CSotD: They came for the Muslims, but I wasn’t Muslim …

Comments ¹⁵

1. tudza

   Smaller nation? Canada is a bit larger than the US. I suppose you mean fewer people?

2. Mike Peterson

   Indeed. A more intimate polity.
   Though if national popularity were governed by geographic mass, it would be one more reason to let Rick Perry take his freak show independent and consider cutting Sarah Palin free …

3. Dann

   A couple things:
   1) There is a significant of difference between apologizing for the acts of U.S. government agents and apologizing for independent acts of free speech within a liberal democracy. No one has the right to not be offended. Everyone should have a reasonable expectation that government agents will not commit overtly offensive acts in their pursuit of official government policy.
   Parenthetically, did we ever find where a member of the U.S. military mistreated a Qu’ran as opposed to incidents where a Muslim mistreated the Qu’ran and the mistreatment was misreported?
   2) The primary problem with your oblique reference to a “particular modern, Western society in which hard economic times sparked a great deal of social unrest and insecurity which was then exploited by demagogues in order to create scapegoats and seize way too much power” is overuse. Some backwater slaps “Under God” on their police cars and Mike Godwin gets validated. Demogogues suggest defunding the NEH/NEA in response to some publicly funded (ref. offensive acts by government agents above) offensive act (e.g. Serrano’s most famous work) and it is Godwin on parade. Suggest that our government actually enforce our immigration laws as passed on Congress and signed by multiple U.S. Presidents and….
   you get the point.
   Regards,
   Dann

4. Mike Peterson

   Simply not true, Dann. To say “Hey, we think it stinks, too. It’s not something we endorse and it’s not a point of view we are willing to stand behind” isn’t even an apology — it’s simple human decency. Moreover, the refusal to apologize — as Bush did, twice — is not a sign of strength. It’s a sign of arrogance.
   As for nobody having a right to not be offended, tell it to the crybabies who get their knickers in a knot when someone says “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.” And that’s simply a refusal to live in a multicultural society without whining and insisting on having your own way.
   This ridiculous example of poutrage doesn’t compare to the perfectly predictable response to a deliberate insult.
   I support the First Amendment, but I also support intelligent behavior and I recognize the concept of taking responsibility for the results of your actions, even if you were technically within your rights.
   Which is to say that, I know that the concept of “fighting words” has a very limited legal meaning, and that if we walk into certain neighborhoods and you choose to assert your First Amendment rights by screaming the N-word at people, absolutely nobody has the legal right to beat you up.
   But, guess what? I ain’t gonna defend to the death your right to say it. I might even start explaining to anyone who will listen that(gasp!)I don’t agree with what your saying. Heck, when it’s all over, I might even blame the victim just a little bit.
   As for drawing comparisons between the Weimar Republic and what’s happening now, it’s perfectly valid, particularly when people start posting hate messages about Muslims.
   Godwin is intended to point out the absurdity of comparing someone to Hitler because he doesn’t think PCs are as good as Macs. When someone starts spouting ethnic hatred, when people begin to have protests against the building of religious buildings, when it is suggested that members of a particular religion are uniformly violent murderers, when people deliberately misrepresent their religious teachings in order to cast the most negative possible light on them, well, yes, the parallels are there and the comparison is apt.
   But the most important thing to remember about that period in time is the large number of people who didn’t think it was so bad and who could come up with reasons why it was okay and who refused to confront the evil growing right in front of them.
   If you read the revisionist histories, everyone in France was a member of the resistance and 7/8’s of Germans were plotting some kind of coup when they weren’t smuggling Jews out of the country.
   Which, I hasten to point out, is not historically true. And Eisenhower ordered the local citizens to be brought up to the death camps so that they could never deny what had happened, and them sumsabitches deny it anyway, or sit by wringing their hands in silence while some other sumsabitches deny it, no more courageous today than they were back then.
   In light of which, the Neimoller citation is not only appropriate but extremely apt, because this is the starting point at which we all begin learning to turn our heads and pretend it isn’t happening. Or to make up tortuous explanations for why it’s okay.
   Only it’s not okay. It’s just not.

