« Life on the Range | Testing, testing » |
13 comments
First, a quick Google and we can find pretty much the same (probably cut-and-paste) text on dozens of sites quoting Ms Gabriel’s speech given at the “Intelligence Summit in Washington DC, Saturday February 18, 2006.” Most of the sites, at first glance, seem to be conservative, anti-war, or anti-Islam sites. Curiously, or perhaps not, searching for the same phrase on Google’s News (or Yahoo! News) returns no results. Additionally, searching for “Intelligence Summit February 2006″ returns nothing on either news service either.
I know, the nay-sayers will blame the liberal media for skipping such an event. I don’t doubt the event happened as much as I’m skeptical about the occurrance of the speech at the event. One Google News search result did reveal that “Saddam’s tapes” were released at this very same summit, but that was the only one.
There is an Intelligence Summit website, but I couldn’t quickly find any reference to past summits, muchless the one that the other searches reported as the source of the article.
That’s my “hoax search” result…well, the result is “plausable.”
Now, in my ignorant tolerance, I have to say that I understand the article’s meaning, but I don’t necessarily agree with its points. It is a call to wipe out a people and religion. While it may be true that there are teachings in and believers of Islam that push for the total destruction of all non-Muslims, I think more to the point is that they’re pushing for the destruction of all people that don’t beleive as they do. This makes them a fanatic spin-off–think KKK. I’m sure they exist, but I’m more sure that it isn’t every Muslim that believes this to be true, just as I’m sure that not every Christian agrees with the KKK, nor does every individual or group with any feeling of superiority push it to the level of the Nazis or the current dictators in Africa or other evil groups wishing local or worldwide dominiation.
Diana,
I’m not sure what “tolerance” is any more. Respecting another’s right to believe as he sees fit? What if his belief requires that he evangelize me? Or kill me? Is one okay, but not the other? Where is the line drawn? By whom? And by what authority? For the most part we value human life highly here in the West, but in other parts of the world it isn’t so.
Dave
Hi, Dave. :)
As usual, you pose an interesting question. I do respect others’ rights to believe as they see fit. However, their beliefs do not give them the right to violate the rights of others. The KKK has the right to believe that white people are and should be supreme; this does not give them the right to take action to make that so, however. As Jeff summed it up for me years ago, “Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.”
As to authority, our Bill of Rights afford all American citizens specific basic human protections. The Supreme Court has determined where those lines are drawn. Obviously, the determination process undergoes constant flux, based on new information and changing values. Our founding fathers, for example, deemed the value of the lives of African Americans much lower than they do today (some of them did, anyhow; enough to include the 3/5ths rule in the original Constitution in order to get the needed majority of states to sign it). I’m happy to see we, as a people, are coming around on that point. Other countries, as you point out, have different authorities with different conclusions.
Perhaps the question should be, do we have the right to levy our beliefs on them?
d
Grandmother sent back my original statement today, which I used to replace the earlier guess in the main post. She added:
…I forgot to ask you how you fail to reason that Islam is not our enemy. Who do you think manned the planes that bombarded the Pentagon and the World Trade Center? And do you not believe they would do it again as soon as they get the chance? Who are you suggesting is our real enemy?
In the interest of consistency, if we are to reason that Islam–the religion of the terrorists who attacked us–is the enemy, then Christianity–the religion of the Crusaders–was the enemy, as well. I know you, as a Christian, firmly believe that those weren’t True Christians. Surely you understand that Muslims who are not extremists are equally adamant that the terrorists aren’t True Muslims. It isn’t the religion that is to blame, IMO; it is the interpretation of it. It is no more fair to castigate all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists who call themselves Muslims than it is to vilify all Christians for the actions of a few extremists who call themselves Christians.
If you reread the article you sent me, incidentally, you’ll note that the speaker attempted to soften her message in the last paragraph. Throughout the speech, as you can attest, she called for a war on Islam, period. She even argues that there are “so called moderates” who are not the enemy, but you can tell what a joke “moderate” is by the riots the Muhammed cartoons evoked. Her message, up to the last paragraph, is very clear: all Muslims are the enemy. Then she softened it–losing her backbone?–and asked for the non-extremist Muslims to help root out the terrorists in their midst. I’m not sure what her intended message was, but the one that comes through loudest and strongest is absolute intolerance of Muslims–and you would agree with me, as that is specifically what you appear to be arguing. (After her tirade and call to war against all Muslims, I found this remark of hers particularly blind and/or hypocritical: “[Democracy] is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions.")
