It’s September 10th all over again
From the AP:
Homeland chief warns against anti-Muslim backlash
(AP) – 8 hours ago
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The shootings left 13 people dead and 29 wounded.
Napolitano was in the United Arab Emirates on Sunday for talks with security officials and a meeting with women university students in Abu Dhabi.
Now, let’s change the cast of characters:
Homeland chief warns against anti-Christian prolife backlash
(AP) – 8 hours ago
VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Christian sentiment after the shootings by prolife Christians at Franklin Jones’ abortion clinic in Texas.Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American prolife Christians following Thursday’s rampage by the Rev. Paul Peterson, a Christian who reportedly expressed growing dismay over Dr. Jones’s killing of late-term fetuses.
The shootings left 13 people dead and 29 wounded.
Napolitano was at Regent University (founded by prolife Christian, Pat Robertson) on Sunday for a meeting with women university students in Regent’s Robertson School of Government.
The latter is inconceivable, since political correctness requires that if you are an American you must loathe your own heritage while pretending that atrocities performed by exotic others are probably the fault of your own heritage. In the old days, we would call this invincible ignorance. Today, they call it “enlightened,” and we have our first president thoroughly indoctrinated by this disordered approach to moral judgment.
Statement of President Bush on September 13, 2001:
“I urge – I know I don’t need to tell you all this -but our nation must be mindful
that there are thousands of Arab-Americans who live in New York City
who love their flag just as much as the three of us do.
And we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war
that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve.
I know that is your attitudes as well. Certainly the attitude of this government,
that we should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror. ”
And calling American Citizens who happen to be Muslim “exotic others” is downright … unamerican.
The latter is inconceivable for a very different reason: when those of the majority act, they are seen as individuals and when those who are marginalized act, they are seen as emblematic of their entire group. Christians have participated in instances of terrorism, from abortion clinic bombings to the Oklahoma City federal building. But do we ever say, “What are we going to do about these pesky Christians?” or “What are we going to do about these freedom hating white people?” No, we don’t. So why do we do this with Muslims?
Great example Prof. Beckwith.
BSK, when there are abortion clinic bombings etc. Christians typically rush to the front of the line condemning the acts and explaining that the actions are inconsistent with Christian belief.
Oy. Why is McVeigh such a staple of the left? By his own account, he was more a disciple of Nietzsche than Jesus Christ.
The abortion-related killers are always next on the list, but they are few and far between, and immediately and universally condemned by Christians except for a tiny fringe.
Statistically, their per capita rate of violence is minuscule, and their actual death count pales beside just the events at Fort Hood, not to mention 9-11.
But do we ever say, “What are we going to do about these pesky Christians?”
Actually the left says that all the time, although statistically, there’s little justification. Might as well harp on the Unabomber [who also has some fringe defenders], as if eco-terrorism holds a candle to Fort Hood.
_______________
Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims…
What backlash? What groups? CAIR? ACORN?
But it’s more convenient to portray McVeigh as a Christian. It’s a lie, but so what? It fits some people’s templates.
“Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims…”
What backlash? What groups? CAIR? ACORN?
Excellent question, TvD. I would like to know, myself, which ‘groups’ she’s ‘working with.’
“And calling American Citizens who happen to be Muslim `exotic others’ is downright … unamerican.”
But calling Christians homophobic intolerant bigots is demanded by liberal democracy?
Gimme a break, Muskrat. You and I both know that the Left has always had this bizarre curious anthropologist mentality toward “exotic others.” For some reason, if you tie your behavior to a non-Western religion or culture, you’re off the hook. If the Zulus throw their young into the volcano to appease a tribal god, that’s “interesting.” If Tom Smith goes to a faith healer and dies, he’s an idiot.
For me, I think of Muslim Americans as fellow citizens who ought to be accorded no greater or no less respect or deference than Christian Americans. The “exotic other” comment was referring to how the Left looks at them, not how I look at them.
Since Christianity is a “religion of peace,” McVeigh, if was a Christian, was a real bad one.
Interestingly, McVeigh’s followers can fit in a phone booth. Osama Bin Laden’s can fill several phone books.
TVD-
Why must Muslims stand up to denounce the events at Fort Hood? Unlike 9/11, there is no evidence that the shootings were done in the name of Islam. Abortion bombings are done in the name of Christianity albeit a perverted view of it, but nonetheless.
This man committed a horrible act. And perhaps his religion was a factor. But, the fact remains, he acted as an individual, and is not any more representative of the Muslim religion than McVeigh is representative of Christians and even less so than abortion-clinic-bombers.
Unlike 9/11, there is no evidence that the shootings were done in the name of Islam.
Apparently you have abandoned my earlier post to peddle your garbage here. Unfortunately for you, SA is riddled with reasonable contributors and readers.