5. Mary in Ohio

   And anyone who thinks bigotry is not a factor in this year’s presidential election is not paying attention to our fellow Americans.

6. Dann

   Ya know….
   Now I feel bad about using my ‘delete’ key. I had another item in that post that seems unfortunately relevant. But it went beyond the subject at hand.
   The deleted point was that the American left has a disappointing reputation for maintaining a double standard on these kinds of issues. Sadly, it is the same double standard that is evidenced in your response.
   Christians…and keep in mind, I don’t bat for team Jesus anymore…reasonably suggest that it is appropriate and reasonable for people to use “Merry Christmas” during a season based upon Christian traditions. (“traditions” not “scripture”) And they get called crybabies.
   Or they are referred to with unique monikers such as “Christian Taliban” when they use our democratic process to do defund Planned Parenthood.
   Parenthetically, there are a fair number of Christian “leaders” that do scare me and who are eminently worthy of the “Christian Taliban” moniker.
   Perhaps I misremember, but I could swear that we went ’round over these kinds of things a few years ago. At the time, you suggested that it was inappropriate to be deferential to Christian sensibilities over such issues as their protests were proof of intolerance which needed to be exposed and expunged.
   Shouldn’t the same standard apply to Muslims?
   Or should we sweep Theo Van Gogh’s death under the rug?

7. Mike Peterson

   Dann, to suggest that Theo Van Gogh was killed by a mainstream Muslim or that his murder is emblematic of the values of the average Muslim is exactly what I mean by bigotry. A softer form of bigotry is the belief that the only holiday being celebrated in December is the Christian one.
   The “soft” form is simple insensitivity perhaps coupled with ignorance, the other is absolutely toxic — it’s hard to believe that anyone could be ignorant enough not to recognize the vast number of sane, sensible Muslims who live in nations all around the world.
   Another form of bigotry is the assumption that God speaks directly to the leaders of your religious sect and that it is, therefore, only right that your religious views be imposed upon the civil government of your country. And, since that is how the Taliban governed Afghanistan, I think it is perfectly logical and appropriate to refer to Christians with the same arrogant, intolerant desire to establish a theocracy as “Christian Taliban.”
   I realize that such a level of sarcasm will not persuade these arrogant bigots to change their direction, but that’s not the intention: The intention is to alert more sensible, reasonable people to the threat that such intolerance poses to our society.
   I mean, let’s be practical here: Nobody self-identifies as a “bigot” and I don’t believe it is a choice on the level of how to wear your hair or whether to drive a Chevy or a Ford.
   It is compulsive behavior and, while I don’t know all the factors driving that compulsion, I’m sure that insecurity and fear are part of it, plus, most likely, an undue belief that there is somewhere one objectively right system and that, accordingly, other systems are objectively wrong.
   But you can’t reason and argue a person out of bigotry any more than you can reason and argue them out of bulemia or alcoholism or any number of compulsive behaviors that it would be prejudicial to list here but which they need to recognize as toxic compulsions and want to overcome on their own. At which point, logic may help, but only to the extent that they want to conquer their irrational impulses.
   My goal, rather, is to persuade or remind people who are in touch with the basics of human decency that it is not enough to have those feelings if you remain silent in the face of people who — for whatever reasons — are saying hateful, ignorant, sociopathic things.
   I want to persuade and remind them that part of human decency is speaking up, even if you think it won’t have any impact, even if you are embarrassed to speak out, even if the bigots intimidate you with their relentless insistence and their cocksure attitude.
   And, yes, I’m certainly opposed to all forms of bigotry. But I feel responsible for the particular form of toxic bigotry that is currently twisting the values of my country and threatening our form of government and our traditional goal — however imperfectly realized it has been — of justice for all.
   Look, I can’t control what al Qaeda does, or how Israel views compliance with the Oslo Accords or what the Hutsis and Tutsis are doing to each other in Africa.
   But I feel responsible for what American bigots are doing in my name and I don’t intend to let them take over the nation without opposition.
   And I don’t believe that they are all over there, or that they are all wearing swastikas, or that they are Someone Else. Some are very close, some look much as I do, some seem like very nice people.
   That’s what makes them so dangerous.

