The Unbearable Lightness of Bigotry

by Eric Martin

Sarah Posner makes a good point about the controversey surrounding the suddenly high profile planned burning of the Koran - the problem of anti-Muslim animus is far more pervasive than this one episode would suggest, and many of the same voices that are rising to speak out on this one issue are silent on numerous other similar incidents of notoriety:

The homegrown backlash against American Muslims is reaching a boiling point, and it's not just because of the plan of Gainesville, Florida pastor Terry Jones -- plastered on the front page of more U.S. newspapers than his church has members -- to burn the Qur'an on the 9/11 anniversary. [...]

The crisis is not Terry Jones, who has been proven, at least in his desire to burn the Qur'an, an outlier in American Christianity, albeit a threat to the safety of Americans around the world (soldiers and missionaries included). The crisis is, as I wrote several months ago, the utter ordinariness of demeaning Islam.

That ordinariness, and the ordinariness of accepting it, is why an evangelical like Joel Rosenberg can on the one hand denounce the Qur'an burning but in the same breath write, "I believe those who follow Islam are mistaken and misguided and need to leave Islam and receive Jesus Christ by faith as their personal Savior and Lord." It's why Joe Lieberman can say that burning the Qur'an is "inconsistent with American values" yet stand shoulder to shoulder with John Hagee, who has said, "Islam in general—those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and whose entire worldview is predicated on vanquishing Islam. Or why Sarah Palin can say burning the Qur'an is "antithetical to American ideals," but equate it in provocativeness to "building a mosque at Ground Zero." Or why she can defend Franklin Graham's insistence that Islam is an "evil and wicked religion."

And why the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic can make despicably bigoted assertions about Muslims and endorse denying them basic Constitutional rights while escaping mainstream criticism altogether.

As argued on this site more than once, there is a certain latitude given to disparaging remarks made about Islam in general, and Muslims in particula,r that, if made about other religious or ethnic groups, would be much more circumscribed.  That is, you can get away with a lot when it comes to anti-Mulim sentiments that you can't with any other major group.

Similarly, the opposition to the Park51 community center in lower Manhattan was rooted a form of ignorance and bigotry that held all Muslims to be guilty of the crimes of a miniscule fringe - a form of collective punishment that would not have been tolerated to the same extent had it been directed at another religion or people.  We were asked to defer to the sensitivities of some of the victims' families (not the Muslim victims' families, obviously) who would be offended or find it painful to know that Muslims were in a community center blocks away from a site that other Muslims had attacked (because they are one, undifferentiated mass, and collectively guilty). 

As indicated by the fact that there is widespread opposition to mosques being built all over the country, and as indicated by polling numbers on those opposed to the Park51 project, there is something larger at play:

Here's the rub: According to the internals sent my way, opposition to the "Ground Zero mosque" is overwhelmingly driven by those with an unfavorable view of Islam:

* Fifty-five percent of those who have favorable views of the religion say it should be built.

* Meanwhile, among those who have an unfavorable view of Islam, an overwhelming 87 percent say the project shouldn't be built, with 74 percent strongly opposed.

It gets even clearer when you look at the numbers in another way. If you take the 66 percent overall who oppose the project, it turns out that two thirds of those people have generally unfavorable views of Islam, versus only one-third who view Islam favorably.

Clearly, not all opponents of the project feel unfavorably towards Islam. But two-thirds of them do. Does it mean that anti-Islam attitudes are the direct cause of opposition to the project? Impossible to say. But it's overwhelmingly clear that there's a link between the two sentiments, no matter how often opponents tell you the contrary.

Given that fact, and the fact that one of the major political parties has decided to attempt to stoke anti-Muslim animus for electoral gain, it is unlikely that there will be broad, bi-partisan condemnations of many acts, statements and incidents of anti-Muslim bias beyond the proposed Koran burning.  Though, of course, there should.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Amusingly -- sort of -- I posted a link on Facebook a few hours ago to the same voices.washingtonpost.com piece that Eric does, and quoted the same quotes.

My only additional words, it being Facebook, where you are required to be short, were: "This should surprise no one. The only reason to oppose the Cordoba House project is if you generally are suspicious of, if not hostile to, Islam in general, and believe that Islam, and Muslims, IN GENERAL, should be held responsible for the September 11th attacks."

Not that Eric and I tend to think alike on such matters, you understand.

[Marty]

I feel compelled to point out that the most interesting number in this post is that 45% of "those who have favorable views of the religion" feel it shouldn't be built.

That is a remarkable percentage of people who are confused enough to have a "favorable view of the religion" yet be "ignorant or bigoted" enough to oppose it.

[Eric Martin]

Marty,

First, it doesn't say this:

45% of "those who have favorable views of the religion" feel it shouldn't be built.

It says 55% say it should be built, but that doesn't mean 45% say it shouldn't. There could be a third option, such as don't know, no opinion, etc.

Regardless, it shouldn't really be that surprising: people, in America, are very deeply ignorant of Islam and Muslim groups.

Also, people can be bigoted without being open and self-conscious of their bigotry.

This happens all the time. It's really common. People have sub-conscious attitudes toward women or a certain minority group that manifests in irrational fear/unfair judgments, but if asked straight up, do you hate black people or think women are inferior, they will answer no.

Really.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it so hard to understand that unfavorable opinions of Islam are widespread precisely BECAUSE Muslims, or anyway a large enough fraction of them that you have to be frightened of their reaction, react with such violence to what are, objectively, trivial "provocations"? "Provocations" of the sort most religions just shrug off? (Complain about, yes, but then predictably proceed not to order the offender murdered.)

Freedom of religion requires that people be permitted to be Muslims. (It also requires that people be permitted to burn Korans, not at all incidentally.) It does not require that the public have a favorable opinion of Islam. In fact, it pretty much precludes requiring that...

If Muslims want non-Muslims to have a favorable opinion of Islam, a good start would be dealing more effectively with those in their midst who threaten murder at the drop of a hat.

[Phil]

GEE WHAT AN ORIGINAL AND THOUGHTFUL OPINION THANKS FOR SHARNG BRETT.

[russell]

If Muslims want non-Muslims to have a favorable opinion of Islam, a good start would be dealing more effectively with those in their midst who threaten murder at the drop of a hat.

I'll keep that in mind next time somebody wants to talk about watering the tree of liberty.

[Phil]

Maybe explain to us next (AGAIN) why so many people have an unfavorable view of blacks because most of them really ARE criminals.

[Gary Farber]

"Also, people can be bigoted without being open and self-conscious of their bigotry."

Most bigoted perceptions and behaviors are not done consciously: is that still at issue?

Oh, wait.

Brett: "Is it so hard to understand that unfavorable opinions of Islam are widespread precisely BECAUSE Muslims, or anyway a large enough fraction of them that you have to be frightened of their reaction...."

Nice try at a catch, but the second person doesn't work there.

You can only speak for yourself, and what you're saying is "Is it so hard to understand that unfavorable opinions of Islam are widespread precisely BECAUSE Muslims, or anyway a large enough fraction of them that [I'm] frightened of their reaction, react with such violence to what are, objectively, trivial 'provocations'?"

So, Brett: cite, please, to what "fraction" of Muslims -- is that in America, or the world? -- react with violence to "provocations"?

Please do put forth your evidence that, say, 5% of American Muslims react with violence to "provocations."

And who, incidentally, gets to decide what "are, objectively, trivial 'provocations'"? Who are these objective people, and where can I find them?

[Brett Bellmore]

Gary, if you don't think an ink sketch of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban is a trivial offense, rather than one justifying murder threats, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[elm]

Freedom of religion requires that people be permitted to be Muslims. (It also requires that people be permitted to burn Korans, not at all incidentally.)

Actually, it's freedom of speech that permits that particular piece of jerkishness.

Gary@6:47 said the rest of what I have to say more eloquently.

[Gary Farber]

So, Brett: cite, please, to what "fraction" of Muslims -- is that in America, or the world? -- react with violence to "provocations"?

Please do put forth your evidence that, say, 5% of American Muslims react with violence to "provocations."

And who, incidentally, gets to decide what "are, objectively, trivial 'provocations'"? Who are these objective people, and where can I find them?

