New at Reason
Forget about Ron Paul. Cathy Young reviews the work of a conservative who believes that we brought 9/11 on ourselves and that the hijackers had a point.
Comments to "New at Reason":
I have never, ever in my life, heard such a crazy explanation for 9/11 or terrorism, and I've heard a lot of them. I'm asking D'Souza to take his comments back, to say he didn't mean it.
sardinecan | May 16, 2007, 4:57pm | #
Cathy Young thinks it wise for us to continue to insist to Islamic cultures, that Western societies are a model to be emulated? While certain libertarian-gone-wild behaviours continue to become ever-the-more decadent, bringing us the sicknesses of purvile filth and corruption, in the name of entertainment? She thinks there is a prayer of the Islamic world welcoming it with open arms? Do all libertarians do bong loads before typing up "thoughtful" articles? What are you guys thinking???Davebo | May 16, 2007, 5:01pm | #
While certain libertarian-gone-wild behaviours continue to become ever-the-more decadent, bringing us the sicknesses of purvile filth and corruption, in the name of entertainment?Wow! Falwell was ressurected faster than Jesus himself!
kevrob | May 16, 2007, 5:13pm | #
My problem is that, even if you exclude the nutbar jihadis, the majority of Muslims worldwide don't have a commitment to freedom of conscience. They believe that the state should legally recognize their religion, not just as the moral basis for society, but for the law itself. When Christians make the same claim in Western countries we rightly disagree with them. Where are the Mohammedans who will say ours isn't an Islamic nation, but a nation of Muslims? Perhaps there are some in Turkey, or at minaret.org?Kevin
R C Dean | May 16, 2007, 5:31pm | #
Cathy Young thinks it wise for us to continue to insist to Islamic cultures, that Western societies are a model to be emulated?You got a better role model in mind?
Chris S. | May 16, 2007, 5:34pm | #
Or perhaps you meant "purfile," which, according to Dictionary.com, is "a sort of ancient trimming of tinsel and thread for women's gowns; -- called also bobbinwork."I am somewhat saddened by the prevalence of bobbinwork in our wicked, indulgent, decrepit society.
thoreau | May 16, 2007, 5:35pm | #
Kevin-What about Malaysia and Indonesia? They don't strike me as particularly theocrat-ridden.
Pro Libertate | May 16, 2007, 5:41pm | #
Really. We may be screwed up, but the Western liberal model is in the top three or four best things to happen to mankind, ever. And it's the best thing going for now and for the foreseeable future.Like Jim Morrison said, "The West is the best."
thoreau,
Malaysia can't be too bad. It may be officially Muslim, but it has a very large population of non-Muslims. I went to a Buddhist temple, a mosque, and a Hindu holy site all while visiting there.
Mark Borok | May 16, 2007, 5:48pm | #
Our western ways are attractive to Muslims. If they weren't, radicals wouldn't feel so threatened by them.D'Souza is basically saying that we should stop exporting our culture to the west because the moderate Muslims don't want it; they don't want it because it is a corrupting influence on their culture; but how can it be corrupting them if they don't want it?
Pro Libertate | May 16, 2007, 5:52pm | #
An awful large number of Muslims seem willing to tolerate Western excesses, else why would so many of them live in the United States and Europe? And Turkey, Malaysia, pre-revolution Iran, "Kurdistan", etc. all have seemed reasonably comfortable with Western ways.Stevo Darkly | May 16, 2007, 5:52pm | #
Or perhaps you meant "purfile," which, according to Dictionary.com, is "a sort of ancient trimming of tinsel and thread for women's gowns; -- called also bobbinwork."I am somewhat saddened by the prevalence of bobbinwork in our wicked, indulgent, decrepit society.
I, too, weep for our overly decorative, tinsel-ridden youth.