8. Dann

   Mike, I have never suggested that Theo Van Gogh was murdered by mainstream Muslims.
   I would readily suggest that the victims of the Salafists that did murder Mr. Van Gogh are predominantly moderate Muslims. Unfortunately, the very small proportion of Muslims terrorists have an undue amount of influence in their part of the world.
   They seem to be most willing to put the world to the sword in pursuit of their ideology. Their first victims are their peaceful neighbors who are forced to choose between their moderate beliefs and the terrorist’s idea of what makes a “good Muslim”. The moderate Muslims…the kind that marched in opposition to the murders in Benghazi…want peace and democracy.
   Just as we defend the principle of being able to say “Jesus wasn’t white” or “there is no God/god” without having to fear some rabid Klansman running for his hood, cross, and torch, we need to defend the principle of being able to say things that Muslims might not want to hear without a Muslim terrorist (being separate from the larger population of moderate Muslims) running for his bomb vest.
   It isn’t an easy war to fight. I think I’ve said that from the beginning. This joker and his “movie” (scare quotes being appropriate in this case) aren’t the most helpful things in the world.
   But his right to produce that movie…as with the right of others to burn American flags in protest…must be sacrosanct. Any other option would suggest that we are being more than a little selective as to when we display our values.
   B/R,
   Dann

9. Nostalgic

   Dann, truly, these “Christians” go far far beyond simply “suggesting” that it’s “appropriate and reasonable for people to use ‘Merry Christmas’ ” ; language whipping up congregant anger about a “war on Christmas,” threats of boycotts, etc.
   As for the sacrosanct nature of free speech, right on, but it contains and even depends on the right to repudiate someone else’s speech. Repudiating isn’t apologizing, it’s informing. Too often, in the war on Christmas garbage, in the gay rights arguments, and in this case, I hear a complaint that to oppose what the speaker/writer/filmmaker says is to oppose his right to say it. Uh-uh.
   Nobody “apologized for American values,” and no double standard was applied. Some people *exercised* American values by stating that the film is misguided and not US government thought or policy. They were in personal danger, tho I couldn’t care less, even if they hadn’t been. I’m not in danger, and i can call the filmmaker and the creeps in Florida consummate assholes who ought to be repudiated, without this being any kind of selectivity in the free speech values I support.
   The Muslims marching and holding signs for publication by world media, repudiating the attacks, are exercising free speech at a level of personal risk we can’t imagine here. If they can repudiate their extremists, I see no reason why we can’t exercise that same freedom.

10. Dann

    Hi Ruth,
    I think we are blowing by my point.
    If we shouldn’t respond to Christian complaints about a “war on Christianity”, then we equally shouldn’t respond to Muslims with similar concerns. Or if we ought to be considerate of Muslim sensibilities, we should be equally considerate of Christian concerns.
    As an aside, I saw something that lit my fire a little today. Little Debbie has “Fall Party Cakes” that are all orange/brown/yellow. This “war on Halloween” bothers me as well. (FTR, that isn’t sarcasm)
    I agree that the “movie” in question is being deliberately offensive…even if it does tell one or two truths…and that it is fine to repudiate it.
    I also happen to believe that at some point, Muslims are going to have to learn the same lesson that Christians did. That a pluralistic, open, liberal democracy requires a bit of restraint on the part of sane people. You don’t go killing people over perceived slights…no matter how much they might have earned it.
    We…the US…have been blowing by these kinds of “teachable moments” for most of the last 12 years. Mr. Bush did it, too.
    B/R,
    Dann

11. ddc

    What’s a mainstream Muslim?
    My question is not rhetorical. I don’t know the answer, but I think a lot depends on it.

