Nadine Chandrawinata was only the second entrant in the Miss Universe beauty pageant in close to a decade. Her presence in the pageant was not of long duration. Unfortunately, she did not escape notice. She has, in fact, received threats, and one group in particular, the women's chapter of the Islamic Defenders Front, have been demanding the Indonesian authorities arrest her, and prosecute her for indecency.
The offense seems to be that Miss Indonesia appearred in a bikini during the contest. According to the group, a law forbidding such practices is still on the books in Indonesia, actually a government decree issued in 1984 under the dictator Suharto, which actually bans Idonesians from taking part in beauty contests at all. Evidently, the decree remains in force by the merest technicality of not having yet been appealled.
Still, it has not been enforced since Suharto's fall from power. Sort of like some of those bizarre little laws that were never taken off the books in Kentucky.
For example, until recently, it was technically the law in the state of Kentucky that if you were driving on a curvy road, someone had to be with you, and walk ahead of you around the curve to ensure no traffic was on-coming, and to advise any that might be that you were there in order that both parties would know to proceed with all due caution.
This law was on the books until well into the ninteen eighties, and for all I know it might still be. No one is unduly concerned about it, though technically, they are breaking the law practically everytime they round a curve in the state.
Still, this is more than just a whimsical little oddity of state law. This is something that could be a substantial cause of grief, eventually, to Chandrawinata. So yes, this is far more than just an amusing little anachronism. It is, however, a throwback to an age of barbarism that all too many Muslims feel appropriate, even desirable.
Of course, it is no surprise to me, I have long been aware of Muslims barbaric and repressive practices toward their women folk. True, most of the women are okay with it. That should come as no surprise, either, given that the vast majority of them are brow-beaten from the age of youthful adolescence to acquiesce to this savage and oppressive treatment.
What I never could figure out was the reason so many Western feminists find it appropriate to take the side of Muslim brutality in any way, when they know of their history with their women. It is so ingrained in the Muslim culture, and anchored by religous dogma, it has become all but a part of their genetic make-up.
I mean, I get that western feminists are "liberals", I understand their oppossition to the War in Iraq, up to a point, and even can grudgingly accede they have a right to protest the overall "war on terror".
What I don't get is, the more time goes by, the more they seem to some degree to turn a blind eye toward an issue which should be of the urmost of importance to them, and that of course is the right of women everywhere, including the rights of women in Muslim countries to live in freedom, to live in dignity, to marry and divorce as they choose, to dress however they want to dress, to belong to any religion they choose-or none at all.
To be able to walk dow the street without a male relative and not be beaten, possibly severely, or killed, or have acid tossed in their faces.
To be able to work at any job in any place where they are qualified to do so, and to receive the education they might desire to earn those qualifications. And to receive fair pay for their work.
I could go on and on, but on the other hand, instead of drawing the usual distinctions between Islam and the feminist movement, it might be helpful to look at the one or two areas of agreement.
The dislike of the Bush Administration, of course, goes without saying. That the more far left of feminists would turn a blind eye to the plight of Muslim women does not surprise me in the least when you factor this in.
And then, of course, there is the Playboy factor. Extreme feminists have long been up in arms against the depiection of women in the popular culture. This is true not only in pornography, but in movies and television as well. They decry the whole of western culture where women have been turned into sex objects. In a sense they would argue that it is western women who have been browbeaten to accept this lot in their life.
But of course, in western societies, nobody is forcing a woman to accede to this. There are ample opportunities for women to make it in the workforce and as highy skilled and paid professionals, where physical beauty is not the requirement, but skill and knowledge, and maybe to a point overall manner and bearing. But not beauty.
It may not be perfect, but in western society, women do have choices. They do have options. They might have to make certain sacrifices, depending on what their goals in life are. But, we all do.
In Muslim socieities, those optons are not on the table. And there is no discussion. And may the gods help any woman that dares to wander out of the station in life that has been chosen for her, and imposed on her.
