaving a retreat site. That many of them and their offspring have now decided the roads are not leading them far enough into the distance away from , well, folks like me, is probably why they have turned to each other, and put a new face on what fuels their fears.

   And, I think, we must all be willing to move – decidedly, purposefully, mindfully, cohesively, toward a united front that keeps the doors and avenues of full access open to ALL of us…or this (not-so)small breeze will indeed manifest itself in the great storm it portends to be.

   Posted 04 Mar 2007 at 9:24 pm ¶

3. kim wrote:

   Re: “That’s so gay”:

   Alright, who could really not see that this young child, Rice, was harrassed by others due to her religious affiliation, with impunity, and that this was an instance of an unfair meting out of the ‘intolerance’ rules at the school?

   If the line of attack by the district is not to be pre-emptive, and stave off all attacks due to bias which erupt from, are associated with, or accompany prejudicial and inflammatory taunting, but merely to be ‘reactive’ and legalistic (i.e., not deeming something to be prejudicial and inflammatory until documented and litigated cases have set precedent), then the school district must be taken to task for this infringement. It is more than oversight, and sounds like one of those instances of the persuasion of the majority, or the loudest voice, securing for itself rights and privileges not intended or actively extended to others who need the same protections and rights.

   Posted 04 Mar 2007 at 9:33 pm ¶

4. Arr! Eek Ehn? wrote:

   Re: Reason? Magazine

   (don’t read if you don’t like rants or you *heart* Allah)

   This is one of the worst articles I’ve ever read in a magazine that titles itself Reason. If the whole point of that article was to prove the statement that ALL Muslims are terrorists is invalid, then yea, I’d have to agree. And yes Milosevic is an asshat. Nothing like Reason Magazine tackling the difficult subjects of the day.

   I agree with Cathy that the cry of “Islamophobia” is the new liberal method of stamping out dissent (which liberals are supposedly fond of). And I don’t say “liberals” with that annoying whine that conservatives use. I’m not one to decry liberals, they’ve done a lot of good things for society, but their ideals sometimes steps out of the boundary of reason. And it’s irritating that they have turned the issue of criticizing Islam as somehow being connected with right-wing Christian extremists, of which I am not. As much as liberals defend Islam without taking a peek into the Koran or the Hadith, in an Islamic State liberals would have the worst of it, no question. It’s the supposedly “islamophobic” ultra-right wing conservative nutcases in America that would find greater acceptance in an Islamic State.

   This is highschool level, “all the religious books say bad things” as if saying this universally levels the argument. Yes the Christian Bible can lead to extremism, in fact the Amish would be considered one of the most extreme and highly radical interpretations of the Bible. I’m not holding my breath on seeing a horse drawn carriage collide with a building. That’s not to downplay Koresh and the Jonestown folk and the other religious Christian nuts we’ve had, but I respect their radical desire to be isolationists. Fine, go away and camp out in the woods.

   Whether the Koran explicitly discourages aggression is not proof that Islam is not TAUGHT as an aggressive religion. The Bible says many wholesome things, hand it to that God Hates Fags idiot preacher and he’ll interpret it as he wants. The Religious Left will interpret it how they want leaving out the parts where God and his followers are a little despotic (and slightly cranky). Koran can say whatever it wants, but the interpretation of the Koran is being made by an Imam. The question is, does the Imam explicitly discourage aggression?

   And I get tired of this argument of the “oh you’re not an Islamic Scholar” or you’re not an “accredited theologian”, how could you dare claim to understand these books? You’re just the low common folk to which this religious crap is being shoveled to. Like the Koran or the King James Bible is so metaphorically abstract, the Ulysses of religious texts, that I can’t possible “get it” without being a scholar.. or having to smoke a lot of pot to figure out all the dimensions of it. No religious text even ranks as high as Derrida, no less the King of convoluted, Hegel. And the fact that because I’m not a devoted follower of this religion and spend my days poring over this book says something about my criticism, yea it says I have better things to do than memorize lines out of a book. Repetition is not a point of view. I’m not sure why reading the Koran once means its essence escapes me unless I devote a lifetime to reading it over and over. This is all the hallmarks of a closed ended system of thought. Like radical feminists saying I can’t possibly understand feminism to the extent they do or grasp the “essence” of what they mean because I’m a man, I’m an element of the patriarchal machine that oppresses them. That somehow I can’t criticize Islam because I’m not an Islamic scholar who obediently practices Islam, whereby my own devotion to the subject refutes my making criticism of it.