12. Mike Peterson

    To start with, I don’t know the exact numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of Muslims don’t live in the Middle East. But, even there, the average Muslim goes to work, comes home, cooks dinner, whatever. Other than praying several times a day and not drinking alcohol or eating pork, and, if a woman, possibly (but not necessarily) wearing a head covering of some sort, the average Muslim is little different than the average anyone else.
    In some countries, they may live a more conservative lifestyle than the average American of any religion, but that may have more to do with where they live than their religion. For example, there are Jews and Hindus who self-segregate by sex, not to the extremes of very conservative Muslims in very conservative societies, but close enough that it is cultural more than religious. (And if you were on the street even in Tehran you would see women in Western dress and makeup with cell phones and mp3 players, etc.)
    And if Kareem Abdul Jabbar has ever been on a camel, I’m sure it was for a souvenir photo at the Great Pyramid. Ditto with Muslims in Surinam or Malaysia or Bulgaria or the Congo.
    Which is why I get offended at people who insist that the extremists are the norm. Even within the countries where they create problems — even in Iran, where the fundamentalists have hijacked the government — they are not.
    As said above, there are extremists in all religions, including the screwballs who get bent out of shape over someone offering a greeting that takes in both Christmas and New Years and possibly Chanukah, too. And the screwballs who think that, because their ancestors maybe sort of possibly lived on a plot of land 2,000 years ago, they can kick off the people whose ancestors have most certainly lived there pretty much ever since.
    But to assume that the extremes are the norm is bigotry. To advocate policies that assume it is, itself, extremism.
    And the counter-argument is not that some Muslims fit the bigot’s stereotype.

13. Woodrowfan

    Mike, you’re right, a majority of Muslims are not “Arab” or middle eastern. Indonesia is the largest (by population) Muslim country. Nor are all Arabs Muslim, many are Christian. But certain parties in the US seem to think that all Muslims are crazed Arab killers and visa versa. Of course the media doesn’t help because angry street mobs make exciting TV so that’s all the US public sees.

14. Mike Peterson

    Seems like a good time to offer this, which I did in the wake of 9/11 with roughly the same impact as bailing water with a pitchfork. But it remains a good look at how widespread and diverse Islam is.
    http://www.weeklystorybook.com/random_resources/2011/09/the-diverse-world-of-islam.html

15. Dann

    Let’s see. As far as where they live, it depends on how you slice things. There is no commonly accepted definition of “Middle East”; a European convention imposed on the region. However, this map is a pretty good representation.
    I don’t know that I have enough personal experience to define an “average” Muslim, but Michael Totten has travelled widely in the region and is a pretty respected reporter.
    Based on my modest experiences (as well as my friends and family) in the region and in the US, an “average” Muslim has the same life objectives that everyone else has. They want to do an honest day’s work and get an honest day’s pay. They want to provide for their families. They want to live moral lives. And they generally are willing to live in peace with those that are similarly minded.
    If we use “Jersey Shore” and the Amish as relative American reference points, the average for Muslims tends to skew a bit towards the Amish end of things. But not by a lot on a global average.
    There are people that identify as Muslim even though they don’t regularly attend services or behave in a way that conforms with that faith. There are Christians that are the same way.
    The problem is, IMHO, at the extreme end of things. The closest analogy I can come up with would be the KKK at the peak of its’ influence in the 1950s and 1969s. Islamic extremists are just as willing to kill to force “average Muslims” to comply with their more extreme interpretation of Islam. This problem is compounded by the fact that Islam represents not only a spiritual path but is also a path for official governance. Islamic extremists possess influence from northern Africa to southern Asia that exceeds the best/worst possessed by the KKK.
    And finally, some Middle Eastern Muslim cultures clings to the notion of women as chattel. This is a reflection of Islam, but as millions of Muslims living in the west will attest, it is not the sort of thing that most modern Muslims still believe.
    Of course, I’m not an expert. So my perceptions might miss a few things. But I believe the above is a reasonably accurate thumbnail response to the question.
    Regards,
    Dann