[Phil]

I know, deep in my heart, that you're smart enough to understand this, Brett: The point isn't what you or Gary think, it's what the tenets of their religion say, and they forbid depictions of Mohammed.

Your, or my, or Gary's opinion on it is no more relevant than how trivial you or I think sneaking some bacon and prawns into the seder would be. Or, in the real world, using found, natural elements like dung in a painting of the Virgin Mary would be. (Remember when the Catholics dismissed that as a trivial provocation? Me neither.)

Now, I personally think pretty much all religious tenets, particularly dietary and artistic ones, are ass-backwards dumb. But I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to deliberately violate them for its own sake. And if I did, I wouldn't expect a believer to dismiss it as "trivial provocation."

ALL provocations are trivial to people who aren't subscribers of a particular belief. This is simple stuff, simple enough that I believe you -- even you! -- can grok it.

[Phil]

I mean, you do know that PZ Myers still gets death threats for throwing a communion wafer in the trash and filming it, right?

[Phil]

Along with a Koran, btw. But the death threats come from the Catholics.

[elm]

Also too, French Christians firebombed a theater for playing The Last Temptation of Christ, injuring 13.

[Carleton Wu]

This happens all the time. It's really common. People have sub-conscious attitudes toward women or a certain minority group that manifests in irrational fear/unfair judgments, but if asked straight up, do you hate black people or think women are inferior, they will answer no.

In fairness to Marty, this seems to suggest that if the poll shows people like Islam but don't want the Cordoba House built then they're sub-consciously bigoted, or if they say they don't like Islam then they're consciously bigoted.
Which I suppose I agree with, but then the poll doesn't really support the underlying theory that opposition to the project is based in bigotry, just helps those of us who are already convinced that opposition to the project comes from bigotry understand exactly what flavor of bigotry we're talking about.

[Carleton Wu]

Freedom of religion requires that people be permitted to be Muslims. (It also requires that people be permitted to burn Korans, not at all incidentally.) It does not require that the public have a favorable opinion of Islam.

Strawman. Im not aware of anyone requiring this, or suggesting that the burning of Korans be stopped by the government.

I mean, you do know that PZ Myers still gets death threats for throwing a communion wafer in the trash and filming it, right?

Interracial couples get death threats. Gay people get death threats. Public figures of all kinds get death threats over everything from abortion to Israel/Palestine to healthcare laws.
Me, until white people start effectively dealing with those nutters in their midst, I am going to just avoid white people completely. And mirrors.

[elm]

I am going to just avoid white people completely. And mirrors.

As a vampire-American, this offends me.

[Gary Farber]

Given that men murder on average 8 times for every murder perpetrated by a woman (older figures from 1993-1997, and the ratio was increasing), if men want women to have a favorable opinion of men, a good start would be dealing more effectively with the men in their midst who threaten murder at the drop of a hat.

Is it so hard to understand that unfavorable opinions of men are widespread precisely BECAUSE men, or anyway a large enough fraction of them that you have to be frightened of their reaction, react with such violence to what are, objectively, trivial "provocations"?

[wonkie]

I think Brett pretty well proved Eric's point.

[chmood]

pace Brett, "Christianity" stands head-and-shoulders as the most insane and murderous tribe in the last 2000+ years, judged simply by body-count.

Whether in absolute numbers or percentage of populations, "Christians" have killed, tortured, disenfranchised more people and communities the world over for overt religious reasons/justifications than Shining Path, Mao, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, the British Empire, and Stalin himself.

Combined. Islam doesn't even make it into the top 10 AFAICT

I'm sure that this isn't nice to hear, but frankly, it isn't particularly nice that it's true, either. So when "Christians" start talking about how Muslims are bad & we shouldn't let them do normal stuff & we ought to go kick their asses for them...the non-Christian world has learned the very hard way that another bloodbath is on their way.

So rail against "Muslim extremism", but keep in mind that in doing so, you're reminding EVERYONE that where extremism is concerned, "Christians" - and especially "Real American Christians" - are THE apex predator of human civilization.

Now, I'm sure Brett or another may wank about how it's okay to slam Christians but not to slam Muslims, so in presponse I'll just say, "Thou hypocrite! Remove first the beam from thine eye."

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with Eric's point is that, with Pym Fortuyn dead, Lars Vilks in hiding, Kurt Westergaard under police protection, and so on, I'm going to have to disagree with Eric about what's irrational.

Most Muslims are peaceful. But enough aren't peaceful to have Western society intimidated into a great degree of self-censorship.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whether in absolute numbers or percentage of populations, "Christians" have killed, tortured, disenfranchised more people and communities the world over for overt religious reasons/justifications than Shining Path, Mao, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, the British Empire, and Stalin himself."

Within my lifetime? See, my problem with Islam isn't that it's inherently worse than Christianity. My problem with it is that it's still what Christianity got OVER being. Charlemagne ain't gonna chop my head off if I draw a picture of Christ in a clown suit. Not because he wasn't into that sort of thing, of course.

'Cause he's, you know, dead.

[Tony P.]

So, Brett: cite, please, to what "fraction" of Muslims -- is that in America, or the world? -- react with violence to "provocations"?

Actually, Gary, we might ask The Man Called Petraeus that same question.

I mean, the General was VERY clear that video of an American lunatic burning books labelled "Koran" in Jerkwater, Florida, would incite physical violence against actual persons. I'm not saying Petraeus is right, but he does seem sincere.

--TP

[elm]

Pym Fortuyn wasn't killed by a Muslim.
Vilks is still hiding blogging.

Perhaps you meant Theo van Gogh, but by now I've done more for your point than you have.

Also, that "and so on" is doing all the work after a list of 3 2 people.

Finally, I'll repeat Gary's question:

So, Brett: cite, please, to what "fraction" of Muslims -- is that in America, or the world? -- react with violence to "provocations"?

[Hogan]

My problem with it is that it's still what Christianity got OVER being.

And we know that change in Christianity is permanent because . . .

[Gary Farber]

"I'm not saying Petraeus is right, but he does seem sincere."

Petraeus' concerns have been Iraq, then Central Command, and now specifically Afghanistan.

I'll go out on a limb and say that I doubt he has statistics on violent attacks in America by American Muslims that suggest a noticeable fraction of American Muslims are engaging in such attacks.

[russell]

I have, quite seriously, $100 that says a Muslim in this country is more likely to be the target of violence, threats of violence, vandalism to property, or any other form of intimidation or harrassment, then they are to a perpetrator of the same.

Any takers?

If they're such a bunch of irascible hotheads, this should be easy money for somebody. Consider this your invitation to put up or shut up.

[Marty]

"I'll go out on a limb and say that I doubt he has statistics on violent attacks in America by American Muslims that suggest a noticeable fraction of American Muslims are engaging in such attacks."

Nope, TP is right and the "American" in your answer changed the goalposts.

You can't really have it both ways, burning the Koran costs lives on the one hand and there isn't any reason to worry about Muslim violence on the other.

Pick one, I believe the second.

[russell]

Nope, TP is right and the "American" in your answer changed the goalposts.

If we're using the original post as our starting point, attitudes toward Muslims *in America* are the goalposts.

[Gary Farber]

Marty: "Nope, TP is right and the 'American' in your answer changed the goalposts."

I wrote: "So, Brett: cite, please, to what 'fraction' of Muslims -- is that in America, or the world? -- react with violence to 'provocations'?"

"In America," Marty.

But, if you'd like, I'd be happy to deal with the alternative I asked about, "the world," and ask what percentage of Muslims in the world have engaged in violent attacks against Americans who haven't invaded their countries? What percentage have traveled to America to attack Americans, and what percentage have traveled outside their own countries to attack Americans in a country that America didn't already attack and kill Muslims in?

"...and there isn't any reason to worry about Muslim violence on the other."

What, we should simply consider "Muslim violence" in the world as a single homogenous lump? That would make no sense, of course.

Unless you think it makes sense to discuss the problem of "Christian violence": what do you think we should do about it?

Are there a few tens of thousands of Islamist extremists in the world to worry about possibly attacking us at home? Sure. Are there some handfuls of American Muslims we should be concerned about? Sure.

Statistically pretty much lost in the noise of 1,500,000,000 Muslims on the planet.

Let's be specific, and numerate, at the same time, when discussing threats and concerns, shall we?

