OK, but why haven’t I heard about them?
By Thoreau
I don’t get it. Where are all the Sudanese moderates? If those people are so moderate, then why don’t they all just go on TV and speak out when their brutal government threatens a school teacher with a draconian punishment? What could possibly be preventing them from speaking out?
The only possible explanation is that all of those people are inherently evil agree with the sentence.
Discuss.
« « Why won’t anybody report the good news from the war? | Main | First, Let’s Not Kill All the Lawyers » »
Comment by imag —
November 29, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
and why haven’t any moderate snowboarders denounced the x-tremists?
Comment by Thoreau —
November 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
If they’re truly moderate then they’ll drop whatever else is going on in their lives to speak as loudly and frequently as they can on this matter.
Comment by Brian —
November 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Not inherently “evil,” but certainly mentally imprisoned by a rather draconian religious and cultural system.
One doesn’t have to be a warmonger who believes that “we” need to “liberate” the wogs to believe that a system which sentences a rape victim to 200 lashes is pretty f%^$#@ed up. (As, of course, is a system that thinks a ten year bombing campaign that murders or displaces millions of people is worthy of worship and unthinking “patriotism.”)
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
The problem has never been one of people being “inherently evil.” I have no doubt most of the Mohammedans in question think they’re doing God’s work, literally. The problem is the system of beliefs they work under that leads them, logically, to do very illiberal things. As it is, Islamic doctrine is incompatible with basic Enlightenment assumptions that you and I take for granted.
For example, you, I and other posters believe everyone should have perfect liberty to question any religious teaching, up to and including Jesus Christ himself. We may not agree with that questioning, but the right to do so is firmly established. Not so in the Muslim world. Mohammed is a divine conduit of God, and any questioning of his divine mission must be suppressed by any means necessary lest it lead souls to hell.
Yes, this was also true of Christianity at one time. But that time is long gone. At most, you have some cranks who want to restore the old system of Throne and Altar. Everyone else, up to the Pope himself, has long since accepted the concepts of free expression in theory, if not entirely in practice.
To be clear, I am not saying that the answer is some sort of Bushian crusade. That only makes things worse, far worse. What it does mean, though, is that we have alter our foreign policy and our immigration policy with a clear understanding of these people’s most deeply held beliefs. If they change these beliefs down the road, great, we can look at our policies, too.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
OK, to be serious, perhaps “inherently evil” is the wrong choice of words. They may have good intent but support bad things out of ignorance, indoctrination, or whatever.
The question is whether silence means they actually support this shit. When you live under a dictatorship, and you’ve just seen somebody threatened with a draconian sentence, silence might indicate survival instinct rather than agreement.
Which is not to say that people shouldn’t speak out, but we should be careful how we interpret silence.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
“Which is not to say that people shouldn’t speak out, but we should be careful how we interpret silence. ”
I thought that was the point of your post–that you can’t necessarily tell what people living under a brutal regime actually think about its actions.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Silence is just silence. There really isn’t much to interpret about the moderates in this situation - they hold a spectrum of opinions, but every single one is irrelevant.
In extremist-run societies, moderates just don’t matter.
Comment by merkur —
November 29, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
You can’t necessarily tell what people living under any regime actually think about its actions. It depends a) if anybody asks them, b) if they can be bothered to reply, and c) if anybody’s listening to their reply. Once you’ve done all that, then you’ve actually got to interpret the reply (sometimes the question).
Obviously, Sudan falls at the first three hurdles, and we generally fall at the last.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
When you live under a dictatorship, and you’ve just seen somebody threatened with a draconian sentence, silence might indicate survival instinct rather than agreement.
In this teddy bear case, there probably isn’t a majority. If the teacher had directly criticized Mohammad, OTOH, you better bet there’d be a majority in favor of it.
Their reasons for doing so are embedded in their scripture and accepted traditions. It’s important to bear in mind that, according to impeccable Muslim sources, Mohammad did not deal well with dissent. He had some critics dispatched for ridiculing him.