   What has you convinced that scholars of Islam or Christianity are any more right in their assessment than the common man? How do you know they aren’t a false authority? Getting a Masters Degree at Liberty University on Bible Theology or learning how to preach at Islamic University of Madinah doesn’t make you any wiser on interpreting these religious texts. That a religious institution has accredited you to preach their religion means nothing to me. That’s like going to school so you can learn to better debate issues like who’s wiser, Wiley Coyote or Bruce Wayne. It’s the scholars OF these religions we should be listening to, not scholars FOR these religions who have simply learned the art of equivocation. It’s the people that stand outside the influence of these religions and not the one’s preaching at the pulpit that I want to hear.

   Islam poses a problem for the West, no question. And Cathy is in no way proving that threat is over-hyped because individuals like Fallaci happen to be a bonehead. And then there’s the old “Islam’s been hijacked” argument. Everyone’s touting them, any conversation about radial Islam you hear them bring up the “oh, what about the Islamic moderates?” Yeah, it’s been hijacked by moderates. How about they scare me more than radicals do, because they fly right under our radar saying the things we want to hear. We as a society, can’t help ourselves from embracing anything that goes around claiming itself as moderate. Why can’t Islam be hijacked by those famously secular Muslims? Probably hanging out with those liberal Muslims and the ultra-violent Jainists with Elvis and Hoffa.

   People need to come to terms with what constitutes Radical Islam, it’s not just guys with rocket launchers and IEDs. Does “moderate” Islam not regard me as a Kuffaar, does that mean they won’t distrust me because I don’t have the love of Allah in my heart? Does “moderate” mean they won’t convert me by the sword like an extremist would, that I could follow my own beliefs — but I’ll be subjugated like a second class citizen in an Islamic State? Does that constitute as “interfaith”? Do “moderates” say that we unbelievers can practice our own laws and culture — just as long as they don’t contradict Islam, is that supposedly tolerance? Perhaps they admit they dislike Islamic terrorists but would they hold me, an atheist, in any higher regard? Does “moderate” mean I’m not hell-bound anymore?

   Perhaps “moderates” won’t force you to wear a hijab, but if you choose not to will you be ostracized and regard as a Kuffaar by your own? Is that proof of moderation and choice? Is it peaceful co-existence, as long as you submit to Islam or submit to being inferior? I’m just not convinced that Islam is hot for multiculturalism. The U.K.I.M which Tony Blair praised as an example of Islam promoting tolerance and moderation was caught by Britian’s Channel 4 preaching intolerance and promoting the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic State, THIS is the voice of moderation? People walk around with this idea that Moderation must automatically be good and worthy of striving for, but that depends on how moderation is defined.

   I agree with Cathy, I don’t care for bigotry… but I also don’t like turning the blind eye to an uncomfortable issue by waving the flag of moderation, without defining what that is. The middle way is always supposedly good because it’s inoffensive. But the middle is determined, on where you start from and how far into the extreme the end encompasses.

   Did that make any sense or did I come off as a bigot?

   Posted 04 Mar 2007 at 9:51 pm ¶

5. gatamala wrote:

   1. Rants happen. However you can rant & rave in a coherent, cohesive manner.

   2. I’m an atheist

   arr This is one of the worst articles I’ve ever read in a magazine that titles itself Reason. If the whole point of that article was to prove the statement that ALL Muslims are terrorists is invalid, then yea, I’d have to agree.

   Actually, that wasn’t the point. The article concedes, “Words like Islamophobia and phrases like anti-Muslim bigotry are bandied about too liberally, often applied to those who merely criticize fanatical Islamic radicalism or point out the deep-seated problems in much of Muslim culture today.” However, the point was to illustrate (1) how knee-jerk reactions borne of bigotry obfuscate where the “problem” lies and (2) how they actually contribute to the problem they intend to address.