Of course, it is always the Islamic countries that are ruled by religous leaders where this hapens. It is not the case in secular countries. Yet, more and more, Muslim women from secular nations are finding themselves more and more under the gun, more and more receiving the same kinds of threats as this years Miss Indonesia.
To quote the Indonesian groups' lawyer, Sugito, Ms. Chandrawinata "intentionally and openly engaged in indecency".
So, I guess if this group of Muslim women have their way, Ms. Chandrawinata will be taught a lesson for daring to not be happy with being what the Qu'ran tells her she should be, and act like it teaches she should act.
I wonder what her punishment would be. Perhaps she would be beheaded, or merely shot in the public square. Or maybe she would be forced to live a life of deprivation and humiliation, married to a stern "good" Muslim who will be more of a brutal task master than a husband.
Or maybe as a punishment for her wickedness, her brazenness, she will have acid tossed in her face, and possibly her legs and breasts will be horribly carved up to where she would be a living horror to look at.
That way, these Muslim women can congratulate themselves over having punished a fellow Muslim woman who dared not be happy and content to be a good Muslim woman, like they are.
That's why I don't want them here. Not in any substantial numbers, if at all. They get more ridiculous, more arrogant, and more fanatical, with each passing year. And frankly, they don't belong here. We have enough problems with our own homegrown religous nuts, who incidentally also need to be put in their pews for good-but that's another story.
Possibly more to the point, it also happens to be one of the main reasons that you don't and never will read any objections from me about the suppossed brutal treatment of Muslims by the Israelis, or by the Americans.
It's not that I don't believe that excesses have never happenned, that mistakes have never been made, by the other side of these conflicts.
It's just that, with every day that passes by, I fucking care less and less.
24 comments:
I reacted to your post with mixed emotions. It rekindled my long-standing anger and sorrow about the treatment of women in other cultures (and sometimes exacerbated – or at the very least condoned - by other women). At the same time I remembered a candid conversation many years ago, with a Muslim woman from India. A feminist, she had been residing in Canada for many years working with abused women, most of whom were Hindu or Muslim.
I asked her why the impact of feminism and social change were not more prevalent in her country of origin. I had known a few women who traveled to (or were originally from) India and other countries to ‘assist’ with the tribulations of unwanted female births, family planning, genital mutilation, acid-throwing, kitchen fires, and the like. Upon their return, they often expressed frustration with not being able to accomplish more.
She explained to me that it was easy for me to question another culture when I was not constrained daily by it – in Canada I am safe to challenge the status quo. Needless to say, I went on the defensive... in the moment, I was indignant that someone would accuse me of being Eurocentric. Anyhoo... in hindsight I suspect that my reaction was partially attributed to embarrassment because I was in fact being naïve and judgmental. She went on to say that while well-intentioned visitors try to do good things, in the end they leave, and the local women are left to fend for themselves; intervention is only temporary, and the state of things returns to ‘normal’.
In your post, I know that you are speaking about Muslim women living in secular nations, and admittedly I’ve deviated slightly. But the broader topic remains of interest to me, especially as I struggle with my own conflicting beliefs.
My interest was peaked even further when last year there was considerable debate here in Canada over the potential to allow Muslims to use Shari’ah Law for the resolution of their marital and custody disputes. Eurocentric or not, I was tremendously relieved when this was rejected.
It’s always a pleasure to read your posts. Even though I don’t always agree with you, you nonetheless challenge me to analyze my own world view.
Well, thank you, I appreciate that. There's a lot about the Muslim mind-set most of us wil never understand. Most women are more than likely fine with their treatment, but like I inferred, they god damn might as well be all right with it, because that's the way it is.
Personally, if I had my way about it, they would all be run out of here. But that's just me. They don't fit with the concept of a free and democratic society. It's just not in their blood, and is unlikely to ever be. And the thing that tells me that more than anything is the way they treat their women. As a pagan, one who believes in the feminine aspects of the divine,and worships goddesses alongside gods, I find it unnaceptable. Intolerable, actually.