Once you accept that template of thought as being divinely ordained for all time, it has a tremendous effect on your actions and how you view the world.
Comment by Kevin —
November 29, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
“Once you accept that template of thought as being divinely ordained for all time, it has a tremendous effect on your actions and how you view the world”
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.”
Comment by cfw —
November 29, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
I assume the Brits calling in the Ambassador from Sudan will help. I would also not be surprised if the punishment was meant to be taken care of by paying a fine (or bribe).
Presumably there are also avenues for appeal, and no clear evidence appeals are exhausted. Good example of why the writ of HC should be a right in all countries - judges often do stupid things.
Speaking truth to power is a risky proposition - look at Yagman. Lack of outcry does not shock me. One needs counter-extremists (counter-extremists like Yagman) for outcry.
Worst case scenario, maybe she could make a deal for say 1-5 lashes per day for 10-50 days.
Comment by Matt Stevens —
November 29, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
What could possibly be preventing them from speaking out?
Uh, fear of being shot? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Besides, if the Sudanese government is really practicing ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, there are much more grievous injustices to protest against.
Comment by pogge —
November 29, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
The woman in question was sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation. No lashes.
Comment by Brian —
November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Ah…relatively minor, then.
Whereas WE in the oh so virtuous “secular” United States, have sentenced the Iraqis to years more of warlordism, random bombings, cholera, and uranium poisoning. Just to keep things in perspective.
Comment by Coin —
November 29, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
What could possibly be preventing them from speaking out?
The same thing that prevents them from naming teddy bears “Muhammad”, perhaps? I mean, just a guess, here.
Comment by dsquared —
November 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
I note that the prosecution was brought by the Sudanese education department. And yet I have heard not a single word from the so-called “moderate” bureaucrats at the UK’s Department of Education. One almost thinks that they secretly sympathise with their fellows overseas.
Comment by biff3000 —
November 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
My cable system doesn’t get SNN. I’m sure it’s all moderate Sudanese denouncing this nonsense, all the time.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Kevin,
Your quote from Kings only strengthens my case.
Christians and Jews do not apply the same hermeneutic approach to their scriptures as do the Muslims. I warrant not more than 5-10% even know about this story in the Bible, and of those, they understand it as an historical event in a time very different than ours. None would attempt to apply to modern life. In fact, almost every Christian would say acts like these have been rendered null by the new dispensation of Christ.
But that is not the case in Islam, where people literally memorize their holy book, and believe everything in there is to be applied to contemporary life as well.
Saying “fundamentalist Islam” is really uttering a redundancy. “Fundamentalist Christians” stand out because their view is exceptional, and they’re often not as “fundamentalist” as they fancy themselves. In Islam we have the opposite situation, where the more allegorical types are the minority, a minority condemned as heretics for well over a millennium.
Now this may change, but it’s not going to be an easy process, nor will it be anything quick, as happened with the Catholics over the past several decades. The best thing we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from them and let them sort things out for themselves.
Comment by Brian —
November 29, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
O/T Derek: I was enjoying your posts, so I “googled” you. That BrotherJudd blog was a pretty nasty place! Are they still so sure of themselves and the “victory” of neoconservative ideology? I’m afraid to look.
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 29, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
“Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.”
But were they named Muhammed? We’ve already established on this thread that the Pope is catholic, but does the bible make also clear if bears shit in the woods?
Derek –
“But that is not the case in Islam, where people literally memorize their holy book, and believe everything in there is to be applied to contemporary life as well.”
I got it now.
Muslims….
are ROBOTS!
(BTW, I have known many Muslims, including devout and clerical ones, I am not sure ANY had memorized the Quran, and am very sure the vast majority did not.) Nor did most or any believe that it was to be applied or interpreted without interpretation and adjustment for current circumstances or values.)
Comment by Jean —
November 29, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
By the way, “Mohammedans'’? Really, really dumb name for Muslims.
(Hint: Muhammad is not to Islam what Christ is to Christianity.)