[Gary Farber]

Even in Iraq:

[...] While it is not known how many of those fighting the U.S. in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured Insurgents are Iraqi.[24] The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi.[25] According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were foreign, although Colonel John Gronski stated that foreigners provided money and logistical support: "The foreign fighters are staying north of the [Euphrates] river, training and advising, like the Soviets were doing in Vietnam"[26] In September 2006, the Christian Science Monitor reported, "It's true that foreign fighters are in Iraq, such as the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But they are a small minority of the insurgents, say administration critics. Most Iraqi mujahideen are Sunnis who fear their interests will be ignored under Iraq's Shia-dominated government. They are fighting for concrete, local political goals - not the destruction of America." The paper quoted University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole: "If the Iraqi Sunni nationalists could take over their own territory, they would not put up with the few hundred foreign volunteers blowing things up, and would send them away or slit their throats."[27] In 2005, the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded that foreign fighters accounted for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents and argued that the US and Iraqi Governments were "feeding the myth" that they comprised the backbone of the insurgency.[3]

Even in Iraq, only a few thousand foreign Muslims ever showed up.

And they might be said to have succumbed to, oh, I don't know, is it an "objective" provocation to invade a country? Or is it "trivial," instead?

Bottom line: percentage of Muslims in the world who have taken up arms against United States citizens who have not invaded their country: on the order of .0001%

Percentage of American Muslims who have engaged in violent attacks on Americans? Wait, let's go with simple numbers, and see if we have to go beyond using our fingers and toes.

How many American Muslim attackers have we been attacked by in America in the last twenty years, Brett? Your best estimate.

For extra credit: how many American Muslims have been killed in attacks on American soil by Islamist terrorists? Bonus extra credit!: how many American Muslims have died or been wounded fighting in the American military in the last twenty years?

We can look at percentages again, after we have your idea of figures, Brett, if you like.

[Turbulence]

You can't really have it both ways, burning the Koran costs lives on the one hand and there isn't any reason to worry about Muslim violence on the other.

I don't think Muslims would care much if some yahoo burned a few Korans in isolation. But the burning isn't happening in isolation. The burning is happening in the context of the US starting a pointless war that exterminated one million Muslims. Now, you may be convinced that exterminating all those Muslims was never the intention of Americans or the American government. I'd agree with you. But you can't expect people from a foreign culture who don't speak our language to just give us the benefit of the doubt. If our positions were reversed, there's no way we'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

So, in the context of Americans bringing about the deaths of a million Muslims, having a nut burn a bunch of Korans looks a little different. It looks like Americans are a crazy people who hate Muslims. That explains why they started a war that killed so many of them. And that explains why they're desecrating Islamic scriptures. Again, I don't think this explanation is correct, but I do think many Muslims believe it and I don't think it is completely outrageous.

To put it another way: there's a giant frieze depicting Mohammad on the Supreme Court building. It has been there for decades. Muslims have never thrown a protest or even complained about it. Because they don't interpret that as a great big "F*ck you Muslims!". And they don't interpret it that way because the facade was not erected in the context of a war that killed a million Muslims.

[Marty]

Gary,

Nice info. Nowhere near TP's point. Either we should expect a violent response from Muslims if we burn the Koran (see Obama, Petreaus, Gibbs) or not.

You can enumerate, calculate the percentages, point out specific and general nonviolent Muslims all you want and you will be making a different point.

This goes to one of my pet peeves. Over the last few decades almost every reference to Muslims in popular media occurred when someone insulted some set of Muslims enough to have a price put on their head, then go into hiding. The Middle East is constantly referred to as a powder keg just waiting to explode, the USS Cole, the Marine barracks...and now burning the Koran will cost lives and criticism of the cultural center will be a recruiting tool for terrorists.*

This is what the average Americans exposure has been for decades, so you are surprised when they find some large numbers of Americans think of Islam as violent?

It isn't right, please don't try to convince me they are wrong, I know it and you know it.

For extra credit: Even with all that bad press, what percentage of Americans had ever even thought about Muslims enough to be prejudiced prior to 9/11? How many people looked askance at an Arab looking person on their plane prior to that?

*This one of my favorites, just imagine the terrorist recruiter whispering in the backroom of a small house in Yemen: The American evil must be stopped, they protect the Israelis against our Palestinian brothers, invade our countries, capture and torture innocent Muslims, kill women and children and..... (pregnant pause)..... they refused to let Imam Rauf build a 13 story glass and steel multicultural center in NYC.

There are plenty of good reasons not to like us, that one won't get much play.

[elm]

Actually, Gary, we might ask The Man Called Petraeus that same question.

I mean, the General was VERY clear that video of an American lunatic burning books labelled "Koran" in Jerkwater, Florida, would incite physical violence against actual persons. I'm not saying Petraeus is right, but he does seem sincere.

How big a threat does Petraeus think Terry Jones's stunt poses?

Did he call for Jones to be arrested?
Did he send a cruise missile to his house?
Did he send a squad of marines?

No, he made a statement saying that it's a bad idea.

And he's probably right, at the margins. The Quar'an-burning is all downside to Petraeus with no benefit at all to him.

If it encourages one Afghan to take up arms against the U.S. or if it makes the Afghan people more suspicious about U.S. intentions in Afghanistan then it has made Petraeus's job (marginally) harder.

Do you think he wants to spend one minute explaining to an Afghan provincial governor how book-burning is unsavory -- but protected -- speech in the U.S.? Better for him to counsel against it, at least that way he can tell the Afghan people that *he* opposed Jones's stunt.

[envy]

@russell:
I have, quite seriously, $100 that says a Muslim in this country is more likely to be the target of violence, threats of violence, vandalism to property, or any other form of intimidation or harrassment, then they are to a perpetrator of the same.

Any takers?

Speaking as a Soldier in the US Army who feels decidedly more at ease with dogtags reading "No Rel Pref", and who pretty much conceded to forgo observing Ramadan for the length of my term of service... yeah. I'm totally thinking that's a sucker's bet.

@Turb:
I don't think Muslims would care much if some yahoo burned a few Korans in isolation. But the burning isn't happening in isolation. The burning is happening in the context of the US starting a pointless war that exterminated one million Muslims.

In addition to this point, also recall that it's happening the day after Eid al-Fitr...

@Marty:
For extra credit: Even with all that bad press, what percentage of Americans had ever even thought about Muslims enough to be prejudiced prior to 9/11? How many people looked askance at an Arab looking person on their plane prior to that?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

As a trivial but concise counterpoint, Jacqueline Salloum's "Planet of the Arabs".

[elm]

This is what the average Americans exposure has been for decades, so you are surprised when they find some large numbers of Americans think of Islam as violent?

Who's surprised?

I see a fair few people saying that that impression is wrong, none of them surprised.

burning the Koran will cost lives and criticism of the cultural center will be a recruiting tool for terrorists.*

Who has said the latter? If anything, I've seen the opposite claim; that Osama bin Laden and Rauf are natural ideological enemies. Who thinks that the Taliban or al-Qaeda would get worked up about a U.S. Citizen Sufi being unable to open a cultural center.

[envy]

(Aside to/preemptive defense of my above comment: I know very well said linked piece was addressing media portrayal of Arabs rather than Muslims. In the context discussed, I fear that is, alas, a distinction without distinction...)

[Marty]

envy,

The link and your preemptive defense are both to the point. Popular media I left out of my list was, of course, "entertainment". Conceding that, I believe that the level of generic prejudice, particularly Muslim (vs Arab), I observed was dramatically different. But, of course, I didn't have the actual experience either before or after 9/11.

So, if you are correcting me from experience then I stand corrected.

BTW, I also had No Rel Pref on my dogtags simply because mine wasn't even a choice.

[Gary Farber]

"For extra credit: Even with all that bad press, what percentage of Americans had ever even thought about Muslims enough to be prejudiced prior to 9/11?"

Marty, very quickly, may I gently remind you of what you may recall as "the Iran hostage crisis"?

And of the OPEC oil embargi of 1973, and how Americans looked at Arabs after their gasoline was only issued in rations? You do recall that the Yom Kippur War happened right in the middle?

You do recall how Americans viewed Arabs after Operation Entebbe, and the Munich Olympics, and the many PLO and other factional attacks/hijackings/bombings of the Seventies?