"What I never could figure out was the reason so many Western feminists find it appropriate to take the side of Muslim brutality"
Feminism is a creation of Left-Liberalism and as such the point of it is to undermine the West. Most of the feminist agenda consists of things which weaken the US, that is the point.
I'm not talking about the things like equal pay and equal access to credit (simple fairness issues). I'm talking about the things that have all but destroyed the family and degraded our culture.
When feminists have to choose between the best interests of women and harming the US they will pick harming the US every time.
What bugs me is not that it's so much an attitude of a few extremist feminists, this runs deeper than that, this seems to be the attitude of feminists across the board, and even to an extend of liberals in general. And liberals, of course, are by definition suppossed to be feminists.
And any other time, in any other situation,they would be. Let some athlete be accussed of rape, or some boss be accussed of sexual harrassment, and they're practically ready to haul the guy out in the streets and castrate him before he's even found guilty, along with anybody else, by the way, that demands he should get a fair trial.
But point out any of numerous Muslim atrocities towards women, and they either excuse it or ignore it. It's as profound a betrayal of liberal values as any I have seen.
That is because Muslims are the enemies of the United States.
All else being equal feminists will take the side of any woman against any man. But if standing up for a woman, or any number of women, mean supporting the United States against an enemy or if it means coming out against a liberal icon who is harming the United States (like Bill Clinton, who was credibly accused of rape) they will chose to be anti-US over pro-woman every time.
you all just do not understand you how things are.....if you love you womans you will shelter them and protect them from the world....a woman is beautiful and fragile as a flower and she have the mind of a child even if she is smart...it is easy to led them astray....true some mans will abuse their woman but show me a people that do not have people like this in them.....
look at it this way you are complains about feminists but be may they know deep down that we are right......no woman respect a man who act like they do not care what they do....a woman can only respect a man who is strong and be in charge....not who act like a little boy like you do patrick.
It's not that I don't believe that excesses have never happenned, that mistakes have never been made, by the other side of these conflicts.
It's just that, with every day that passes by, I fucking care less and less.
So, what about Milosevic? He was charged with genocide against Muslims. Wasn't this worth opposing?
Wouldn't it make more sense to decide that you categorically oppose certain behaviors, and that those behaviors are not compatible with a secular democracy, or even simply with modernity? So, for example, you (we) oppose assaulting women, mutilating their genitals, murdering them for adultry, selling them into marriage, raping them, etc. etc. etc. across the board. And nobody who lives in our society may commit those actions. Ever. And we are openly revolted by the fact that those actions are committed in other societies.
This would be a reasonable position for feminists to take, of course. And yes, it's frustrating that so many of them pretend it's 'not their place' to critique other societies for their barbaric treatment of women. If we're all human beings, then we're all open to criticism. It's just as frustrating that many gay rights groups turn a blind eye to the barbaric treatment of homosexuals in these countries. You're pretty much preaching to the choir on that point.
But, I just don't see the point of categorically opposing 1.3 billion people because of their religion, which for most people is more a matter of geography than anything else. Moreover, saying that barbaric behavior is "in their blood" gives those particular Muslims who do those things an excuse to continue that behavior. But, saying that we're all human beings here and we expect human beings to behave in a much more humane way than this Muslim Women group is (I think. I couldn't tell from the post) seems like a much more realistic stance than "that's just the way they are", which, oddly enough, both you and these feminists seem to be saying.
Lastly, I just can't imagine that you personally know more than a handful of Muslims. I would imagine that I've only personally known about ten Muslims in my life, none of whom were fanatics, or mysogynists or whatever, but then again, they were all very Westernized. But, I'd say that I've probably only known a few thousand human beings in my life personally. So, I find it hard to believe that you have an inside track on the mindset of more than, at most, 0.01% of those 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Even there, I'm assuming that you personally know what? a thousand Muslims? So, I'd say that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. Do you get my drift here? If 1.3 billion people were categorically enemies of the United States, wouldn't life be a lot more violent here?