The lunatic shouted “allahu akbar” before gunning down innocent soldiers. His actions were in line with his previous statements about suicide bombers et al. If you have other points, I suggest you employ them as the whole “this has nothing to do with his Muslim beliefs” is a loser.
The lunatic shouted “allahu akbar” before gunning down innocent soldiers.
Chillax, folks. The above is sufficient rebuttal, YN, matched with the fact that such things happen in exactly the same way in the Muslim world all the time [see Pakistan this year].
All I know is I get the same treatment from lefties, and that they outnumber me doesn’t make them right.
[It's usually five-to-one against me, a fair fight.
]
Well TVD it hasn’t been enough so far, my response was sort of a continuation from a discussion in my earlier post. I’m all for the marketplace of ideas here, BSK and GG are just using the “broken record” approach to debate.
I suppose my mistake was taking this as an invitation to “kick against the pricks” [Acts 9:5]
It’s amazing how quickly the rhetoric escalates here. Nonetheless, as more information comes out, it does appear that the shooter’s actions were somewhat motivated by his religion. We won’t know for sure until if/when he speaks with authorities. What I find amazing is that so quickly, the responses here go to attacks on the left. Why act as if the viewpoint that not all Muslims should be lumped in with the criminals who happen to be Muslim considered “liberal” or “left”? Do you consider generalizing along racial/ethnic/religious lines to be core to the conservative or “right” position? That would be quite the admission to make.
This was a man who was clearly deeply disturbed, as evidenced by many of the statements he made was. But in no way does he represent Muslims or the Islam religion. And to compare the prejudice and bigotry faced by Muslims in our society to the prejudice and bigotry faced by Christians is intellectually and emotionally dishonest. Yes, both groups do face some prejudice, but in our current climate, Muslims clearly face far more. And if your belief is that they somehow “deserve” it, well, I don’t know what more to say on the issue.
I also find it interesting that you consider contrary arguments to your own as “garbage”. I consider it quite garbage that you do not refer to the merits of my argument, instead engaging in straw man tactics. My second post clearly acknowledged the influence religion might have had, but went to the issue of whether we can really generalize his actions to those of all Muslims. Can you engage this point? If so, please do so. If you are going to engage in personal attacks and spout more talking points not related to my inquiries but directed towards me, there is not much left to discuss, as no discussion is actually taking place.
Why act as if the viewpoint that not all Muslims should be lumped in with the criminals who happen to be Muslim considered “liberal” or “left”? Do you consider generalizing along racial/ethnic/religious lines to be core to the conservative or “right” position? That would be quite the admission to make.
Well, nobody says “all” Muslims or even “most” Muslims. But that “criminals” of this sort just “happen” to be Muslim is slippery rhetoric, as if they “happen” to be left-handed or their favorite color “happens” to be purple.
But first of all, BSK, the point is made in this post because there is a real and verifiable anti-Christian left, and you yourself comment on such a blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, a veritable sewer of hostility and bad faith comments.
Further, it was you yourself who invoked Timothy McVeigh.
So if there is a little impatience with you resurrecting such anti-Christian myths as McVeigh, it’s because it’s the same ol’, same ol’, and it is slander.
Further, if you poke through the archives, you’ll see this blog is political, and certainly right-leaning, but not exactly secular—it has a Roman Catholic tilt, although there are many non-Catholics among the contributors.
And if you’ll notice further, our friends from the left who drop by to exchange views are often unsympathetic to religion in general, Christianity in particular, and Catholicism to the point of mentioning the Inquisition at the drop of a hat in order to discredit the entire enterprise.
This is a palpable phenomenon in America, not just this blog, that there is a not-small contingent on the left whose hostility toward their opponents goes much deeper than politics. They got issues.
And so, your invoking McVeigh did touch a hot button hereabouts, as such invocations usually carry a shallow, predictable and tiresome agenda along with them.
Back to the issue here, there is a phenomenon of violence done in the name of Islam, one look around the world confirms it, and its proportion isn’t remotely comparable to the occasional Christian wacko. And whether or not the problem is theologically intrinsic to Islam is another discussion, but the suspicion is not without foundation, based on the Quran, the hadiths, and Muslim history, especially lately.
Cats and dogs are both mammals, but there’s a real difference. So too, Christianity and Islam are religions but there are real and substantive differences.
Even if the Fort Hood killer “snapped,” except in the rarest case perhaps, you just don’t see Christians “snapping” and gunning down dozens of people for Jesus Christ.
Christianity just ain’t that kind of party.
And I’m sure you withdraw your
Why must Muslims stand up to denounce the events at Fort Hood?
remark now that the evidence is creeping in, and perhaps even agree that the media’s rush to attribute the Fort Hood incident to some sort of Pre-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is laughable.