Comment by KCinDC —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Derek, you’ve undermined your credibility from the start with that silly “Mohammedans”, unless you’re posting through a time machine. But in any case, do you think that lumping all Muslims together and condemning their religion as a whole will make whatever “allegorical types” exist become more reasonable and increase in numbers, or it is more likely that they’ll stick with the fundamentalists, since we’ve made it clear that they’re a bunch of terrorists wogs regardless?
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:47 am
That BrotherJudd blog was a pretty nasty place! Are they still so sure of themselves and the “victory” of neoconservative ideology? I’m afraid to look.
Honestly, I haven’t looked in years. I used to correspond with Orrin, and he struck me as a nice enough guy, but on political matters, he let his ideology get the better of him.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:58 am
BTW, I have known many Muslims, including devout and clerical ones, I am not sure ANY had memorized the Quran, and am very sure the vast majority did not.
Memorizing the Quran is a common Muhammadan practice.
You’ve got more pages like that on the web, too
Nor did most or any believe that it was to be applied or interpreted without interpretation and adjustment for current circumstances or values
I said that they do do that, but for infrastructural reasons. For example, Muslims in the West put off applying Sharia law, not because stoning adulteresses is a morally bad idea, but because they can’t implement the idea for the time being.
Now you can find verses in the Old Testament calling for stoning of adulteresses, but no one wants to implement them in the West because those things are now generally viewed as being morally wrong.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:05 am
Derek, you’ve undermined your credibility from the start with that silly “Mohammedans”, unless you’re posting through a time machine.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…
But in any case, do you think that lumping all Muslims together and condemning their religion as a whole will make whatever “allegorical types” exist become more reasonable and increase in numbers, or it is more likely that they’ll stick with the fundamentalists, since we’ve made it clear that they’re a bunch of terrorists wogs regardless?
What I think is that trying to pretend they’re just Episcopalian with hijabs won’t get you anywhere at all. I think we need to be honest about the differences between cultural viewpoints. Considering the very real distance there is at the moment, the best thing to do is limit our contacts and the resulting friction.
If the Saracens (how that for archaisms) want to go back to the 7th century, it’s really no business of ours, but they shouldn’t be allowed to bring that sort of stuff over here. That is in fact happening in places like Europe, where they have to deal with honor killings and forced marriages in larger and larger numbers. In a bid for Muslim votes, the British Parliament even came within an ace of passing an anti-blasphemy law.
We in the U.S. think we’re immune–because the Atlantic has some sort of magical property, I suppose–but given a great enough mass of Islamics here and we’re going to be facing the same problems. In fact, we have on a smaller scale with some Somali refugees.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:16 am
I got it now.
Muslims….
are ROBOTS!
Caricatures and strawmen hardly advance a conversation. I never said they were robots. In fact, many of the most hardline Islamics are quite intelligent.
To violate Godwin’s law, the Nazis and Communists were not robots either. Many were quite intelligent, but they had accepted a view of the world which led them to commit certain horrific acts, seeing them as being necessary for the greater good.
Mohammedans are not Nazis or even Reds, but they do have a radically different view of the world and it is extremely antagonistic to the West’s liberal* underpinnings.
*I use the term “liberal” in its most general sense.
Comment by hf —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:20 am
Not to in any way condone or even mitigate anything going on in Sudan, but suppose:
A Saudi woman on an immigrant visa, complete with chador, manages to get a job as a teacher in rural Oklahoma. One day it comes out that somehow the turtle in the class aquarium has been named “Jesus Christ Our Savior”. She claims that although she led the class discussion, the decision came from the students.
Now, we’re better than the Sudanese in that the teacher would not be criminally prosecuted, although I think there might be some career consequences. But the relevant question is: how many of us “moderates” here would be seen on Saudi television defending the teacher from criticism? Not many, for lots of obvious reasons. You don’t even need an oppressive state to explain it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:42 am
But the relevant question is: how many of us “moderates” here would be seen on Saudi television defending the teacher from criticism?