How about the Achille Lauro, in 1985, and Leon Klinghoffer? America paid no attention?

Would you like to go sampling through tv shows and action movies from the Sixties through the Nineties that featured swarthy Middle Eastern villains? Ya think ya'd have trouble finding any if you threw a gun in any direction?

Why do you think that such "Middle Eastern looking" villains were so popular in American tv and movies and action novels from at least 1960 through 2001? Because Americans didn't enjoy thinking of Those People as hijackers and killers and villains?

Because the evidence of hundreds of tv episodes and movies say they did.

[Gary Farber]

Actual info:

[...] The same themes prevailed into the 1970s and beyond:

* Black Sunday (1977) concerns an Arab terrorist plot to bomb a stadium during the Super Bowl.
* The Black Stallion (1979) opens with Arabs mistreating a horse aboard a ship, then attacking a boy with a knife and stealing his life jacket.
* Back to the Future (1985) went so far as to name a specific country, referring to antagonists in the film as "Libyan terrorists".

[...]

In a piece in the Los Angeles Times published July 28, 1997, Laila Lalami offers a 12-step guide to making a successful Arab-bashing movie, including such items as "the villains must all have beards", "they must all wear keffiehs", "they must all have names like Ali, Abdul or Mustapha" and "have them threaten to blow something up."[6]

[...]

Jack Shaheen, Professor Emeritus of Mass Communications at Southern Illinois University, documented these trends in his book The TV Arab (ISBN 0-87972-309-2), which identifies more than 21 major movies released over ten years which show the U.S. military killing Arabs with Arabs depicted as being terrorists or enemies of the United States. These include:

* Iron Eagle (1986)
* Death Before Dishonor (1987)
* Navy SEALs (1990)
* The Delta Force (film) (1991)
* Patriot Games (1992)
* Executive Decision (1996)
* Black Hawk Down (2001)

In Reel Bad Arabs (ISBN 1-84437-019-4), Shaheen writes that "television's image of the Arab is omnipresent [and] is becoming a part of American folklore." He also writes that Arabs have "consistently appeared in American popular culture as billionaires, bombers, and belly dancers."[8]

Arab Muslims are fanatics who believe in a different god, who don't value human life as much as we do, they are intent on destroying us (the west) with their oil or with their terrorism; the men seek to abduct and brutally seduce our women; they are without family and reside in a primitive place (the desert) and behave like primitive beings. The women are subservient — resembling black crows — or we see them portrayed as mute, somewhat exotic harem maidens.[9]

The movies which Shaheen identifies as the three worst in terms of negative portrayal of Arabs in modern films are:

* Wanted: Dead or Alive (1987); "Arab thugs... plan to ignite Los Angeles... killing millions."
* True Lies (1994); "Arnold S. INC." shoots dead Palestinians like clay pigeons. "
* Rules of Engagement (2000); "a film which "justifies" US Marines killing Arab women and children."[9]

There's a bunch more there.

But I've taken an Ambien and must leave the keyboard.
Or at least not click "post" again tonight.

[elm]

Marty, to address your point more directly (my previous reply was caught up in smallish details), I think that what you say about the media gets close to the core of bigotry.

The press/media does bear some responsibility. It's easy to emphasize the negative. Violence produces strong imagery -- if it bleeds it leads. It's easy to invent a "trend" to explain unrelated events -- like the Shark Summer (statistically normal) a few years back.

And it's easy to cast a low-influence ethnic or religious group as the villian. That keeps the narrative nice and simple.

It also -- as Gary documents -- makes it easy to cast villains for TV and movies: slap a kaftan and keffiyeh an a suitably-swarthy actor and you've got an instant bad guy.

And the image sticks because most USians don't know many Muslims personally. Even if they do know them, they may not recognize them -- my Arab friends are routinely misidentified as Greek, Italian, or even Mexican(!).

So I interpret bigotry as a refusal to grant the benefit of the doubt to members of an Other/Outsider group. The media plays a part in that because it's easier/more popular/cheaper to pander to bigotry than to combat it. It's easier to deal in prejudice than in facts. It is difficult, unexciting, and slow to explain and inform.

[Carleton Wu]

The problem with Eric's point is that, with Pym Fortuyn dead, Lars Vilks in hiding, Kurt Westergaard under police protection, and so on, I'm going to have to disagree with Eric about what's irrational.

Do you think that there have maybe been more than 3 Americans assaulted for being black, white, gay, married interracially, etc? Does that make you think that Americans are a violent type that can't be trusted?
I am perfectly willing to admit that the Muslim world is not composed of pacifists and contains it's quota more or less of nuts. But you keep acting like demonstrating a few nuts in the Muslim world is an indictment of it, and I have no idea how you can think that unless you believe that eg America does not have people who threaten violence against people because of their gender, race, religion, etc.
I saw a poll over at WorldNetDaily after Tiller was murdered- "murder is always wrong" didn't get a majority. Sentiments such as "he brought it on himself" or "it's great news" were popular. Can explain how that's different from what you're talking about?

Most Muslims are peaceful. But enough aren't peaceful to have Western society intimidated into a great degree of self-censorship.

So, we're simultaneously having a big laugh about competitions to see who can depict Mohammad in the most unflattering picture, and also practicing "a great degree" of self-censorship. I have no idea who you think is self-censoring or what they're self-censoring, but Im imagining that it's a pretty small amount of both.

[Carleton Wu]

And furthermore: how is it the responsibility of Muslims in America, Indonesia, China, etc to do more than say that they disagree with the likes of Al Qaeda? How are they supposed to "deal more effectively" with Al Qaeda? And other than nominally sharing a religion, what puts the responsibility on them to "deal more effectively" with Al Qaeda?

[Tony P.]

Turb: I don't think Muslims would care much if some yahoo burned a few Korans in isolation. But the burning isn't happening in isolation.

Right. Absolutely, positively, right. The American General Petraeus did his public worrying in Kabul, Afghanistan, ferchrissake.

Russ: I have, quite seriously, $100 that says a Muslim in this country is more likely to be the target of violence, threats of violence, vandalism to property, or any other form of intimidation or harrassment, then they are to a perpetrator of the same.

Also right. No question about it. American hotheads, some of them no doubt sincere Christians, are more likely to attack a Muslim just for being a Muslim than vice versa.

To be clear, "being a Muslim" does not mean, to the American yahoo, "somebody who refuses to accept Our Lord Jesus as his savior". It's not a theological dispute. The context (currently) is 9/11, just as the context for Muslims (for a while now) is Americans making war in Muslim countries.

However, I have to go back to the Salman Rushdie affair. It was not some insignificant "pastor" who issued a fatwa soliciting the murder of a novelist; it was the Grand Ayatollah who was also the Head of State in a major Muslim country. The offense WAS theological in that case, as far as I can tell.

Now, I'm sure many millions of Shia Muslims were appalled that a revered cleric of their faith, a man who had led a popular revolution a few years earlier on the strength of his holiness and piety, would do such a thing. And it's not for me (a Greek Orthodox atheist) to say whether the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was "perverting Islam" by issuing his fatwa on Salman Rushdie. But I can say that this was the first time I personally became aware of a purely symbolic offense to Islam eliciting very real violence in response. And it left a very sour taste in my mouth. Not for "Muslims", but for Islam.

Of course, His Holiness the Pope, and even the Archbishop of Canterburry, could not quite bring themselves to defend Rushdie wholeheartedly at the time. They chided the Grand Ayatollah, to be sure, but as for Rushdie himself ... well, he had the right to publish The Satanic Verses but he was insensitive to have done so. This is what comes of religion: complete moral inanity.

So I can't quite bring myself to defend ANY religion, including Islam, against the charge that it contains the seeds of repression and violence in its very essence. And I can't quite bring myself to defend people who define themselves by their religion, including Muslims, when their co-religionists take it upon themselves to repay insult with injury.

Decent people don't need religion to behave decently. Nasty people don't need religion to behave indecently. Religion is indispensible only when you want to get decent people to do nasty things. I don't care whether Islam is currently better at that than Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. They're all good enough at it, alas.