It seems to me that what's happening is that fanatics of all stripes are getting more emboldened as of late. And this is worth opposing. I've said before that the Enlightenment did more good for the species than any religion ever has. But, the answer is to oppose all forms of wanton brutality, and not to pick teams, which the feminists in question seem to be doing, or surrender to exhaustion and nihilism, which you seem to be doing.
I’m all for categorically “opposing all wanton forms of brutality”. I presume by this you mean that feminists and others should focus on the issue, e.g. abuse, rather than the environment in which it takes place, e.g. Muslim communities. But tell me, how is this achieved?
Let’s just narrow in on feminism for a moment... or more appropriately, feminisms. Furthermore, let’s demarcate between academics and activists, and focus on academia.
Admittedly, I’ve been absent from feminist academia for quite some time, so apologies in advance if the pedagogy of women’s studies has changed. But women’s studies in Canada in the early 90s certainly influenced my orientation to social life; presumably others have been equally influenced.
During my studies, I was frustrated by the incessant emphasis on sub-categories of feminism. I don’t deny the usefulness of comparative analysis. But I had more interest in exploring our commonalities to achieve something tangible en masse. In heated classroom debates, I can’t recall the number of times a representative of a sub-group different than my own told me my voice wasn’t relevant (being a white, middleclass feminist and all… she said facetiously). I never wanted to speak FOR anyone, nor did I ever profess to be able to completely relate to others’ lived experiences. But this did not mean that I was unable to empathize and advocate with zest.
I experienced the same thing when I worked for a grassroots organization providing services to people with all types of disabilities. First, because I wasn’t ‘visibly’ disabled, many thought I shouldn’t work for the organization. Of course, none of my critics knew whether I might in fact have a non-visible disability, or perhaps a disabled family member. And my unbridled commitment to the disability movement wasn’t good enough for them. Second, the ‘group of people with disabilities’ is actually subdivided more so than feminism. Instead of collectively focusing on a larger social issue that crosses disability type, there is a tendency for each sub-group to focus on its own particular orientation to the issue.
I’m not saying that unique experiences of sub-groups should be cast aside for the greater good. I’m merely saying that much can come from collaboration. But we construct unnecessary boundaries. We’re fixated with rigidly defining ourselves. We exclude. Furthermore, I don’t believe that undertakings need be mutually exclusive, e.g. feminists are EITHER pro-women OR anti-U.S.
Ug… I hope this doesn’t come off sounding like a Marxist rant. My points are clear in my head, but I’m having difficulty being articulate tonight. I’ve got so many thoughts on the subject at hand.
Sock Puppet, actually I'm quite proud of myself. I understand every word you said here, and I must say I think in general I agree with you.
On the other hand, sub-groupings can be helpful in drawing attention to the uniqueness of an individual problem. For example, I used to suffer from epilepsy, and so for a time i availed myself of the services of a group that focused entirely on advocacy for epilepsy. Now, had there been no such sub-group, and merely one large umbrella group for the "disabled", then I and all people with disabilities would have been lumped into one vaque, and vaquely defined, group.
Paganism is another example. It is easy to lump all pagans into one umbrella category of pagan, but in reality, there are many pagan groups, and they have have their own unique brand of individual identity.
So what we are presented here is yet anotehr graft of interlocking circles, each with it's own unique identity, and yet each with a part that interlaps a central whole.
I don't know, maybe I've just been a Democrat for too long, in the best of times that is precisely how the Democratic Party works, when it isn't imploding.
Rufus-the reason I say it's in their blood is because this has been a culturally imposed imperative for fourteen hundred years, at least in the case of Arab Muslims. And this is a culture that does not tolerate dissent. That is my concern. Not so much the 1.3 billion or however many there are, so much as the factors that coalesce to impose this culture on the people.
That is precisely why I deride Republicans who want to go to their countries and seem to think that by merely giving them democracy-or imposing it on them-they will somehow magically change relatively overnight into peace loving, tolerant, progressive people. It just is not going to happen.