I did a quick search and found at least one comment attributed to a BSK on “Dispatches”, but this was not from me. I suppose it’s a moniker someone else uses. I don’t frequent that blog, though it does look like some of their work was used on PL, where I do comment.
To the larger issue, my use of McVeigh was not intended to criticize Christians, but rather to demonstrate the difficulty/trouble of extrapolating the actions of one individual to a group he is a member of. If Christians rightfully balk at being lumped in with McVeigh or abortion-clinic bombers, then perhaps there is an ability to understand and empathize when the same is done to the Muslim community. Looking back, I suppose I was not as clear as possible on this point, so for that I apologize.
I am aware of anti-Christian and anti-religious sentiment that is present in this country. I was raised Catholic and am still bothered by the way these religions and their followers are lumped in with some of the more extreme elements. I don’t like that all Christians/Catholics are considered to all be homophobic bigots, even if there are teachings that denounce homosexuality (actions, not individuals) and religious leaders who are quite homophobic and bigoted. I generally try to avoid painting with wide strokes.
I still will not submit that Islam has any more “violence” inherent to it than any other religion. Yes, there are individuals who manipulate the teaching of the religion to support violent actions, but this is often done as a tactic to seek political or economic ends and, again, is not really an inherent part of the religion. That does not mean we should not examine how this is happening. Just that we must do so carefully.
The reason I said this situation was “implausible” is because I don’t think you would see Christian witch hunts taking place if this shooter were Christian. Is it possible there would be talk of “fanatical” Christianity? Absolutely. But would we have to worry about Churches being burned down or random beatings of people who “looked” Christian? I don’t think so. Perhaps there is more animosity directed towards Christians where you live, but where I am, I don’t think we would see this on any scale that would justify calls of opposition from the Homeland chief, and I live in a very liberal area.
To the last point, I think Muslims should denounce this as we all should, no more, no less. The idea that this guy had an actual PPTSD is possibly not quite as ridiculous as you’d think. My girlfriend is in the military, and when we spoke of this story, she said she felt it was only a matter of time before we saw something like this happen, given the current climate in the military. Couple opposition and a sense of hopelessness within the military (not universal, but certainly present) with this individual’s mental state and intense feelings on the matter, and you have a recipe for disaster. I don’t know that he had a diagnosable condition, but there was clearly something very disturbed about this man, that extends well beyond his perversions of his faith.
FWIW:
http://militarytimes.com/news/2009/11/ap_army_hood_shootings_condemned_110509w/
“But calling Christians homophobic intolerant bigots is demanded by liberal democracy?”
No, but you deal with it and move on. Stewing over insults isn’t healthy. We all do it, but it’s bad for us. Like huffing paint fumes.
Why act as if the viewpoint that not all Muslims should be lumped in with the criminals who happen to be Muslim considered “liberal” or “left”?
I didn’t. I acknowledge that not all who claim to be Muslims believe violence is a part of that belief system.
Do you consider generalizing along racial/ethnic/religious lines to be core to the conservative or “right” position?
Absolutely not. I do however believe in syllogisms. As you conceded, the facts are increasingly bearing out that he was motivated by his beliefs. I took my position based on (1) his statements and actions and (2) the fact that those statements/actions comport with a large number of Muslims worldwide.
Yes, both groups do face some prejudice, but in our current climate, Muslims clearly face far more.
What could possibly have lead to this?
And if your belief is that they somehow “deserve” it, well, I don’t know what more to say on the issue.
All Mulsims do not deserve it, just those who gun down innocent people shouting “allahu akbar”.
I also find it interesting that you consider contrary arguments to your own as “garbage”.
I do not think contrary arguments are automatically garbage – one of the greatest things about SA is that there are always different viewpoints flying around – often between contributors. The “garbage” was saying over and over something to the effect that this was not related to Islam. It’s like saying in 1945 that “just because that Japanese pilot flew directly into that US warship does not mean he was an imperialistic kamikaze.”
I consider it quite garbage that you do not refer to the merits of my argument, instead engaging in straw man tactics.
I believe I have engaged your points – saying why they are wrong and why is not a failure to engage. I realize that “strawman argument” is a popular phrase but I don’t see how I have actually done such a thing.
My second post clearly acknowledged the influence religion might have had, but went to the issue of whether we can really generalize his actions to those of all Muslims. Can you engage this point?
I already have but I will do so again: I am not generalizing his actions to those of all Muslims. In fact, I have never done so in these recent posts or any others. There are plenty of Muslims who would never even consider doing such things. But there are also countless Muslims who would absolutely do this and are doing equally depraved acts daily around the world. So what I am saying is that his actions sufficiently comport with a tremendous portion of (but not all) Muslims.