--TP

[Hartmut]

A rare counterexample of a movie that avoids Arab bashing in a ridiculous way is the film of Clancy's The Sum of all Fears where they replaced the Muslim terrorists of the book with Neonazis. I refused to watch it, so I can't say how they managed that plotwise.
---
Now the Phelpses complain that they publicly burned Qurans long ago (in Washington DC!!!) and nobody took notice but now this insignificant pastor gets all the headlines. They offer to do it again, should the pastor get cold feet.

[Hartmut]

Tony P, you can replace 'religion' with 'exclusive ideology'. During the Cold War there were some violent campaigns in the name of radical atheism* (e.g. in Albania that declared itself the first fully atheist state in history).

*i.e. actually declaring it to be the motive

[Brett Bellmore]

"Do you think that there have maybe been more than 3 Americans assaulted for being black, white, gay, married interracially, etc? Does that make you think that Americans are a violent type that can't be trusted?"

Here's a test: Is prejudice against blacks, interracial marriage, and so on, common enough in this country that the media self-censor out of fear of it? Not so I've noticed.

They do self-censor out of fear of Muslims. They say it's sensitivity, but they don't show that kind of sensitivity towards other religions. Islam is the only religion I've noticed gets that sensitivity, and I don't think it's sensitivity.

I think it's fear.

[Phil]

Here's a test: Is prejudice against blacks, interracial marriage, and so on, common enough in this country that the media self-censor out of fear of it? Not so I've noticed.

Does this mean that the conservative narrative that the media only pays particular attention to the race of a criminal offender when he or she is white no longer operative?

They say it's sensitivity, but they don't show that kind of sensitivity towards other religions.

You're kidding, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not kidding. I saw "Piss Christ" on TV. The media weren't shy about showing it to us. They've been awfully shy about showing us those Mohamed cartoons, though.

There's a reason it was "Piss Christ", not "Piss Koran". Serrano didn't want to die. "Transgressive" art is only fun if the people whose values you're transgressing aren't going to come after you with hatchets.

And what's the one subject South Park has been censored on? Repeatedly? It's not Christianity, that's for sure.

The degree of liberal denial on this subject is utterly amazing.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm relatively sure that Brett is not suggesting that the MSM is avoiding mention of anti-Muslim violence, I'm guessing he's suggesting that Muslims are fomenting violence and the media is not reporting all these incidents and playing up the anti-muslim stuff. I'm not sure if he would think that it is normally a wash or that things are actually at a bad state, but we only get half the story because MSM is afraid of Muslims. Either way, it's so disconnected to reality, it's not worth the effort to address it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And we know that change in Christianity is permanent because . . . "

I know no such thing. Maybe two hundred years from now Islam will be a laid back "hobby" religion, and Christians will be back to burning heretics at the stake. What I do know is that it's the other way around today.

[cleek]

There's a reason it was "Piss Christ", not "Piss Koran". Serrano didn't want to die.

you're a terrible mind reader, Brett. really.

spend 2 minutes reading Serrano interviews and it'll become obvious that Piss Christ comes out of his own Roman Catholic upbringing and experiences with the Catholic Chruch.

also, Christians have physically attacked Serrano's work. and he has received death threats from Christians. so, you're wrong on both counts.

[Gary Farber]

"They do self-censor out of fear of Muslims."

Setting aside anything else, you're still, Brett, not attributing blame to "violent Muslim extremists," but to "Muslims": all of them.

Eric's post: "As argued on this site more than once, there is a certain latitude given to disparaging remarks made about Islam in general, and Muslims in particula,r that, if made about other religious or ethnic groups, would be much more circumscribed. That is, you can get away with a lot when it comes to anti-Mulim sentiments that you can't with any other major group."

Why is it, Brett, that the point you continually return to is that it's really justified to be biased against all Muslims? Y'know, to some degree.

I thought you were a libertarian: why do you keep regarding and treating individuals as a collective?

[Tony P.]

That Christians have responded to symbolic insult with physical injury just like Muslims have done is clear evidence of something. But it's hardly evidence for the proposition that either Islam or Christianity is a "religion of peace".

--TP

[Phil]

There's a reason it was "Piss Christ", not "Piss Koran". Serrano didn't want to die.

I swear there are days where you're like a black hole of stupid, Brett. Here's a hint: If Serrano had been brought up Muslim, it probably would have been "Piss Koran.

Coco Fusco: Your use of Catholic symbolism stands out in part because you are operating in a predominantly Protestant context. An attraction to the sensuality and the carnality that you bring out in your Catholic iconography can develop, since Protestant symbolism looks rather pale by comparison. How would it affect your work to be exhibited in a Catholic context?

Andres Serrano: I have always felt that my work is religious, not sacrilegious. I would say that there are many individuals in the Church who appreciate it and who do not have a problem with it. The best place for Piss Christ is in a church. In fact, I recently had a show in Marseilles in an actual church that also functions as an exhibition space, and the work looked great there. I think if the Vatican is smart, someday they'll collect my work.

CF: Does your interest in Catholicism have to do more with an attraction to the iconography or is it about wanting to make a social or political comment about what the Church represents?

AS: Look at my apartment. I am drawn to the symbols of the Church. I like the aesthetics of the Church. I like Church furniture. I like going to Church for aesthetic reasons, rather than spiritual ones. In my work, I explore my own Catholic obsessions. An artist is nothing without his or her obsessions, and I have mine. One of the things that always bothered me was the fundamentalist labeling of my work as "anti-Christian bigotry." As a former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to being called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the Church and resented being told not to.

CF: At the same time you have expressed concern about the Church's position on many contemporary issues.

AS: I am drawn to Christ but I have real problems with the Catholic Church. I don't go out of my way to be critical of the Church in my work, because I think that I make icons worthy of the Church. Oftentimes we love the thing we hate and vice versa. Unfortunately, the Church's position on most contemporary issues makes it hard to take them seriously.

CF: So you do see yourself carrying on a tradition of religious art?

AS: Absolutely. I am not a heretic. I like to believe that rather than destroy icons, I make new ones.

[Phil]

No, I'm not kidding. I saw "Piss Christ" on TV. The media weren't shy about showing it to us. They've been awfully shy about showing us those Mohamed cartoons, though.

Again, depictions of Mohammed are a violation of a specific Islamic religious tenet. Which specific religious tenet forbids either the creation, viewing or broadcasting of "Piss Christ?" I'll need Biblical chapter and verse, please.

[Phil]

The media are awfully shy about showing explicit pictures of the bodies of murder victims. WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF??

[russell]

I saw "Piss Christ" on TV.

Seriously, if that's your counterexample, it's a bad call.

Piss Christ.

Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and lost grants due to the controversy.... The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.

During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[13] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time

The reaction to Piss Christ also contributed to big changes in NEA policy and funding here in the US.

In recent years, controversy in Congress over the kind of art the endowment funds prompted public and political scorn for the NEA, and in 1995 the agency's funding was cut by 40 percent, from $171 million to $99.5 million.

Along with the 1995 budget cuts also came congressional mandates greatly restricting NEA access. The number of categories under which an artist could apply for grant funding was reduced from 17 to four, ...

etc etc etc.

Godard's "Hail Mary", released in 1985, received a sufficiently negative reaction that Godard tried (unsuccessfully) to remove it from distribution in Italy. The film's release in countries with large conservative or traditional religious communities - Italy, Greece, Spain - resulted in riots, threats, and in at least one case a theater owner having the crap beat out of him.

The takeaway from this thread is that, because Muslims in Holland, or Pakistan, or any other place on the planet *may* react violently to negative depictions of Islam, then it's reasonable for Americans to assume that Islam is a religion that, inherently and somewhat uniquely, fosters and encourages violence.

And further, that that assumption is a reasonable basis for not allowing Muslims *in the US* to build mosques or otherwise carry on being Muslim.

I think all of that is a sorry load of crap. It's not a standard that we insist that any other group of people, religious or otherwise, meet.

The fact that Americans' point of view is informed largely by a steady diet of only the most inflammatory portrayals of Muslims is not an excuse, it is further evidence of prejudice.

Muslims in this country are in for a non-stop load of crap for at least the next 10 years. I apologize to them for that, because they don't deserve it. But they're gonna get it, nonetheless.

[evilrooster]

russell,

You don't know me from Eve, but I have to say this: you're one of my favorite people on the internet. Consistently high signal:noise ratio, good sense, good character.