Pro Libertate | May 16, 2007, 5:52pm | #
Make that "awfully large".stuartl | May 16, 2007, 5:54pm | #
When my wife was in Malaysia several years ago during Ramadan, the Muslims she was working with could not eat or drink anything for both religious reasons and fear of the authorities. The legal penalties for a Muslim were very high.Pro Libertate | May 16, 2007, 5:56pm | #
Pur file is French for "pure slips by". "Pure slips by filth". Makes purflect sense to me.Pro Libertate | May 16, 2007, 5:57pm | #
Malaysia and Singapore are an odd mix of seemingly Western values and authoritarianism. I give them credit for borrowing bits and pieces they like and discarding the rest, rather than pretending to hate everything American and European. I'd rather they were more like us, of course, but that's not going to happen over night.Kwix | May 16, 2007, 6:02pm | #
They believe that the state should legally recognize their religion, not just as the moral basis for society, but for the law itself. When Christians make the same claim in Western countries we rightly disagree with them. Where are the Mohammedans who will say ours isn't an Islamic nation, but a nation of Muslims?kevrob,
The problem is that religious zealots and fear mongers are doing so in many countries in the West as well. Take for example the Pope's recent visit to Latin America and calling for the excommunication of law makers who support abortion. In countries like Brazil where 74% of the population is Catholic and votes with their religious block, that is essentially calling for a state that follows the religious doctrine, or else you won't be able to be elected. Awfully close if you ask me.
crimethink | May 16, 2007, 6:02pm | #
D'Souza is basically saying that we should stop exporting our culture to the west because the moderate Muslims don't want it; they don't want it because it is a corrupting influence on their culture; but how can it be corrupting them if they don't want it?Probably the same way that Wal-Mart destroys the communities it opens stores in. ;-)
grylliade | May 16, 2007, 6:23pm | #
D'Souza is basically saying that we should stop exporting our culture to the west [sic] because the moderate Muslims don't want it; they don't want it because it is a corrupting influence on their culture; but how can it be corrupting them if they don't want it?You don't understand the mindset of conservative moralists. To them, Western culture and decadence is both wrong and alluring. To moralists throughout history, sin is almost always seen to me more alluring than virtue. That's why it's so easy to "slip into" sin, and so hard to tread the path of virtue. Sin is like an addictive drug to them — you take a small taste, decide you like it, and by the time you decide you don't want to do it anymore, you're in too deep, and you don't want to give it up.
I'm sure to Mr. D'Souza and those who agree with him, moderate Muslims have been seduced by the West's decadence just as most Westerners have. Given the opportunity, they would live lives of virtue, but because of the availability of Western hedonism, they fall into its trap, and cannot escape. So yeah, they want to; but only because they are perverse.
Scratch a fundie vegan, or socialist, or environmentalist, and you'll find the same idea: eating meat/capitalism/raping the earth is the easy way out, and seems enjoyable. But if you live the right way, then that's fully as enjoyable as your sinful ways, if you'll only try . . .
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 6:24pm | #
“The problem is that religious zealots and fear mongers are doing so in many countries in the West as well. Take for example the Pope's recent visit to Latin America and calling for the excommunication of law makers who support abortion. In countries like Brazil where 74% of the population is Catholic and votes with their religious block, that is essentially calling for a state that follows the religious doctrine, or else you won't be able to be elected. Awfully close if you ask me.”It’s certainly an outrage that the Catholic Church should so blatantly interfere in the administration of its own sacraments, deciding for itself who should be admitted to Holy Communion.
The scandal of Catholic meddling has been going on for a long time. Look at what those horrible theocrats did in Louisiana in the 1960s! It excommunicated three political figures, including one of the state’s most powerful politicians, simply because they opposed the Church’s decision to desegregate its parochial schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rummel#The_Desegregation_of_the_Archdiocese
Excommunicating politicians just because of the policies is just awful. This proves that the Catholics are just as bad as Muslim terrorists.
Grotius | May 16, 2007, 6:36pm | #
thoreau,What about Malaysia and Indonesia? They don't strike me as particularly theocrat-ridden.
You ain't paying attention then.