If you are going to engage in personal attacks and spout more talking points not related to my inquiries but directed towards me, there is not much left to discuss, as no discussion is actually taking place.
My talking points have related directly to your inquiries – just not with the conclusions you desire. This is no failure on my part.
Now here’s a farce worthy of a SNL skit: Muslims open fire on Americans in America and the Muslims are in need of protection.
Fairly soon, I’m expecting this amateur administration to declare that being an American in America is unconstitutional.
“All Mulsims do not deserve it, just those who gun down innocent people shouting “allahu akbar”.” Agreed. And what percentage of the American Muslim population has done this? Do you think it’s unreasonable to think that the shootings at Fort Hood could lead to anti-Muslim backlash? We already saw how Muslims, people of Middle Eastern descent, or anyone believed to be one or the other (or both) were targeted after 9/11. I think it’s fair to assume that there is a high probability of such situations arising again. So, is it really problematic what Napolitano says here? If the roles were reversed, and it was a Christian who did this in the name of God or Christ, and there were legitimate fears of backlash, I would absolutely support the exact same steps being taken. In my view, I think that is less likely, because in general, we attribute the actions of members of majority groups to them as individuals while attributing the actions of marginalized groups as being emblematic of their entire groups (not just true in America, but a general human condition). I feel that the Muslim/Middle Eastern community would be a greater risk for backlash after an event like this than the Christian community given the exact same circumstances. I suppose you can argue this fact, but I don’t think there is much evidence to support it.
As for Hasan, and anyone else who would support similar actions, they absolutely ought to be held accountable, with no attempts to justify their actions through their religion or any other means. I will not disagree with anyone on this. But I also will not accept the viewpoint that all Muslims must suffer for his actions.
BSK, your last comment makes so much more sense. My consistent point from has been that it was foolish to say he was not motivated by Islam – a point which you now seem to concede. You imputing over-generalizations to me regarding the the Muslim population as a whole. I never suggested any Korematsu style reaction. Of course we shouldn’t round-up all American Muslims. But Muslims in the military who express violent belief and intentions should be summarily dealt with, without fear of hurting feelings.
“But Muslims in the military who express violent belief and intentions should be summarily dealt with, without fear of hurting feelings.”
And may I add, Younger Now, that this be applied to those Muslims exhibiting violent behavior outside of the military, as well.
“But Muslims in the military who express violent belief and intentions should be summarily dealt with, without fear of hurting feelings.”
Ironically, when the Left groups such as action as no more than visceral bigotry it diminishes the significance that the Muslim himself places on his own faith. In other words, the greatest respect we can show to the Hasan’s of the world is take them seriously, which means that they ought to be treated as people who believe what they say and consequently pose a danger to the common good.
(Usual disclaimer for people who can’t make distinctions: I am, of course, not suggesting that ALL Muslims should be treated this way. I am just referring to those who connect their religious beliefs to the subversion and destruction of liberal democracy either here or abroad. Moreover, if a sect of Christians were entertaining the same actions and beliefs, they should be treated with equal regard. For not to do so would violate the equal protection of their victims, who should not be subject harm because the government chooses to prefer to treat some terrorists more gingerly than others.)
And, might I add, we do this for any member of the military, regardless of faith, who expresses violent beliefs and intentions, outside of what would normally be expected as a function of their job.
There is evidence that part of the reason Hasan “slipped through the cracks” was because of PC-ism. While questions were raised, it looks like (not confirmed) officials were reluctant to pursue them, for fear of creating an environment in the service that was hostile to Muslims. Because of a lack of true understanding of the Islamic faith, officials could not make a designation between what is genuine belief and what is violent fanaticism. They erred on the side of not offending Hasan and the Muslim population over pursuing due diligence to make a determination of what was going on with this individual.
YN-
My initial point was consistent with this last point. Somewhere in the middle, the conversation got derailed. This event casts no shadow over Islam, only over this one man. Again, the conversation should not be, “What is wrong with Islam?” It should be, “What was wrong with Hasan and how did his understanding of Islam lead him to this? Are there others who have the same beliefs he does? If so, what should be done about them?” Too quickly these two conversations are conflated, as I began to see people do here, which is why I objected to this line of thinking. As for his religion as a factor, I don’t know that I’m “conceding” anything. When the news first broke, there was little information that pointed towards Hasan’s motives. As more information came out, it became clearer that his religious beliefs were very much involved. The evidence has ultimately bore out the suspicion, but many people’s suspicions were based on hearing his name, and not actual evidence. The evidence speaks for itself, and what we know does tell us about how religion factored in. What we knew earlier did not. And there is still much to learn.