Just, as they say, sayin'.

[Tony P.]

Again, depictions of Mohammed are a violation of a specific Islamic religious tenet.

I don't know what chapter or verse of Islamic scripture says that, but I'm willing to take it as true. But Phil: it's one thing to say "My religion forbids ME to draw pictures of Mohammed" and quite another to say "My religion forbids YOU to draw pictures of Mohammed".

Certain well-known religions forbid their own votaries to have abortions, eat ham, eat beef, use electricity, take blood transfusions, and god knows what else. We can defer to all of them, or to none of them. I prefer none, myself.

--TP

[Gary Farber]

Orthodox Jewish youths burn New Testaments in Or Yehuda.

There are idiot extremists of every religion.

Fear of Ultra-Orthodox Violence Threatens Israeli Political Process, Withdrawal Prospects.

Less than a decade after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, political assassination once again has moved to the center of Israel’s public debate, with intelligence officials warning of an “imminent threat” as right-wing rabbis openly debate how violently to resist the evacuation of settlements.

States Internal Security Minister Tzahi Hanegbi: “I have no doubt that some people have already decided that when the time comes, they will save Israel by murdering the prime minister, a Cabinet member, or any army or police official.”

According to Avi Dichter, director of the Shin Bet security service, right-wing opposition to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan “is becoming more extreme and more dangerous.” In a closed-door session of the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-July, Dichter reported that l50 to 200 extremist settlers were speaking and writing in violent terms and want to see Ariel Sharon dead because of his plan to dismantle settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

These warnings come after a series of declarations by rabbis forbidding the evacuation of settlements as a violation of religious law. One respected rabbi, Svigdor Nebenzahl, chief rabbi of the Old City of Jerusalem, declared in July that withdrawing from the territories might incur the so-called “din rodef,” or “verdict of the pursuer,” a Talmudic concept of Jewish treason traditionally punishable by death. “Whoever gives away parts of the land of Israel to others should be considered according to this verdict,” he told a rabbinical gathering in Jerusalem.

The phrase, drawn from the Talmudic injunction, “Whoever comes to pursue you, kill him first,” was discussed among ultra-Orthodox rabbis in reference to Yitzhak Rabin in l995, and the phrase was cited by Rabin’s killer as a motivation for murder.

[...]

For years, the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to religious extremism, even when it led to violence. In the middle of l984, a number of covert cells dubbed the Jewish Underground were discovered. Composed of 27 people, including prominent figures in the Gush Emunim settler movement, the Underground had planned to execute a number of terrorist actions against Palestinians. The first of these operations targeted the Palestinian mayors of three West Bank cities. Bombs that exploded in their booby-trapped cars severely maimed two of the mayors; one, Bassam Shaka of Nablus, had both legs blown off. The second operation was a “raid” on the campus of the Islamic University in Hebron, during which indiscriminate gunfire resulted in the deaths of three Palestinian students. The third operation, in which members of the Underground planted bombs on Arab buses in Jerusalem, was thwarted as the devices were being set. Under interrogation some of the terrorists confessed to the most ambitious plan of all: a plot to blow up the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the Rock) on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to clear the way for building the Third Temple.

Yitzhak Shamir lamented the excessive zeal of “these fine young men.” Knesset members from the Likud and National Religious Party dissociated themselves from the terrorists’ actions but formed a lobby to have them pardoned. Half of the members of the Underground were granted pardons by President Chaim Herzog.

[...]

In a report from the occupied territories, “Among the Settlers,” in the May 31 New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg notes that, “A brigade of soldiers, coils of razor wire, and hundreds of concrete barriers stand between Hebron’s fewer than 800 Jewish settlers and its l50,000 Arab residents. Across from Hadassah House is a school for Arab girls, called Cordoba, after the once-Muslim Spanish city. On one of its doors someone had drawn a blue Star of David. On another door a yellowing bumper sticker read ‘Dr. Goldstein Cures The Ills of Israel.’ The reference is to Baruch Goldstein, a physician from Brooklyn, who, in l994, killed 29 Muslims when they were praying in the Tomb of the Patriarchs just down the road. Across the closed door of a Palestinian shop someone had written, in English, ‘Arabs are Sand Niggers.’”

Goldberg interviewed many West Bank residents, including Rabbi Moshe Levinger, Hebron’s first Jewish settler, who in l988 killed a Palestinian shoe-store owner. He served l3 weeks in jail for the killing. He said: “I’m not happy when any living creature dies—an Arab, a fly, a donkey.”

Levinger told Goldberg: “All my ideas are formed from the Torah. It’s not complex. This land is ours. God gave it to us. We’re the owners of the land.”

Many of the settler leaders have contempt for democracy and would like to create in Israel the kind of theocracy which exists in a country such as Iran. As Goldberg reports, “some of the leading ideologues of the settlements, far from supporting the idea of Jewish democracy, hope to establish a Jewish theocracy in Israel, ruled by a Sanhedrin and governed by Jewish law. Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement and heads the Jewish Leadership bloc within the Party...believes that the Bible, interpreted literally, should form the basis of Israel’s legal system. ‘Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?’ Feiglin said to me. ‘For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them.’ In any case, Feiglin said, ‘You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.’”

The most hard-core settlers, in Goldberg’s view, “are impatient messianists, who profess indifference, even scorn for the state; a faith in vigilantism; and loathing for the Arabs...The settlers, if they have their way, would build an apartheid state ruled by councils of revanchist rabbis.”

Ultra-Orthodox in Israel take to streets over court ruling.

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Some 100,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews protested Thursday an Israeli Supreme Court decision banning segregation based on ethnic background in a girls' religious elementary school.

Girls of Sephardic origin were being denied permission to share classrooms with the largely Ashkenazi school and were forced into segregated classes.

Sephardic Jews are of North African and Middle East origin, Ashkenazim are Jews of European background. The ultra-Orthodox community in Israel is made up of many sectors reflecting many different traditions.

The demonstrators resent what they feel is the intervention of the Israeli state into religious affairs. The school is Beit Yaakov in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel.

Large demonstrations were held in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak near Tel Aviv. Police said 100,000 protesters demonstrated in Jerusalem, including 20,000 who joined the gathering from Bnei Brak.

In response to a petition the court ruled that this was a case of discrimination. It ordered the school to integrate all the pupils. But 43 sets of parents who refuse the court order were to be incarcerated for two weeks on charges of contempt of court on Thursday.

Gay vs. Orthodox: A Deadly Turn in Israel's Culture War?:

Israeli police launched a citywide manhunt through Tel Aviv for the masked, black-clad gunman who opened fire with a pistol at a gay youth club on Saturday night, Aug. 1, killing two and wounding 15 more. While the authorities have been careful not to speculate on a motive for the crime, the city's stunned gay community was not hesitant about assigning blame for the atmosphere they believe was conducive to the crime. Pointing to Orthodox Jewish gay-bashers, gay activists say the shots fired in the club for teenagers — the most serious in a series of verbal and physical attacks on their community — were a violent manifestation of Israel's ongoing culture war. The attack spotlights the tensions within Israeli society as it tries to balance Western liberalism and Orthodox Jewish values.

[...]

Still, the ultra-Orthodox and the gay community have been known to come to physical blows. Gay activists recall the 2005 pride march in Jerusalem, when an ultra-Orthodox man leaped into the crowd and stabbed three marchers before he could be restrained by police. The violence came after the city's ultra-Orthodox mayor had tried to ban the march but was overruled in court. The following year, police ordered 12,000 officers to protect a few hundred marchers from possible ultra-Orthodox violence. Even Tel Aviv has not been exempt from gay-bashing. Gay activist Shlomi Laufer, writing in Tel Aviv's daily Yedioth Ahronoth, recalled two men embracing on the boardwalk being spat on and others being chased with baseball bats and even stabbed.

I know exactly how easy it is to make a case that the Jews are a violent and shifty people you can't trust, who will try to bully and control you, and if that fails, use violence against you, blah, blah, blah.

It makes it easy to see how flimsy and identical the same arguments are when used against Muslims.

[Phil]

But Phil: it's one thing to say "My religion forbids ME to draw pictures of Mohammed" and quite another to say "My religion forbids YOU to draw pictures of Mohammed".