Our enemies are extremists. They are undoubtedly fueled by Islam, but if it was only our “infidel” status that they despise, they’d equally be at war with all non-Muslim nations–which is BY FAR not the case. No…they don’t “hate our freedoms” or any of that silly rhetoric any more than they hate the freedoms of all the other nations. Why do they hate us? Because we’ve been in their countries and in their business for many decades. Because we think we know better than they do (which is a typical cultural blindness) and feel obliged to force our “superior” ways on them.
And they’re sick of it.
Our enemies in Iraq are the myriad factions that were only kept in check by Saddam’s brutal regime. There are several factions and each has the goal to rise to power. They all want us to leave. What war-fighting method are we the most unequipped to combat? Terrorism. We’re huge, powerful, rich and have technology; they have patriotism and idealism. They are small factions with no power or money. So they fight us using the only methods that give them any hope of winning: terrorist methods. And our Iraqi enemies aren’t al Qaida. They’re just people who have their own reasons for wanting us out.
d
Diana,
I have to confess that I wouldn’t take kindly to foreigners meddling in our affairs. I’d like to think I wouldn’t stoop to terror tactics, but if backed into a corner it’s hard to say what I’d do.
I’m a little amused by the results of the Palestinian election some months ago. Washington and any number of other Western governments encouraged the Palestinians to fill the power void left by Arafat democratically. And they got Hamas. ("Be careful what you wish for…") I think we might have been the second after Israel to refuse to recognize a Palestinian nation with Hamas at the helm. So much for tolerance. (I wish I could draw cartoons. I get a picture of President Bush as host of a game show telling the Palestinians they’ve won the game and their prize is to choose their own government. But when they choose Hamas they get the classic “wrong answer” honk and are told they’ve lost.)
Dave
Didn’t you see it coming, Dave? You can lead a horse to water and hold his head under, but you can’t make him drink.
I think most of us would say outright that we wouldn’t resort to terrorist tactics, but…we don’t know what we’d do. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t strap a bomb on my body and detonate it, for certain; you need one of two things to do such a thing–absolute certainty that you were doomed anyway, or the ultimate religious conviction that you’d be rewarded for your action. In this way, many of our enemies’ beliefs help them fight the way they do. However, many of our enemies also are not giving their lives for the cause, but are pointedly finding ways to attack without risking their own skins.
It’s amazing what some people can be convinced to do over a long period of time, based on suggestion, poor logic, unavoidable turns of events and environment. I read an interesting explanation of how you can’t make a hypnotized subject perform an act that violated their ethical code (such as telling a woman to kill her husband), but you could plant suggestions over a period of time that effectively altered their perception and created an exception (such as telling the same subject that her husband was cheating on her, or trying to kill her, and how easy it would be to poison his breakfast). My point is, while I insist I would never resort to terrorist actions for any reason, time and circumstances could alter my perception and set the stage for an exception to my rule. Human psychology is utterly unpredictable that way.
I get the feeling you were pretty much saying just that, actually. :) I just felt like rambling about the idea for a bit.
d
Diana,
I won’t say I saw it coming, but I wasn’t surprised either. We’ve heard that the Middle Eastern terrorists are actually a minority, and that the “Muslim in the street” wasn’t bent on the destruction of Israel. Hamas winning the election tells me that it’s a more popular issue than some people would have us believe.
As for building your own bomber, yes, I recognize that with time and the right suggestions you can convince people of pretty much anything. The advertising industry has been doing it for years. (Except for the need for that fresh vegetable wash that came out a few years ago.)
Dave
P.S. Thanks for the warning. If my wife decides to start getting up early to fix breakfast for me, I’ll call Poison Control. D.
Hmm, Interesting thread. In the Eastern Philosophy we would need to look at the existance of extremism only being as a function of the existance of moderation. ie: One couldn’t exist without the other (no cause if no effect - the whole yin/yang thing). But Christianity has their extremists as well. So I guess those of us in the middle and not so inclined to strap a IED to our chests would be considered moderates. The arguement in the original article seems to be that Christian Extremists are less likely to be… well…so extreme. I’m not sure that is valid because, as you say, we don’t know how far we will go if conditioned. Certainly the muslims have been conditioned for generations. The author of of the article herself has been negatively conditioned into her view. I agree with your arguement that ignorance and intolerance is the real enemy. Even the extremist who seeks knowledge does so for the purpose of ability, not enlightenment. Hence the danger of instruction without guidance. Power [knowledge] must be wielded with responsibility - or the developement of character is side-stepped. If it makes anyone feel better, I can say (after living closely with many Muslims) that the vast majority are moderates. I find it amusing that the average Muslim thinks the average Christian is an extremist (Infidel). Back to ignorance.
PS. Don’t worry about the Cadets - they just learn how to sleep fast. And promote wit, not cynicism (Wit corrupted). I remember laughing the hardest during times of greatest difficulty.
Later,
Rog
Roger,
Ignorance and intolerance are the enemies, as you say. And education helps alleviate both. But if I try to educate someone who is dead set on believing something that I know is wrong, am I not being intolerant also?
Dave
Excellent discussion, Rog. I’m not sure what to add, except you got me thinking about it all again. Thank you. :)
Dave, perhaps the answer to your question lies in what you believe “toleration” entails. In my opinion, you can tolerate a person’s right to believe differently from you and still try to convince them they’re wrong.
Onelook.com says toleration is:
noun: official recognition of the right of individuals to hold dissenting opinions (especially in religion)
noun: a disposition to tolerate or accept people or situations (Example: “All people should practice toleration and live together in peace")
You did phrase the question in an…interesting way, I must say. You intimated that you KNOW they are wrong in what they BELIEVE. I would suggest you are talking about, say, trying to talk sense to a person who is convinced the earth is flat, or something else that you can prove through science/logic. There’s nothing intolerant about attempting to correct false ideas. Intolerance is refusing to live in peace with a person who does not believe as you do because they do not believe as you do. If you insult them for their differences, ostracize them, insist they live according to your beliefs, declare war against them or lop off their heads–then you’re intolerant.
Sez me.
d
Rog,
On a second reading of your post, this struck me again: “I find it amusing that the average Muslim thinks the average Christian is an extremist (Infidel).”
Would you mind expanding on the idea? Obviously, Muslims believe Christians are infidels (by definition, as I understand it; as Christians believe the same of Muslims, also by definition). I’m interested in the “extremist” part.
Thanks.
d
“Infidel” to their way of thinking is not only that of not being Muslim (There is but one prophet..), but also taken quite literally. Meaning that they believe we have NO faith, No moral limitations (whether they be religious or simply ethical), and therefore few imposed values. They have been confused by the idea of religious freedom not causing moral ineptitude. They see a p**n flick and all assume that is the natual behavior of our non-muslim society. “Hi there, nice wife, can I sleep with her? - Sure!, go ahead". And we say THEY treat women as chattle (Interesting note: Muslim women are the big supporters of religion in muslim society, just as they are here). Their media absolutely forbids any representation of unethical behavior. (Back to the conditioning arguement?)
Also, in Cairo (for example a city of about 12 million) there are maybe 2-3 murders a year - Normally a domestic squabble at that. When they see there are 2-3 murders A DAY in NYC they naturally assume we are a bunch of cut-throats. I have to say Hollywood does little to mitigate this view of our society. They are actually quite surprized to find we are “moderate” - like most of them. But then, the percentage of them who have close contact with us is about the same percentage of us who have the close contact with them (By definition, I guess).
Back to Dave: One must separate the teaching of knowledge from teaching of belief. The best guru will present the distinction up front. It is up to the disciple to weigh his view (or acceptance of the belief part) based on his respect for the guru.
Later
Rog
Fascinating, Rog. I’m always intrigued by how we appear to those outside our society and why. It really makes you think about how flawed our perception of their societies probably is….
d