Chris S. | May 16, 2007, 6:45pm | #
Speaking of Catholicism, has the Pope himself gone too far with purfile?http://www.cjd.cc/New_Pope_Color_1.jpg
This begs the question of when innocent embroidery becomes purfile. Pay special attention to the golden tassle.
Kwix | May 16, 2007, 6:55pm | #
Ah, did I hit a nerve there Mad Max??It’s certainly an outrage that the Catholic Church should so blatantly interfere in the administration of its own sacraments, deciding for itself who should be admitted to Holy Communion.He didn't call for the excommunication of just anybody who claims to support abortion, he specifically called for the excommunication of politicians. To add to that, he didn't voice that stance in Louisiana which is, despite your assertion, predominantly Protestant and doesn't really vote along religious lines. Instead he did so in Brazil, a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic and votes with their faith. In Brazil, excommunication is effectively a political death sentence.
If that isn't the equivalent of the catholic church trying to control a countries political structure and laws then pray tell, what the fuck is?
Kwix | May 16, 2007, 7:12pm | #
This proves that the Catholics are just as bad as Muslim terrorists.Oh, and just to address this I never said the two were equivalent. Just as the average Irish Catholic wasn't a member of the IRA, not every Muslim is a terrorist.
What it does is make the actions of the Pope equivalent to those Imams preaching the sinfulness of the West must be rejected at any cost and the righteousness of God must be law. But hey since one wears a pointy white hat he must be the good guy, eh?
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 7:30pm | #
kwix,You're quite right, of course. The Catholic Church should allow anyone to partake of the sacrament of Holy Communion, regardless of whether they follow the Church's teachings or not. Why not have communion wafers available in vending machines in the church lobby? That would be truly non-exclusionary.
Similarly, the synagogues should get more tolerant. If, for instance, a Klansman wants to wander in during the High Holy Day services and set up a showing of *Birth of a Nation,* he should be allowed to do so.
Similarly, Catholic priests should be allowed to interrupt meetings of the Ethical Culture Society and explain to the assembled secularists how wrong-headed they are, and how they should all get baptized at once.
Or, we could limit this principle (as you suggest) to religious bodies which represent the dominant population. Thus, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if Anton LaVey could interrupt the services at a synagugue in Israel, or a Hindu temple in India, and urge the congregation to abandon their supestitions and follow Satan.
After all, tolerance requires that religious organizations conform their behavior to the demands of the surrounding culture!
Akira MacKenzie | May 16, 2007, 8:53pm | #
Nice dodge Max, but you didn't answer Kwix point about Pope Hitler-Jugend I holding a canonical gun (pun semi-intended)to the collective heads of Latin American politicians who might want to drag their region out of their Catholic-inspired stone age reducing the Vatican's influence diminishing hold over the world......as well as the RCC's cash flow. Less "bleevers" means fewer coins the collection plates. Fewer coins in means fewer perks for Papa Ratzi and his cronies.
dr. dog | May 16, 2007, 8:55pm | #
IIRC, there's still a fair amount of religious coercion in Malaysian law. Changing your religion, for instance, only works in one direction.mantooth | May 16, 2007, 9:09pm | #
Max,I don't think kwix is saying that they should be banned from excommunicating whomever they'd like from eating any of the magic wafers. I think his point is that an entire population being swayed by powerful religious figure is not isolated to the Middle East.
No one is talking about forcing Christians to let LeVay (Baal-Davar rest his soul) force them into listening to his beliefs in forced capitivity in the name of tolerance or some such nonsense. I think that was a swipe at PC Lefties on your part, which is a mis-reading of what he was saying.
Myself, I don't begrudge them their right to their beliefs, but the fact that I am vastly outnumbered by people who think that issues in the Middle East have been predicted in Ezekiel is discomforting.
Treat yourself to something extra from the vending machine tonight, I know battling the entire internet as an honorable, principaled contrarian while slaving through grad school can make a guy pretty hungry.
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 9:22pm | #
"Myself, I don't begrudge them their right to their beliefs, but the fact that I am vastly outnumbered by people who think that issues in the Middle East have been predicted in Ezekiel is discomforting."You do realize that the people who believe what you describe tend to be *Protestants,* not Catholics? (not *all* Protestants, just some of them). The Catholic view is more "Semper Paratus" (always ready).
