I’m so proud of myself. I added FARK to the social bookmarks bar at the bottom of each post. I added the following code to the site.xml file:
<site>
<name>Fark</name>
<url>http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/edit.pl?new_url={link}&
new_comment={title}&new_comment={link}&
linktype=Misc</url>
<img>fark.png</img>
<key>fark</key>
</site>
watch out for the linebreaks in the code!
and I grabbed the icon from: NewCyberTech.com
Halloween is a holiday in the United States of America when women dress like sluts and men dress like popular evil people. Sure there are variations, but that’s the rule of thumb you can go by nowadays.
A big to-do was made by several conservative bloggers about the UPenn Student who dressed as a Jihadist and play-acted the part to the hilt. Their concern annoyed me, but I figured it was over-sensitivity to the subject. If you immerse yourself in the global Jihad, expect to see evil in everything.
I am, like any sane person, against the Jihadists and keep my eyes open about their actions. However, Dhimmi Watch went overboard on its assessment of the costume and charade:
“[...] President Gutmann’s first apology was the sincere one: the young man has the right to wear a mass-murderer costume and we have the right to say we don’t like it. Never mind the logical extension: mass murderers have the right to kill us and we have the right to say we don’t like it.”
Say what? You get all this from someone acting the part of evil on Halloween? Nuh-uh, that’s bullshit.
To say that by allowing the student to wear the costume we condone mass murder is akin to saying actors who portray bad guys are, by logical extension, condoning bad behavior. It’s an absurd assertion; a leap of “logic” that no rational person can make.
I praise the work of Robert Spencer, but he must realize that sometimes a costume is just a costume.
While Charles Krauthammer’s point of view is understandable, he’s not exactly correct when his subtitle reads, “Borat gets anti-Semitism wrong.“
In the article, Mr. Krauthammer writes:
Sacha Baron Cohen, the creator of Borat, revealed his purpose for doing that in a rare out-of-character interview he granted Rolling Stone in part to counter charges that he was promoting anti-Semitism. On the face of it, this would be odd, given that Cohen is himself a Sabbath-observing Jew. His defense is that he is using Borat’s anti-Semitism as a “tool” to expose it in others. And that his Arizona bar stunt revealed, if not anti-Semitism, then “indifference” to anti-Semitism. And that, he maintains, was the path to the Holocaust.
Whoaaaa. Does he really believe such rubbish? Can a man that smart (Cambridge, investment banker and now brilliant filmmaker) really believe that indifference to anti-Semitism and the road to the Holocaust are to be found in a country and western bar in Tucson?
Whoaaaa. Does Charles Krauthammer really believe that systematic dehumanization of a religion or race doesn’t have an effect on the psyche?
Charles goes on to say that Islamic and European nations are far worse than the U.S. in anti-Semitic sentiment, and he’s right. But he also claims that the anti-Semitism Sacha Baron Cohen reveals in others through his Borat character is just a joke, nothing more; that Sacha should look elsewhere to prove anti-Semitism is the path to holocaust because here in the U.S.we know better. