Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not always a fan of Sullivan, but he fucking nails it here: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...bama-go-wrong/

TM

It's a good piece. I think I agree with most of it, except my already stated belief that he really failed on privacy issues, which Sullivan seems inclined to cut him slack on. He also notes another issue where I part company with Obama (and most of the country): the Wall Street bailout. I don't believe any company is too big to fail. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone to agree with me on that, either. But other than those two points, you're right. He nailed it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

When people refer to radical Lutheranism, is that meant to be a reference to the Oslo attacks? Or things like abortion doc shootings?

I don't know which Oslo attacks you are referring to. The abortion doc shootings weren't by Lutherans, I think, but by Evangelicals, no?

What would your guess be about how I view Evangelicals? Or Southern Baptists?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Sounds like not India either, but still Indonesia, Morocco, etc.

There is a tension here: painting the Muslim world with a broad brush is totally idiotic, as the differences between religious violence in Bosnia, where a bunch of Christians were committing genocide against Muslims, Nigeria, where religious violence is overlaid on tribal violence, and Afghanistan, where the growth of Islamic fundamentalism occurred in the course of a long occupation by a foreign power, is extreme and there are clearly very different root causes. On the other hand, there are specific things that have resulted in the spread of violent political Islam, such as the existence of the annual Hadj providing a place and an opportunity for radical Islamic groups to meet, swap war stories and bomb recipes, and talk religion and munitions, and that do unify the Islamic world. To understand the reasons for violence and the spread of it, it helps to look at specifics. But foreign occupation and intervention play a big role in many of the areas where violence is widespread, not just Islam. In Iran, where political Islam first emerged, a very clear major cause was the repression practiced by the Shah with very substantial and open help from us.

But, let's pause. If we're really focused on truly atrocious violence, let's think about where genocide has occurred over the last century. Europe, Christians against Jews. Europe, Christians against Muslims. Cambodia, Buddhists against Buddhists. Uganda, Christians against Christians. Armenia, Muslims against Christians. Am I missing something here? What religion shows up most on that list?

Thanks for the education. Obviously, I would never, ever, ever suggest that there was something poisonous in German culture that contributed to the Holocaust. Nor would I ever suggest that Germans should have looked to fix that poisonous culture, by doing things like creating innumerable Holocaust memorials, making Holocaust denial a crime, teaching schoolchildren about the crimes committed by Germans, etc.

Since I would never, ever, ever say anything like that about German culture in the 1930s and 1940s -- after all, what really happened is that some people, who happened to be German, killed a bunch of Jews -- I certainly cannot say anything to suggest that maybe Muslims, broadly speaking, need to look at their own cultures and teaching. It just happens to be that some guys, who happen to be Muslim, just like to blow shit up.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It was a serious point, if a silly question. Look at the way that Israel is comfortable using military force against Palestinians, or the way that Protestants committed atrocities during the Thirty Years War. (Culturally, those are very different examples -- which just shows that a reductive focus on religion leaves out a lot of important culture.)

I do not have a reductive focus on religion. I do believe, however, that in many Muslim countries, religion is a dominant factor in shaping the culture of the country. It is generally much less so in the West.

Your point about Israelis doesn't work, because so much of that is based on the situation that Israel is in. I would be as comfortable as the "average" Israeli using military force against Palestinians if faced by the same circumstances.

Your point about Protestants in the 30 Years War does work. And I believe that both religion (the fanaticism of it, for both Protestants and Catholics, at that time) and other aspects of the culture (a whole lot less respect for humanity in the 17th century) contributed to that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think I'm the one who keeps referring to Lutheranism. Out of his interest in the Civil War, Ta-Nahesi Coates read C.V. Wedgwood's history of The Thirty Years War, and his blogging about it made me read it too. Protestants and Catholics did a lot of really awful things to each other. Anyone who wants to talk about different religions and their propensity to violence needs to seriously grapple with that history.

You have to grapple with that history if you talk about propensity to violence being inherent in a religion, but that isn't what I'm talking about (nor TM, nor others, I believe). See my "Tea Party" analogy.

Is your point that Islam today is comparable to Christianity in the 17th century? Because that's the only point you seem to be making, and I could well agree with it (except I think that, at least vs. 17th-C Catholicism, Islam is less monolithic).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you're more into terrorism than war, of course, the Christians who ran the KKK are probably the most prolific of American terrorists, and they are still active in many places.