Akira,
". . . Pope Hitler-Jugend . . . Catholic-inspired stone age . . . RCC's cash flow. . . . Papa Ratzi and his cronies."
Don't hold back, Akira, tell us what you *really* think!
crimethink | May 16, 2007, 9:30pm | #
...as well as the RCC's cash flow. Less "bleevers" means fewer coins the collection plates. Fewer coins in means fewer perks for Papa Ratzi and his cronies.Strange then that the Church doesn't support in vitro fertilization, and premarital sex, which also would help increase the number of "bleevers".
It's also strange that they don't get with the fact that being anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, and (gasp) anti-contraception is seriously bad for maintaining membership totals in rich western countries. I don't think all the extra Latin American kids working at shoe factories for $2/day are going to be able to make up for the ex-Catholics in the US plopping down hundred-dollar checks each week at their local Episcopalian church.
These darn papists don't seem to have thought through their sinister plan for world domination through, do they? Or maybe -- just maybe -- they actually believe in it.
mantooth | May 16, 2007, 9:32pm | #
Max,You are nitpicking. I was talking about religions and their hold on society in general, I didn't realize that I had to adhere strictly to your example. I guess that means you got me there.
To restate my point: They are perfectly free to believe whatever they'd like, and I'm perfectly free to think that they are crazy. But hey, some Catholics did some good stuff that one time in Louisiana. You win.
crimethink | May 16, 2007, 9:39pm | #
If that isn't the equivalent of the catholic church trying to control a countries political structure and laws then pray tell, what the fuck is?I can only answer this with a resounding "So what?"
If labor unions, or the Marijuana Policy Project, or Planned Parenthood, or the ACLU, could convince 74% of US voters to vote for the candidates they want, would you castigate them for trying to control a country's political structure?
If not, why do you blow up over another non-coercive, voluntary organization doing the same? Is this another case of the God-cooties?
mantooth | May 16, 2007, 10:10pm | #
Before this thread strays too far, I think it's safe to say that D'Souza is crazy and the idea that the West needs to conform to the backwards standards of the Middle East so that they won't be mad at us is reprehensible. Can we agree on that?If I was a middle-class American living in a Red State (oh wait, I totally am!), I would be insulted at the implication that I had anything in common with these people, and that they were more my allies than liberal Americans. I can't remember the last time me and my friends got together and stoned a young girl to death for dating someone from a town over who subscribed to a different religion.
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 10:14pm | #
"But hey, some Catholics did some good stuff that one time in Louisiana."Yes, and they did it in derogation of the principle of strict separation of religion and politics. But it was OK because Louisiana isn't a predominantly Catholic society like Brazil.
We all know about Mardi Gras, when all the Protestants get together in New Orleans to . . . wait a minute . . .
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 10:16pm | #
"I can't remember the last time me and my friends got together and stoned a young girl to death for dating someone from a town over who subscribed to a different religion."Really? In North Carolina, we have a saying that a party isn't a party unless it's capped off by the lynching of some uppity minority. Of course, today that means lacrosse players, but the principle is the same.
mantooth | May 16, 2007, 10:39pm | #
Max,I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I get it. Catholics live in Louisiana and the church stood up for minorities there, negating all of the negative influence that organized religion has ever had. You are confusing me with kwix, who took off long ago (I think to interrupt a church service in the name of tolerance if your argument holds true). Once again: They are free to think it, I'm free think they are crazy, and free to be wary of its influence. Keep on thinking you caught me, though, I'm sure you'll make a great associate professor someday.
You sort of lost me with your last comment. I live in NC and have never been invited to a lynching (not for lack of trying! I'd love to be part of a lynch mob...of tolerance, with the ghost of Anton LaVey, forcing our beliefs on the persecuted majority). Yes, some Lacrosse players were wrongly accused of rape. It was terrible when those mobs tore them out of their homes and stoned them to death, so I guess we do have a lot in common with Muslims who perpetrate honor killings. You've defeated my entire statement.
Shit, I can't believe I'm arguing on the internet.... I'm off to the H.A.M.B...
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 10:50pm | #
"You are confusing me with kwix, who took off long ago . . ."I kind of assumed you were taking off where he left off ("I think [kwix's] point is that an entire population being swayed by powerful religious figure is not isolated to the Middle East"), but if I was wrong then I'm very sorry.
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 10:58pm | #
"Catholics live in Louisiana and the church stood up for minorities there, negating all of the negative influence that organized religion has ever had."I wasn't trying to defend everything "organized religion" ever did, any more than you are trying to defend the actions of *organized atheism* in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Angola, Mozambique, Ethopia, Eritrea, East Germany, Uzbekistan, China, Tibet, North Korea, Vietnam . . .
Did I miss any of the counties which endured the blessings of organized atheism?
Oh, yes, there's Cuba, Nicaragua, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia . . . damn, I lost count.
My point is that I wouldn't assume you were defending organized atheism in all times and places, so why assume I was defending organized religion in all times and places?
Grotius | May 16, 2007, 11:10pm | #
Mad Max,As far as I know Louisiana parochial schools were segregated just like public schools.
Mad Max | May 16, 2007, 11:14pm | #
Grotius,They were segregated until 1962. When the Church integrated them, Leander Perez and others resisted, and got excommunicated. Perez reconciled himself with the Church before he died.
The Empire Strikes Back | May 16, 2007, 11:19pm | #
You don't understand the mindset of conservative moralists. To them, Western culture and decadence is both wrong and alluring. To moralists throughout history, sin is almost always seen to me more alluring than virtue. That's why it's so easy to "slip into" sin, and so hard to tread the path of virtue. Sin is like an addictive drug to them — you take a small taste, decide you like it, and by the time you decide you don't want to do it anymore, you're in too deep, and you don't want to give it up.Luke: Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
grumpy realist | May 17, 2007, 12:03am | #
Well, considering that the worst sin the the Bible seems to be that of Pride (the reason for which Lucifer fell), I'd think that Christians would have a wee bit more humility about who was Saved and who isn't, if you get my drift....Too many evil acts have been committed in the name of religion for me to let believers get off scott free by their mumbling "oh, but they weren't True Christians(TM)!"
Rhywun | May 17, 2007, 1:14am | #
What about Malaysia and Indonesia? They don't strike me as particularly theocrat-ridden.Malaysia is a more-or-less a theocracy if you're a Muslim--and a dead-end for the large Chinese and Indian minority, since all political power is reserved for Muslims. Free-thinking people, such as my ex boyfriend, want out.
I don't know much about Indonesia, but I seem to recall there was lots of terrorist activity there a few years ago.
Then again, Singapore is mostly Chinese and some Indian, and it's not exactly a shining light, either. Although it's better than Malaysia.
Grotius | May 17, 2007, 6:10am | #
Mad Max,Doesn't sound like the Church's history was that different from the history of the secular authorities then.
LarryA | May 17, 2007, 10:42am | #
“Muslims have the right to live in Islamic states under Muslim law if they wish.”The “if they wish” part indicates Muslims also have the right to leave Islamic states under Muslim law. It would be interesting to see how many Muslim women, in particular, would exercise that option. Enough to make sure there isn’t a next generation?
D'Souza is basically saying that we should stop exporting our culture to the west because the moderate Muslims don't want it; they don't want it because it is a corrupting influence on their culture; but how can it be corrupting them if they don't want it?
I figured out some time ago that any religion or social code that condemns studying alternative religions or social codes does so out of fear of competition. I.e. if the patrons let the peons look over the fence, pretty soon they won’t have enough peons left to fund their programs.
If labor unions, or the Marijuana Policy Project, or Planned Parenthood, or the ACLU, could convince 74% of US voters to vote for the candidates they want, would you castigate them for trying to control a country's political structure? If not, why do you blow up over another non-coercive, voluntary organization doing the same? Is this another case of the God-cooties?