I wonder if Saudi TV would show a female in a job outside the immediate company of a male relative.
Actually, in Houston we had a similar situation where a sub went batsh*t insane on the church and Christianity. Result: she was told to knock it and sent back to class.
The OK case would probably end with principal telling her to find another name (assuming she’d give a Muslim prophet’s name to a turtle in the first place).
Comment by joe —
November 30, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Caricatures and strawmen hardly advance a conversation.
Mohammedans
But that is not the case in Islam, where people literally memorize their holy book, and believe everything in there is to be applied to contemporary life as well.
For example, Muslims in the West put off applying Sharia law, not because stoning adulteresses is a morally bad idea, but because they can’t implement the idea for the time being.
trying to pretend they’re just Episcopalian with hijabs
And, one again,
Caricatures and strawmen hardly advance a conversation.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
November 30, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Look, Derek, if you have some statistics on how many Muslims in the US, say, really want to make it legal to stone adulteresses that might be interesting. Vague proclamations about how “Muslims in the West” are only postpoing that happy day until they have the power to implement it aren’t helpful.
The guy who does my taxes is a Muslim, btw. An extremely nice guy. I’ll ask him if he wants to stone adulteresses. Actually, I won’t, because I don’t want him to think I’m a nasty sort of bigot.
Comment by Ken MacLeod —
November 30, 2007 @ 10:33 am
In a bid for Muslim votes, the British Parliament even came within an ace of passing an anti-blasphemy law.
After swiftly googling the relevant brouhaha - unless I’m much mistaken this is Not Even Wrong.
Britain already has an anti-blasphemy law. An attempt to argue that it protected Islam as well as Christianity (around the Salman Rushdie fatwa affair) failed.
Britain also has an even more illiberal law against incitement to religious hatred.
As for the idea of the ‘British Parliament’ making ‘a bid for Muslim votes’, it is to laugh.
Comment by Corey —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Ok, Derek, suppose everyone grants you that. I’ll admit, I’m not particularly fond of Islam, radical or moderate, or most other shades of religion. What is it you’re proposing we do? Vocally support bombing Iraq/Iran/Syria/etc, etc? Write my congresscritters asking them to pass legislation banning Islam in the US? Or are they supposed to magically ban Islam in the Middle East?
I’d could probably get behind your “limit contact” plan - does that mean you support ending aid to Egypt and banning arms sales to the Saudis? Or Israel? You may not see supporting Israel as contact with Islam, but I’d imagine most of these ‘Mohammedans’ you’re so worried about probably see it as pretty direct intrusion in their affairs.
Or, ultimately, are we just supposed to spend all our time on the internet blathering about how much we hate Islam and Muslims in general? Because, if that we’re going to help, the internet would be some kind of doomsday machine, and frankly, I’d rather spend my internet griping budget on the things that annoy me closer to home.
Comment by Corey —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
And chief among the things that annoy me too close to home is raving clash-of-civilizations lunatics.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
What is it you’re proposing we do? Vocally support bombing Iraq/Iran/Syria/etc, etc?
I feel like I have to repeat myself 50,000 times on this issue, and given that so many people echo these sentiments, I can’t really blame you for asking this.
As I’ve stated above, I support a policy of moderated separation. We should not involve ourselves in the affairs of Muslims more than absolutely necessary. We should also end any immigration from that part of the world except for special cases.
And FYI, I was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War before we went in.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
After swiftly googling the relevant brouhaha - unless I’m much mistaken this is Not Even Wrong.
So Achbship Carey, Rowan Atkinson and everyone else was just imagining it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
I’ll ask him if he wants to stone adulteresses. Actually, I won’t, because I don’t want him to think I’m a nasty sort of bigot.
Ask him if we should apply Sharia law. The implementation of Sharia is part and parcel of Islam.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Here’s the Google page for “Memorize the Quran” that I had intended paste in a prior post, and it was eaten.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Britain already has an anti-blasphemy law. An attempt to argue that it protected Islam as well as Christianity (around the Salman Rushdie fatwa affair) failed.
That law is pretty much a dead letter. The last imprisonment was in 1922.
The 2006 act, which you cite, was supposed to be far MORE illiberal than it is, and that was the controversy. It would have made any criticism or satire of Islam potentially prosecutable. The Lords amended the law, and despite Blair’s opposition, the Commons accepted the amendment.
Here’s a relevant snatch from a Q&A at the BBC:
And isn’t incitement already a crime?
There is an offence of incitement which says that it is unlawful to try and persuade someone to commit a criminal act. Critics of the new offence say this older law could be used easily against bigots trying to whip up hatred or violence against believers.
What if someone hates a religion because they think it’s a threat?
This was at the heart of the criticisms of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. Those opposed to the law argue that it would be impossible to say X or Y religion damages British society because, in doing so, they may be accused of inciting hatred.
What is the government’s defence?
Ministers say the test for what counts as incitement is high enough to ensure that robust and free debate about beliefs can continue as before. And they reject claims from campaigners, including comedian Rowan Atkinson, that the original plans would have stopped people telling religious jokes.
How did the Commons defeats change things?
The final version of the laws contains specific freedom of speech safeguards aimed at ensuring people can only be found guilty if they intend to stir up hatred. And they would ban only “threatening” words and behaviour, not things which were merely critical, abusive or insulting.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Look, Derek, if you have some statistics on how many Muslims in the US…
In the U.S. our numbers of “radicals” are lower, but that’s because most Muslims here are more educated. I don’t know if that will be the case in the future. Immigration patterns can change in our “global village.” In Britain, the number is something like 40%. Yes, it’s a minority, but 40% of millions of people is still a lot of people.
Now often the response to this is that we’re not perfect ourselves, and this obviously true. However, it only further argues for avoiding additional problems, which will come with large populations of believing Muslims.
Comment by Hogan —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Fascinating. Now substitute Bible for Quran in the search and see what comes up.
Comment by sniflheim —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
additional problems, which will come with large populations of believing Muslims.
Sounds like robots to me.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the number of “dangerous” Muslims in Britain is actually 40 percent, as Derek says. Then his solution is to make clear to the remaining 60 percent that they are also to be considered dangerous enemies? And to apply the same strategy in the US, where the percentage is presumably lower than 40?
Comment by Ken MacLeod —
November 30, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Derek # 38: ah, that’s what you meant! Fine, fine. If you’d said that in the first place, I wouldn’t have objected. Needless to say, I’m opposed to that law, too. And I broke the Blasphemy Law in 1977, by selling a newspaper containing (as an insert, because the paper’s regular printers wouldn’t handle it) the poem over which James Kirkup was at the time being prosecuted. (Not, I have to say, that this was a great risk taken for free speech, but still.)
Comment by Hogan —
November 30, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
The implementation of Sharia is part and parcel of Islam.
Except in the places where most Muslims live.
Comment by Cala —
November 30, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Derek, you’re playing as hard and as loose with the facts as I would be were I to evaluate the threat to the United States occasioned by the Christians, as evidenced by Catholics flying the flag of the Vatican outside their churches, if I were also to try to make that argument by pointing to the practices of the Mormons. And if there were a pointed lack of evidence that the Catholics were trying to institute the message of Moroni, why, I’d simply say they were just biding their time.
Muslims do regard the Koran as definitive in a way that many (not all) Christians do not. Do not, however, stupidly confuse that for a lack of disagreement or rigorous thought when it comes to interpreting the law. It’s not as though one picks up the Koran, reads it, and applies it in most interpretations. There’s as rich a philosophical tradition there as in Judaism or Christianity.
The strain of Islam that’s currently creating such havoc is one interpretation, and not a majority one, historical or otherwise at that.
You say the solution is to not involve ourselves in the affairs of Muslims. That’s a billion people worldwide. (They’re not all in the Middle East.) That seems impractical at best.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Then his solution is to make clear to the remaining 60 percent that they are also to be considered dangerous enemies?
I simply wouldn’t let things get to where we have a 60/40 split of any significance. Excepting special cases, immigration from the Muslim World should cease.
The problem that’s already here has to be managed as best as possible, but we shouldn’t let it get bigger.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Derek, you’re playing as hard and as loose with the facts as I would be were I to evaluate the threat to the United States occasioned by the Christians, as evidenced by Catholics flying the flag of the Vatican outside their churches, if I were also to try to make that argument by pointing to the practices of the Mormons. And if there were a pointed lack of evidence that the Catholics were trying to institute the message of Moroni, why, I’d simply say they were just biding their time.
I’m sorry, you’ve sort of lost me here. Catholics don’t even recognize the Mormon holy book, not to mention the Mormon view of the Incarnation.
Muslims do regard the Koran as definitive in a way that many (not all) Christians do not. Do not, however, stupidly confuse that for a lack of disagreement or rigorous thought when it comes to interpreting the law. It’s not as though one picks up the Koran, reads it, and applies it in most interpretations. There’s as rich a philosophical tradition there as in Judaism or Christianity.
But that tradition since the Mutazilites up to al-Ghazali has argued for a rather narrow interpretation, and that has led to the situation we have in the Muslim World today, where any western liberal norms are held in place through military force.
Again, it’s not our business to tell others how to live, and I believe in an anti-interventionist policy.
The strain of Islam that’s currently creating such havoc is one interpretation, and not a majority one, historical or otherwise at that.
I’m not talking about wahhabis, deobandis or radical Shiites here. From Morocco to Indonesia, non-Muslims are second-class citizens. From Morocco to Indonesia, women are legally held down in a way that would shock our most conservative of citizens. This is the norm.
Now I’m not afraid of some movement establishing another Caliphate, let alone conquering the world. I do, however, have concerns about moving large populations with these values into the West, and if you folks find that abnormal, then make the most of it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 30, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
sniflheim,
Do you not understand the concept of probability?
Comment by Jean —
November 30, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Really? In Indonesia, non-Muslims are second class citizens?
Proof, please? Because, I might be misremembering, but I seem to remember that Bali is Hindu, in the main, and I can’t think of any prominent reports of religious discrimination there. And I rather think that after the JI attacks, we’d have heard about. But I could be wrong, so a reference would be most welcome.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 30, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Excepting special cases, immigration from the Muslim World should cease.
What if the visa applicant from Iran swears up and down that he’s Zoroastrian? Or the Arab guy insists that he’s Christian? What if the Kurd swears up and down that he’s Yazidi? Or the Indian guy insists that he’s Hindu? What about a Malaysian who swears that he’s Buddhist?
But, yes, clearly it’s in our national interest to deny visas to people who are disproportionately likely to be entrepreneurs, whose children tend to do well in school, and who may possess the sort of language skills that could be useful in matters of national security. What could possibly go wrong in that plan?
Comment by Thoreau —
November 30, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Better yet, what if the Arab from a Muslim family claims to be an atheist, or agnostic? What if he claims to be a deist?
Comment by Svensker —
November 30, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
If I were that teacher, I wouldn’t be very happy, obviously. But a 10 day sentence and getting kicked out of the country seems less than the 3 year prison sentence David Irving got for denying the Holocaust. Are there huge discussions about how we have to protect ourselves from secularist extremists?
Looks to me like we’ve got a beam and we’re pointing out a mote.
Comment by Cala —
December 1, 2007 @ 12:19 am
I’m sorry, you’ve sort of lost me here. Catholics don’t even recognize the Mormon holy book, not to mention the Mormon view of the Incarnation.
Exactly. Islam is a bigger tent than Wahhabism. Quite a lot of wahhabist thought comes out of interpretations of hadiths that other Muslims don’t recognize as authoritative.
But change the example if you like. Those dirty Catholics believe in predestination, so they will not obey our laws because they believe they’re fated to hell or heaven already. Was that the Calvinists, who cares? Isn’t it all the same Bible?