This reminds me of the discussion we had a few weeks ago, stemming from the Brit who said (or whose words were interpreted as) you always have to negotiate with terrorists. I see the KKK as terrorists and would not think that anyone would say negotiations were called for.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But pointing to "culture" as an explanation isn't an explanation -- it's a placeholder. I agree with your response to Wonk, but just correlating that priests are Catholic and that they abused children isn't really an explanation either, it's a black box with "Catholic" on the label.

I'm using this as a jumping-off point, due to the phrase "response to Wonk."

I think I made the mistake of greatly oversimplifying things and others have made the mistake of thinking I am overly simple.

It isn't the case that there were a few bad men who happened to be Catholic, but it is true that the actions of those priests were not an inherent by-product of them being Catholic, and consequently, we should all feel justified in saying "Oh, he's catholic, so he must be a pedophile."

People do evil things. Often, they use religion as a screen to justify their evil behavior. Examples include the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the enslavement of Africans by Christian traders. In the same vein, it is equally wrong to point to Islam, even in the Middle East, and say "Oh, they're Muslim, so they must be all about killing anyone who isn't."

It isn't the culture, the religion, or anything else as simple as that. People in the Middle East are feeling alienated, helpless, and they see no way out. Some evil motherfuckers say to them, "You have lost your way; return to Allah and fight the infidels and you will be rewarded with power and wealth." Those people are preying on the weak and disaffected for the sake of increasing their own power and influence.

Someone pointed to Tim McVeigh earlier, and used him as an example of how we Americans, we Christian Americans, are different and somehow better. Bullshit. McVeigh was supported and revered by the militia movement here, which was born out of the White Power movement. The fact that they are outliers here is not a testament to our moral superiority. It is merely a result of the fact that the American millennial movements are still in their infancy, and largely limited to the poor, the criminal, and the rural populations. Give them time. They are growing in numbers and gaining adherents every day.

Evil always hides behind God. It always looks for scapegoats. It always points the finger of blame at some Other. I am disturbed that the façade seems to be sticking too well here. Islamic State is no more about Islam than the Aryan Brotherhood is about the holiness of White purity. It's about a bunch of thugs and crazies who have found a rallying cry, and the few really evil power-hungry people at the top of the pyramid who feed into their fear and give them a way to feel less alienated.

That's why crazies in the US, Canada, and the UK gravitate toward radical Islam as a means of giving meaning to the voices in their heads. And it's why there will always be apologists for the evil and the crazy who point to God as their inspiration.

Religion, not patriotism, is the last refuge of scoundrels. We all know this. And yet, there is still a reluctance to look for the men behind the curtain. That is what I found so disheartening. We all know better than to buy the lie, whether we call it culture, or religion, or anything else. And yet...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Is your point that Islam today is comparable to Christianity in the 17th century? Because that's the only point you seem to be making, and I could well agree with it (except I think that, at least vs. 17th-C Catholicism, Islam is less monolithic).

That's an interesting point, and I think there's a parallel between the introduction of the printing press in Europe and the effect of information technology in a lot of undeveloped countries. And both are places which hadn't had the industrial revolution -- lots of peasants, essentially.

I guess I think people (not sure who anymore -- having a hard time tracking the posts) are overstating the importance of Islam as a cause of political violence and extremism. As GGG points out, there are an awful lot of Islamic countries and many of them don't seem to have much political violence or terrorism, and that would seem to suggest that in the others, it's not Islam that's the cause.

When you look at individuals, as I was suggesting with the Ottawa shooter, it's not clear to me that Islam is the cause of their propensity to extremism, rather than just a manifestation of it. And of course there's a serious attribution problem in the way our press covers these things. When Tim McVeigh blows up the federal building in OKC, no one attributes it to Christianity, but when a disaffected person who is Muslim does something of the sort, we are quick to assume that's the cause.

If you (not you specifically) want to make the case that Islam is to blame, I want to see a much thicker explanation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Thanks for the education. Obviously, I would never, ever, ever suggest that there was something poisonous in German culture that contributed to the Holocaust. Nor would I ever suggest that Germans should have looked to fix that poisonous culture, by doing things like creating innumerable Holocaust memorials, making Holocaust denial a crime, teaching schoolchildren about the crimes committed by Germans, etc.

Since I would never, ever, ever say anything like that about German culture in the 1930s and 1940s -- after all, what really happened is that some people, who happened to be German, killed a bunch of Jews -- I certainly cannot say anything to suggest that maybe Muslims, broadly speaking, need to look at their own cultures and teaching. It just happens to be that some guys, who happen to be Muslim, just like to blow shit up.