Actually, I would be dismayed if any of these organizations had that much power. What I object to is not whether they control the political structure, but whether they limit my right to control my own life. Any majority that powerful is a bad thing for liberty.
IMHO the main problem with repressive religions is the overreaching fear of sin. They waste so much time worrying about doing wrong, they forget about doing good.
M | May 17, 2007, 10:56am | #
They waste so much time worrying about doing wrong, they forget about doing good.Nicely put, LarryA. And not far from what Jesus said about, and to, the Pharisees.
jtuf | May 17, 2007, 12:24pm | #
Scratch a fundie vegan, or socialist, or environmentalist, and you'll find the same idea: eating meat/capitalism/raping the earth is the easy way out, and seems enjoyable. But if you live the right way, then that's fully as enjoyable as your sinful ways, if you'll only try . . .Well said. The problem in some countries isn't the beleif system, its imposing that belief system on others.
The West built up to the 1st ammendment gradually and the original support for it drew from religion. Lohn Locke quoted liberally from the Bible when he made his case for religious tolerance.
Just a thought here. US foriegn policy might work better if it foccused on specifics rather than general philosophies, because any philosophy can be twisted to do evil. Instead of condeming Islam, the president should quote Islamic texts that support tolerance. Instead of citing honor killings as a reason to reject Islamic law, he should call for an end to honor killings. He should also stick to the civil liberties violations. If we expect Iran to tolerate our alcohol, we should stop spraying opium fields in Afganistan and busting cocaine facilities in the Western Hemisphere.
Mad Max | May 17, 2007, 12:42pm | #
Grotius,My analogy was in response to the suggestion that the Church shouldn't be involved in politics, not even to the extent of enforcing its own doctrines against politicians who belong to the Church. If people would allow the Church the same legitimacy in politics that they allow to (say) the Playboy Foundation, that would actually be an improvement over today's "Church and state" panic.
Jon H | May 17, 2007, 7:52pm | #
Max writes: "The Catholic Church should allow anyone to partake of the sacrament of Holy Communion, regardless of whether they follow the Church's teachings or not. "The Church would be fine if they excommunicated a politician for having an abortion or otherwise personally violating Church doctrine.
What's wrong is excommunicating the politician for doing the will of the electorate, without that politician having personally violated doctrine.
Jon H | May 17, 2007, 7:54pm | #
"My analogy was in response to the suggestion that the Church shouldn't be involved in politics, not even to the extent of enforcing its own doctrines against politicians who belong to the Church."As I note above, it isn't enforcing doctrines, it's enforcing the enforcement of its doctrines.
What next, excommunicating politicians for not spending enough campaign money on ads promoting Church doctrines?
Jon H | May 17, 2007, 8:00pm | #
Mad Max writes: "Did I miss any of the counties which endured the blessings of organized atheism? "That wasn't really 'atheism', though, as Marxism/Maoism and cults of personality took the place of traditional religion.
While they may claim to be atheistic, you wouldn't call the adherents of those ideologies 'free thinkers'.
Mad Max | May 18, 2007, 12:43am | #
"What's wrong is excommunicating the politician for doing the will of the electorate, without that politician having personally violated doctrine."So Leander Perez shouldn't have been excommunicated because his segregationist position was based on doing the electorate's will?
"That wasn't really 'atheism', though, as Marxism/Maoism and cults of personality took the place of traditional religion.
"While they may claim to be atheistic, you wouldn't call the adherents of those ideologies 'free thinkers'."
I didn't call them free thinkers - I called them atheists.
You seem to have fallen for the "True Scotsman" fallacy, which religious people are often accused (by atheists) of holding, see
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm
BOB: "Atheists are rational, enlightened and tolerant than religious people."
BILL: "But the Communists are atheists, and they murdered millions of people. That's not an enlightened and tolerant thing to do."
BOB: "Well, then, obviously the Communists aren't real atheists, but real atheists are enlightened and tolerant."