By the same token, I equally deride liberals who think they should just be allowed free reign, that if we show them tolerance and acceptance, we will be treated likewise in return. This, as well, is simply not going to happen.
Neither side has it right. I believe that most Muslims, truthfully, could care less about your religion or mine, they care about the same things all of us do. Themselves, their families, their communities, etc. However, they are a silent majority, and are hamstrung by the factors that have taken control of their lives and culture, and here I mean the religous factions, who for their own purposes are the ones who encourage the more radical elements.
It is these radical factions that have to be destroyed, or at least faced down in no uncertain terms. Tolerance and understanding is not going to do the job. When they hit, as they always will given time and opportunity, they must be hit back with at least an equal amount of force.
Now, on the matter of feminism, you can follow the same formula. Most Muslims I have no doubt love and respect their wives and would not dream of abusing them. Their wives are the lucky ones. The others are shit out of luck. They have absolutey no one to turn to. Good Muslims are powerless to help them, because they are bound by the same cultural restrictions that engulf all of them.
Of course,there is nothing we can do about that, legitimately, when it comes to their own nations. We can, however, when they live among us, let them know in no uncertain terms that this kind of behavior absolutely will not be tolerated here. Nor will any of the other bullshit. And that, quite frankly, is the only way these people can be dealt with, forcefully, which is the only thing they respect.
You tried to make a point about how many Muslims I knew. Well, you don't have to know a grizzly bear personally to know that if you run into one in the woods you can't treat him like you would a cocker spaniel. And that is probably as good of a symbolic way of illustrating this problem as any. Twenty per cent of Muslims, according to most estimations based on polling data, support radical Islamist organizations in one way or another. They either give them some form of monetary support, or some other form of aid and encouragement, or are silent partners or supporters, or are active participants.
That's roughly two hundred sixty million grizzly bears roaming free range amongst one billion forty million cocker spaniels. What makes it really bad is you don't know for sure who is the grizzly bear and who is the cocker spaniel.
Even the issue of Milosevic that you brought up is far more complicated than is generally portrayed. Yes, we did the right thing. But you have to understand a number of factors that were glossed over. One of these is the main reason the Europeans wanted to put a stop to him wasn't so much becasue of the love and concern for the Muslims he was slaughtering, so much as it was the fear and terror at the thought of the millions of other Muslims who were potentially destined to flood into their countries as refugees.
Add to that the very real fact that Milosevic was the last Socialist ruler in Europe, with a non-capitalist economy, and for the most part a successful one. Those two reasons were the real ones that Europe wanted him gone. The human factor that was generally portrayed just gave them cover to overthrow him, with I might point out the United States being the main power involved, whereas the US should have been mere bit players, as this was first and foremost a Eurpopean problem.
Nor were the Albanians-almost all Muslims in Southeast Europe outside of Turkey are actually of Albanian origin-without fault in this matter, in fact they were actually the original instigators. Before Milosevic, it was common for Albanians to move into an area and take it over, then run everybody else out. In other words, people didn't just hate them becasue they were Muslims. They have in the past done the same thing in Greece, albeit to a much lesser extent. Ask any Greek-many of whom I do know.
As for me surrendering to exhaustion, well, you might have somewhat of a point there. Vicous cycles will do that to you, when you watch them long enough. Nihilism, well, that's another matter all together. No, I haven't surrendered to that. You only do that by placating it,something which never works. Never has, and never will, and even if there was the slightest chance it would, it wouldn't be worth the risk.
I've just always been a believer in peace through strength, which is only as good as your willingness to exercise it when necessary. Otherwise, someone sooner or later will call your bluff.
Aladdinslad-sorry to hear about you and Amanda. Be sure and pet Thor for me.
Lemuel-I guess I'm going to have to put my Moonbat hat on for this one. As a person who is mainly liberal-though what I like to consider a traditional liberal, certainly not a far leftist-I can promise you that most of us don't hate America. Far from it. We just have honest areas of disagreement in some areas. I do concede though, you have a point about the feminists reaction to the Clinton scandals.