You're welcome for the education, but you get a C- for comprehension. You may want to note that I was very specific about one particular way Islam as an institution may contribute to the violence. But I was specific, not spouting an unsubstantiated prejudice about it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Your point about Israelis doesn't work, because so much of that is based on the situation that Israel is in. I would be as comfortable as the "average" Israeli using military force against Palestinians if faced by the same circumstances.

And in the same situation as the Palestinians you might be as comfortable as the "average" Palestinian in using military force against Israelis, right?

Why is the problem in any given Muslim country that is facing violence not specific to that situation? Pick a country, any country, and let's talk about the degree to which religion is a contributing factor there. In any case, there are going to be multiple causes. I think you know that, but maybe you need more schooling.

In that spirit, please write a post where, in 250 words or less, you discuss the role of Christianity in British imperialism in the Middle East. Please focus on no more than three of the various massacres carried out by the Brits in the 20th century.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Somewhere up there, TM focused a bit on fundamentalism, and I think that is right. Fundamentalism of all sorts causes bad shit - there are Buddhist fundamentalists you do not want to deal with. Islam is not the only religion to experience a wave of fundamentalism, but it has experienced a wave of it and, perhaps of more concern to us, that fundamentalism has been tied up in anti-Western sentiment, to a great extent because it grew in reaction to some of our friends doing bad shit. Maybe part of the problem here isn't just Islamic fundamentalism, but the fact that we get included in its targets.

No one complains about Hinduvatta in the US because they target mostly Muslims. No one complains about fundamentalist terrorists in China or Japan here, because they don't target Americans. And American fundamentalists may target us, but they don't scare us as much because they are our neighbors and we like playing with guns, too. And we sure as shit don't care much about Jewish fundamentalists yelling "Death to Arabs" in Jerusalem because, well, they target mostly Muslims whom they simultaneously attack and label terrorists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Somewhere up there, TM focused a bit on fundamentalism, and I think that is right. Fundamentalism of all sorts causes bad shit - there are Buddhist fundamentalists you do not want to deal with. Islam is not the only religion to experience a wave of fundamentalism, but it has experienced a wave of it and, perhaps of more concern to us, that fundamentalism has been tied up in anti-Western sentiment, to a great extent because it grew in reaction to some of our friends doing bad shit. Maybe part of the problem here isn't just Islamic fundamentalism, but the fact that we get included in its targets.

No one complains about Hinduvatta in the US because they target mostly Muslims. No one complains about fundamentalist terrorists in China or Japan here, because they don't target Americans. And American fundamentalists may target us, but they don't scare us as much because they are our neighbors and we like playing with guns, too. And we sure as shit don't care much about Jewish fundamentalists yelling "Death to Arabs" in Jerusalem because, well, they target mostly Muslims whom they simultaneously attack and label terrorists.

Fundamentalism is, necessarily, a reaction to modernity and change. It's an effort to return to a simpler time and set of answers, and that requires a rejection of what has come since. No one thinks of the Amish, e.g., as fundamentalists because they don't make such a point of rejecting what's recent -- they have just kept doing their thing.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why is the problem in any given Muslim country that is facing violence not specific to that situation? Pick a country, any country, and let's talk about the degree to which religion is a contributing factor there. In any case, there are going to be multiple causes. I think you know that, but maybe you need more schooling.

I do not need schooling on that, but you are sadly unable to read what I, or TM, say on this without thinking to yourself "he said all Muslims are bad and that the only thing that makes them bad is that they are Muslim."

Given that, I think it's time to put this discussion to bed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hayek's message for victorious Republicans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Somewhere up there, TM focused a bit on fundamentalism, and I think that is right. Fundamentalism of all sorts causes bad shit - there are Buddhist fundamentalists you do not want to deal with. Islam is not the only religion to experience a wave of fundamentalism, but it has experienced a wave of it and, perhaps of more concern to us, that fundamentalism has been tied up in anti-Western sentiment, to a great extent because it grew in reaction to some of our friends doing bad shit.

I'm not so sure it's the anti-Western sentiment as much as the, well, ancient character of radical Islam's worst offenses. Beheadings, slavery, stonings... These are things radical Christianity got over a long ago, becoming far more subtle in its crimes against humanity. It's hard to look at a group behaving as the Taliban did, or Isis now is, and not reflexively conclude the texts they profess to follow literally must be the problem because... Well, what else but an ancient text would cause such ancient forms of barbarism?

Maybe part of the problem here isn't just Islamic fundamentalism, but the fact that we get included in its targets.

Moderate Muslims are not lumped into the problem. No rational critic, including Maher, takes the position individual people adhering to a benign faith are complicit in the perversions of its small minority of mentally ill followers.