Right, I agree. But there's also nothing wrong with the media not going out of their way to deliberately shove sacrilege in people's faces, particularly when by "the media" we clearly mean "news broadcasts," here.

[Hogan]

And what's the one subject South Park has been censored on? Repeatedly?

Judaism? Oh wait, that was The Family Guy.

[Phil]

I don't know what chapter or verse of Islamic scripture says that, but I'm willing to take it as true

I don't know where it is specifically in the Koran, but in the Old Testament you can find it in Exodus 20:3. There's a reason there's not a tradition of ancient Jewish artwork depicting Moses, you know.

[cleek]

And what's the one subject South Park has been censored on? Repeatedly?

their "Bloody Mary" episode ?

[Hogan]

their "Bloody Mary" episode ?

Or is it the Scientology one?

[Turbulence]

I have to admit, Brett has really stumped me with his South Park claim. I mean, South Park episodes showing Muhammad are just like South Park episodes mocking Christianity. After all, the Muslim-mocking episodes happen in context of American Christians starting a war that exterminated a million Muslims while the Christian-mocking episodes happen in the context of Muslims starting a war that exterminated a million Americans. Who among us can forget the great Muslim invasion of Boise Idaho of 2004 when the vicious horde slit so many Christian throats with their scimitars?

Oh, wait, that never happened. Which means Brett's whole comparison was nonsense. Oh well.

[jonnybutter]

Decent people don't need religion to behave decently. Nasty people don't need religion to behave indecently. Religion is indispensible only when you want to get decent people to do nasty things. I don't care whether Islam is currently better at that than Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. They're all good enough at it, alas.

Tony P wins the thread, IMO.

[Eric Martin]

Can you imagine what Brett would say about Westerners if Brett lived in the Middle East?

With all the violence the West has unleashed, he would be talking up how being bigoted against Westerners were totally rational, based in fact, etc.

[Gary Farber]

Meanwhile:

[...] Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said in an e-mail message that the newspaper had “no policy against publishing things that might offend someone — lots of people are offended by lots of things — but we try to refrain from giving widespread offense unless there is some offsetting journalistic purpose.”

“A picture of a burning book contributes nothing substantial to a story about book-burning, so the offense seems entirely gratuitous,” Mr. Keller continued. “The freedom to publish includes the freedom not to publish.”

And other relevancies.

[Phil]

Eric, I think it's abundantly obvious that Brett is literally incapable of conceiving of a point of view that is not one of a straight, white, American conservative male.

[Eric Martin]

Phil,

My point was, what if he were an Arab Muslim. Then he would be locked into that subjective frame.

[cleek]

oh look, a (self-described!) Christian terrorist.

is there nothing that won't stir the members of this evil cult to violence ?

[Turbulence]

My point was, what if he were an Arab Muslim.

Please, haven't the Arabs suffered enough?

[Countme?]

Meanwhile, "I won't burn your holy book if you don't build your community center" mullah Terry Jones and an individual known to fraternize with and support Republican terrorists -- none other than Rush Limbaugh -- were classmates at the same madrassa.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/rush-limbaugh-pastor-terry-jones-were-high-school-classmates/

[Mike Schilling]

First Sarah Palin and now Terry Jones. I tremble at the thought of the wingnut Cleese.

[Rob in CT]

"See, my problem with Islam isn't that it's inherently worse than Christianity. My problem with it is that it's still what Christianity got OVER being. Charlemagne ain't gonna chop my head off if I draw a picture of Christ in a clown suit. Not because he wasn't into that sort of thing, of course.

'Cause he's, you know, dead."

Let's say this is true (I actually mostly agree with this). Which is likely to help reach a point where Islam has "gotten over" being all reactionary and stuff:

A) Hate on Muslims at every opportunity, bomb the shit out of them and generally act like assholes; or

B) Fight only when *absolutely necessary* and protect the American Muslim community by staying true to our principles, treat Muslims with a modicum of respect, and oh by the way point out that by doing so, the USA has one of the (if not the) most successful Muslim community in the world.

*cue Jeopardy music*

[Rob in CT]

Arg, apologies Eric for typing out a-holes. I forget this site doesn't auto-censor.

[ral]

Mike Schilling: First Sarah Palin and now Terry Jones. I tremble at the thought of the wingnut Cleese.

Tremble indeed. He can be seen in Fawlty Towers.

[Donald Johnson]

There was an article just recently, in Harper's I think, about the Christians in Uganda who want to make homosexuality a crime. So Christians as a whole (I'm one, btw) haven't completely gotten over our socially repressive instincts.

And I think rightwing Christians who support or have supported fanatical Israelis, and murderous regimes or guerilla groups in Africa or Latin America are no different from Muslims who sympathize with Islamic terrorist organizations.

"Religion is indispensible only when you want to get decent people to do nasty things."

I disagree with that. Any sort of ideology will do. Some people supported the Iraq War on liberal human rights grounds.

[Rob in CT]

People seem to have a natural predisposition (by varying degrees) for blind faith. Sometimes it's a religion. Sometimes it's an "ism." Either way, critical thinking tends to go right out the window.

[jonnybutter]

Any sort of ideology will do. Some people supported the Iraq War on liberal human rights grounds.

Point taken. When an ideology is taken to zealousness - in other words, when it is like a religion - it can be substituted. Which is not to say that all religiousness is zealous. But all zealousness is like unto religion (to put it sort of biblically).

Not sure 'liberal human rights gounds' qualify. That was just a mistake, rather than zealous fervor.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I'm guessing he's suggesting that Muslims are fomenting violence and the media is not reporting all these incidents and playing up the anti-muslim stuff."

Well, you don't see much reportage in the Western press when Saudia Arabia or Iran arrest somebody for converting to Christianity. And threaten them with execution. Which is, IMO, a much bigger provocation than some nitwit burning some books, or some silly drawings.

So, yes, I'd say the Western media DO downplay Muslim provocations towards Christians.

[Hogan]

No, the zealous fervor was in the hippie-punching.

[russell]

IMVHO humans are predisposed to tribalism. And any criteria for distinguishing between "us" and "them" will do. It doesn't have to be religion, how you tie your shoes or pronounce dipthongs will do in a pinch.

But religion is, of course, a perennial favorite.

The best of what all religious, spiritual, philosophical, or ethical thought and traditions teach is that those distinctions are an illusion.

Common sense will get you there too, if you have an ear to hear.

[Model 62]

Boy. It's good to see Gary Farber back.

He's a one man wrecking crew.

"What's that racket?"

"That? That's Farber dismantling conservative arguments."

"It hardly seems fair."

"Fair? Those memes are dangerous. The roads are much safer after Gary gets through."

[Hogan]

But religion is, of course, a perennial favorite.

There's something about totalizing claims that acts like Miracle-Gro for the narcissism of small differences.

[Donald Johnson]

"Not sure 'liberal human rights gounds' qualify. That was just a mistake, rather than zealous fervor."

I think when you mistake your way into supporting a war that kills hundreds of thousands and drives 4 million people from their homes, it qualifies. Bombing people for their own good is a particular style of zealousness that some liberal intellectuals have favored.

[Gary Farber]

"Well, you don't see much reportage in the Western press when Saudia Arabia or Iran arrest somebody for converting to Christianity. And threaten them with execution."

Actually, it tends to be front page news and a big continuing story.

But, again, let's see: give us the number of Saudi Arabians and/or Iranians executed for converting to Christianity in the last ten years, Brett.

Fewer opinion, more numbers, Brett.

[Carleton Wu]

"Do you think that there have maybe been more than 3 Americans assaulted for being black, white, gay, married interracially, etc? Does that make you think that Americans are a violent type that can't be trusted?"
Here's a test: Is prejudice against blacks, interracial marriage, and so on, common enough in this country that the media self-censor out of fear of it? Not so I've noticed.

So let me get this straight- you claim that a few individuals have been attacked by nutjob Muslims and this proves how violent Muslims are and how the entire category of "Muslims" is somehow responsible for this behavior. I ask about the many more indviduals attacked by nutjobs because of race etc and if it tells you anything about group responsibility of white people, males, heteros, etc.
And you blatantly yank the goalposts up and run with them. Why should I bother responding to your argument this time- if I come up with an effective response, history suggests that you'll just take your goalposts and move again. [Well, that and your point about eg Piss Christ is already in smouldering ruins, no need to pile on].