   You cherry-picked a phrase and fused it with all the right buzzwords (I agree with Cathy that the cry of “Islamophobia” is the new liberal method of stamping out dissent (which liberals are supposedly fond of). In fact, Cathy said no such thing (Words like Islamophobia and phrases like anti-Muslim bigotry are bandied about too liberally).

   No, you make no sense whatsoever. Not because you have a different opinion, but because you have come off half-cocked with a smattering of thoughts that don’t address the article in question. (Like radical feminists saying I can’t possibly understand feminism to the extent they do or grasp the “essence” of what they mean because I’m a man)

   You do pose some questions concering Islam that should be addressed. However, the thoughtlessness of your response reveals an inherent bigotry towards Islam. Ironically, you’ve proved the point that Cathy actually set out to make.

   Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 1:14 pm ¶

6. Arr! Eek Ehn? wrote:

   I wish this refutation would be more cohesive and coherent. Not sure what I obfuscated in particular? I like how you put the quote marks to problem, considering those “problems” weren’t even addressed. What exactly are these problems that are being obfuscated? Using a general term like problems and quote marking it is obfuscation at its height. Since you’ve determined the premise of this article shows how knee-jerk reactions born of bigotry obfuscates where the problem lies and contributes to that problem, mind you show one example of this? Where exactly does the “problem lie” and how in our attempts to address it did we contribute to this “problem”. I don’t see how the “problem” was addressed in the article. What actually did that article prove? Not what it STATED, what it proved or in your case illustrated so obviously. And you have to explain that verbatim using only Cathy’s words, no cherry-picking a phrase and fusing it with all the right buzzwords.

   Dear god forgive me, I took what Cathy said and poised it with my own opinion. I don’t recall actually attributing my opinions to her. Are you that frightened people are going to forget what she “actually” said in a clickable link to a written statement? Cathy says these terms are bandied about too liberally, I said it’s done on the part of liberals, that wasn’t a condemning tone. I’ve rarely heard these terms come from conservatives and Christians. So not sure what I was cherry picking there. Perhaps focus a bit more on the particulars. What did I not “get right” about what she “actually said”. And if you really discuss an article on what is “actually stated verbatim” and not interject your own opinion or emotions, then a lot of people on racialicious have been guilty… looking at you.

   What make no sense whatsoever? The classic you’re delusional, you’re being defensive, you’re arrogant, this is a strawman, you’re ____ argument should have stopped at 5th grade with the onset of critical thinking. My radical feminism example was to illustrate a closed ended system of thinking, the same methodology that many pro-Islamic supporters use to criticize those that disagree with the teachings of Islam. Nice attempt at refuting the example instead of the issue. Then again you didn’t really refute it, you just dropped it in parenthesis hoping we’d somehow make the mental connection why this is wrong, saving you from having to explain it.

   Yeah, the one thing I can agree with you on, I have concerns about Islam that need addressed. Seems you’re not interested in doing that. Since you’re so well-versed in Islam, enough to know I’m an “inherent bigot” I’ll be interested to know how I’ve mischaracterized Islam? In particular throughout this whole “retort” you failed to mention a single issue of Islam, which shows either ignorance of the subject or a fallacious belief that attacking the weak points of someone’s argument inversely strengthens your own stance… …what is your stance? Yup obfuscation is a cool word. Nothing more pathetic than using jargon and mudding up words to conceal the unpleasantness of certain issues. That’d be a car full of Alanis irony.

   Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 6:45 pm ¶

7. Colin wrote:

   Am I the only one who saw irony in the listing here where one article says the Klan is “still dead” and another says their former (and probably still current) members have a website that is going strong?

   Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 12:51 pm ¶

8. kim wrote:

   Colin…

   Irony I see, though what I saw (with ‘Klan dead’ article) was a lead-in I thought foolish and irresponsible, so I didn’t even bother clicking through.

   Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 3:46 pm ¶