In my opinion, technically, the feminists over the last twenty years have done two good things. The first one is they stepped up to the plate and went to bat for Andrea Yates, and insured that this poor pathetic wretch of a woman wasn't crucified. They insured she got a fair trial, in court and in public. I don't think I've ever been as proud of them.
The second thing they did good-and here is where the technicality comes in-they refused to jump on the anti-Clinton bandwagon. I call this a technicality becasue I'm sure that had it been a Republican President, they would have reacted quite differently. So, their good deed was merely an act of wanton hypocrisy.
By the same token, that was a shameful period in American history. In my opinion, if you were to rate all the Presidents of the twentieth century in the order of their greatness, on down to not so great and worse, Clinton would come in sixth, behind, in order-Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevel, Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kennedy. Reagan would come in eighth, behind Woodrow Wilson. If you include William McKinley, he would be ninth, with Lyndon Johnson rounding out the top ten.
If you include George W. Bush in the mix, he and Jimmy Carter are in a race for the bottom. But all that is beside the point. Clinton did some stupid things, some other things I just don't agree with, and in fact said and did-and for that matter is still saying and doing-things that make me want to tear my hair out. But I honestly believe he loves America, and certainly doesn't hate it.
One thing I know, for all his faults, I sure wish times in America now were the way they were under his watch. Those deficits sure are piling up, and from what I understand Mandarin would be a hard lanquage to learn.
Over at feministing.com, there's a discussion about female genital mutilation (in Britain). The original post concludes with "at what point can Westerners say anything on such a complicated issue?"
http://feministing.com/archives/005453.html
I thought some of you might be interested...
I think they should make the punishment fit the crime. Anytime a male Muslim here is convicted of committing this atrocous act they should have their dick and balls cut off, and the wound cauterized so they don't bleed to death. That way, they have to live the rest of their lives like that. The number of female "circumcisions" would, from that point on, I promise, be dropped to a number somewhere solidly between zero and none.
Sock Puppet:
The original post concludes with "at what point can Westerners say anything on such a complicated issue?"
Ugh. I'm guessing that they wouldn't buy it if any of their demands, say for equal pay for equal work, were met with: "But, can we really do anything about such a complicated issue?"
Sock Puppet:
I’m all for categorically “opposing all wanton forms of brutality”. I presume by this you mean that feminists and others should focus on the issue, e.g. abuse, rather than the environment in which it takes place, e.g. Muslim communities. But tell me, how is this achieved?
Well, ending it might not be achievable for the time being, but I don't think that opposing it is that hard. And actually, it's just like you said- it's really a matter of removing some of these artificial separations between us.
We tend to think it's sensitive to refuse to 'judge' other cultures for how they treat women, but on some level this assumes that they're innately different- that culture is biological and not arbitrary.
For example, we have no problem with judging the man down the street who beats his wife, but the same arguments could be made about him. "Well, who are we to judge him? We don't know his situation. Maybe his job is harder, or his religious beliefs force him to beat her, or he's stressed out by money issues." Thankfully though, on some level, we instead hold the individual accountable for his actions. And so we register our disgust. This might shame him, but it also humanizes him because it assumes that he, like us, is able to act with compassion and reason.
With other cultures, I don't think that it is right or workable to somehow force them to behave in ways that are compassionate and reasonable. But, I do think that it's acceptable to register our disgust when they don't, for the same reason- this humanizes them. It doesn't reduce them to circumstances or geography, but says that, as humans, they can behave compassionately and justly.
Of course, the argument is that this expects the impossible from a country like Pakistan, for example. But, feminists expected the unreasonable and impossible from the West as well, and over the decades have shaped the West in ways that are absolutely good. Admittedly, countries like Pakistan will not change until it comes from within. But, the feminists who live there (and there are many) need to know that sisterhood is more powerful than cultural sensitivity.