Well, you don't see much reportage in the Western press when Saudia Arabia or Iran arrest somebody for converting to Christianity. And threaten them with execution. Which is, IMO, a much bigger provocation than some nitwit burning some books, or some silly drawings.
So, yes, I'd say the Western media DO downplay Muslim provocations towards Christians.

Not sure if you're still arguing the same point- the media are *afraid* to talk about repression in Saudi Arabia? Talking about repression in Saudi Arabia gets you death threats from radical Muslims (who are, ironically, also subject to repression by the Saudi government)?
I don't think that's a defensible point, but Im not sure if you're making a coherent argument or just throwing up various anti-Muslim memes in any case.

[Gary Farber]

Cleek, that's today's:

[...] "Justin Carl Moose, 26, is a self-described 'extremist, radical' and the "Christian counterpart of Osama bin Laden,' according to an affidavit filed by FBI agents.

[...]

According to the FBI affidavit, Moose advocated violence for a variety of causes and communicated with like-minded abortion opponents online.

Moose's Facebook page, which was still public Thursday, contained posts expressing anger at abortion doctors, President Barack Obama's health care plan, and plans to build a mosque near ground zero in New York City. It also included expressions of support for those who have killed abortion providers.

'Whatever you may think about me, you're probably right,' he wrote on his Facebook page, according to the affidavit.

'Extremist, Radical, Fundamentalist...? Yep! Terrorist...? Well, I prefer the term 'freedom Fighter.'

The page also said Moose is the father of three and searching for employment.

Status updates posted beginning in January urge violence, FBI agents said in their affidavit.

'The Death Care Bill passed last night,' he wrote when Obama's health care plan was approved in March. 'Keep your phone and rifle close and wait.'

'There are few problems in life that can't be solved with the proper application of high explosives :)' Moose wrote two months later.

'If a mosque is built on ground zero, it will be removed. Oklahoma City style. Tim's not the only man out there that knows how to do it,' the affidavit says he wrote in July, in a reference to Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City.

In August, the affidavit says, Moose posted detailed instructions for making TATP, an acronym for an explosive like that used by terrorists in the 2005 London subway bombings.

FBI agents obtained search warrants and started reading his private messages. In one sent to a fellow abortion opponent, agents say Moose wrote: 'I have learned a lot from the muslim terrorists and have no problem using their tactics.'

"Is it so hard to understand that unfavorable opinions of Christianity are widespread precisely BECAUSE Christians, or anyway a large enough fraction of them that you have to be frightened of their reaction, react with such violence to what are, objectively, trivial 'provocations'? 'Provocations' of the sort most religions just shrug off? (Complain about, yes, but then predictably proceed not to order the offender murdered.)

Freedom of religion requires that people be permitted to be Christians. (It also requires that people be permitted to burn Bibles and build churches and mosques, not at all incidentally.) It does not require that the public have a favorable opinion of Christianity. In fact, it pretty much precludes requiring that...

If Christians want non-Christians to have a favorable opinion of Christianity, a good start would be dealing more effectively with those in their midst who threaten murder at the drop of a hat."

[Older]

Mr Older and I are contributing $20 to the local mosque to fund the provision of a Quran to someone who wants one, and will be so informing the local newspaper. If we can get enough people to do it, we will overbalance the "pastor's" project, for a net increase in Qurans.

[Countme?]

How is it that Error Irksomely, who threatened on his Fedmurder website to shoot Census workers with his wife's 12- gauge sex toy, missed recruiting Mr. Moose to unseat some insufficiently mainstream fascist Republican in a North Carolina primary?

[Countme?]

Josh Marshall is asking his readership to respond to his observation regarding the oddity of celebrating the NINTH anniversary (well, al Qaeda and far-Right Republicans are celebrating; real Americans, including nearly all Muslim Americans, are still in mourning) of 9/11 like it was the TENTH anniversary.

The responses are interesting, including one from an individual writing about a Ramadan gathering in San Diego.

[evilrooster]

Older:

There's also this drive by the Massachusetts Bible Society: "They burn one, we give two!" They'll donate two Qur'ans to prisons, hospitals, and shelters where Muslims might not otherwise have access to them for every one Jones burns.

(An update on their site says that even if Jones doesn't go ahead with his plans, they'll use any money donated to give away Qur'ans anyway.)

[Tony P.]

But, again, let's see: give us the number of Saudi Arabians and/or Iranians executed for converting to Christianity in the last ten years, Brett.

Well, there WAS one case in the news for a few days, back in '05 or '06, but it was in Afghanistan. A Muslim man was condemned to death by a "sharia" court for having converted to Christianity. It was a bit embarassing for Dubya, who had to appeal to Kharzei to intervene -- without infringing on Afghan "sovereignty", of course.

As I recall, the man was finally spared on the grounds that his conversion to Christianity was evidence of mental illness :)

--TP

[Gary Farber]

This, by the way, is simply the Afghan version of Brett:

[...] It was not, said Hafizullah, a well-known religious scholar from Wardak Province, that Afghans were too ignorant to know that Mr. Jones had said he might not go ahead — but rather they were informed enough to see that he had not definitively backed down. (Like many Afghans, he uses only one name).

“Ninety percent of people have access to radios and they listen to the news very, very carefully,” Mr. Hafizullah said. Urged on by their mullahs, however, the protesters on Friday were determined to make a statement.

“If burning the Koran ever did happen,” he said, “every foreigner in this country, one hundred percent of them, will be in trouble.

Because it's always helpful to regard people primarily as members of a collective.

Ironically, given how heavily dominated the U.S. presence is in Afghanistan by the military, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to blame the uniformed and armed members of a foreign army that's killing people in your country, for being of like mind and responsibility, than it does to blame all Christians, or all Muslims, for anything at all.

What's fascinating is the inability of the lumpers who demand that individuals take responsibility for the offenses other members of their collective have committed to recognize that their positions mirror each other.

Holding all Muslims responsible for the offenses of a few Muslims and holding all Christians or all Westerners or all Americans, responsible for the offenses of a few, are morally and logically identical positions.

Why does Brett support the Taliban's thinking, and hate America?

[jonnybutter]

I think when you mistake your way into supporting a war that kills hundreds of thousands and drives 4 million people from their homes, it qualifies.

It qualifies as horrible, but it's not the same as religious or quasi-religious zealotry. The liberal humanist rationale was, roughly, that hundreds of thousands had already died and that hundreds of thousands were likely to die in the future, both under the continued misrule of Saddam H., and in the inevitable ensuing chaos post-Saddam (absent a 'police action' or occupation). I'm not defending this rationale, but it's not the same thing as killing, torturing, etc. for a supernatural *ideal* (or maybe 'supranatural' ideology). Liberal humanists may have had faulty reasons, but they were down to earth reasons anybody of any country or culture or religion could understand. And most of them changed their minds about this war. Did Torquemada (or Augustine!) change their minds?

No liberal humanist would coldly make giant lists of detailed punishments as was done during the Inquisition - for example, that the worse sinners must be burnt alive with green wood, while others - the ones who confessed - could be offered the clemency of being burnt alive with dry wood; or that the punishment for servant girls who didn't report adultery they knew about, needed to be - precisely - having molten lead poured down their throats; or...etc etc. Liberal humanists in your case were tragically stupid and careless, and callous, but it takes zealotry - usually religious - to calmly and methodically commit horrors which most humans, left to their own devices, would shrink from, or not even dream up in the first place (or it takes sociopathy related to severe psychological disease).

Sorry to seem to split hairs here, but I think it's an essential difference. And, no, it isn't always religion per se. Nationalism works, and other kinds of tribalism work; and political ideologies can do it, too. But for the really sustained, outrageous stuff - the really creative and evolved evil - you do need religion (or quasi-religion), I think, because natural humanity must be superseded by an overweening idealism. And religion is idealism par excellence.

[Gary Farber]

"Well, there WAS one case in the news for a few days, back in '05 or '06, but it was in Afghanistan."

I can give a detailed answer to my question, myself. I wouldn't have asked it otherwise.

I'd like to see Brett answer.