Or political gain. I don't know if registering our disgust helps the Bush administration or hurts them, and I don't care. I think of them as small fries- insignificant insects in the scheme of things. Feminism has been a prime force in shaping the civilization that we live in. Moreover, unlike religion for example, it has been almost entirely for the good. Sure there have been excesses, and frankly academic feminism has had its share, but we shouldn't sell the ideas short by pretending that they're culturally specific- the sexes are universal, and misogyny is as well, and so the opposition to it should be universal.
I hope that helps clarify a bit.
Rufus:
Your post eloquently echoes my own feelings. I don’t think it’s insensitive to ‘judge’ other cultures when the goals are compassion and justice. My struggle has been/continues to be being told that I have no right to do so.
I think your analogy of the ‘guy down the street’ is especially useful... while to some extent I could be accused of being a relativist, I hope I never use relativism to free myself from responsibility or excuse myself from having a voice.
It all has to start in our own backyard first and foremost. When immigrants move to our country, they are going to bring a lot of their old values with them, naturally. That isn't in and of itself a bad thing. But-in the process of integration into an open, free, and inclusive society, it should be made to be understood that there are certain standards of behavior that absolutely must be adhered to without question, and there are certain aspects of that culture that must be left behind. The prospect of a Muslim family expecting to be able to continue to castrate their eight year old daughters, kill them if they disobey the strictures of their native culture, and demanding special privileges in general based on their religion, must be not only strongly discouraged, it must absolutely not be tolerated in the slightest way. If they can't adhere to that, then frankly they have no business here.
Sock Puppet:
Yeah, I think there are times when it's necessary. I mean, when it comes to something like the burka, I think it's much better to be relativist in a sense. The few women I've known who wore them liked wearing them, and in both cases chose to, and more power to them. Where feminism can go astray is in encouraging women to make their own choices, but then looking down on those women who choose to stay home and raise kids and live a different life. So, I definitely think that there are aspects of religion that are worth respecting.
But, when it comes to things like stoning adultresses or mutilating the genitals of little girls, I think we're justified in saying that these things repulse us. That doesn't mean that we support the Ann Coulter convert them to Christianity by the sword plan. But, just because the armchair generals have adopted some of the language of feminism doesn't mean that feminists should question their own convictions.
Patrick:
I think that's actually a much better plan than the original post implied. It's also very workable- we simply ensure that these things are and remain illegal and socially scorned here, and voice our disgust that they exist anywhere. And I think that that's what's generally happening. I also breathed a sigh of relief when the Sha'ria courts were forbidden here, and I think it's been interesting to watch how different countries have responded to these issues.
I think it's really going to take a combination of the conservative strong will about security and the liberal ability to reach out to alienated people and bring them into the community to bridge these gaps and defuse some of this spiralling tension. And I think it will take a long time. But, I think it's worth it, and I actually think that Islam will someday make its peace with the West, and vice-versa.
You have more faith than I do. I don't think it will be in our lifetimes. If it happens at all, it will be a long, hard slog.
Well, it might be. But, I was raised thinking that soviet communism was a terrible thing that we would have to fight for the rest of our lives. Then that fell. I think that Daniel Pipes is right when he says that the only thing that will defeat radical Islam is moderate Islam, and my experience has been that the moderates are a silent (and frightened) majority. So, I have some hope. Also, frankly, I don't think anyone else can do it but them.
You are right in a way, but we are the ones who have to put that across to them by reacting with force and strength against the actions of the radicals. Once they see what the radicals are bringing down on their heads, they might then find their spines and rise up against them. I say that becasue, as heartless as it sounds, they are going to suffer as well. They have three options, they can blame us, the radicals, or themselves.
Another option, the one I really prefer, is to establish a policy of outright killing any radical Islamist immam that encourages violence against western or any other nations. Once enough of them are killed off they would stop pretty damned quickly. Once they stop preaching hatred and violence, that's at least half the battle, because the real radicals will have lost their main area of support, and their finances will soon follow.
I know problems would arise from that, and it's certaibnly not a perfect strategy, but if we just sit around and wait for the moderates to take over on their own, we'll be waiting till doomsday.
Post a Comment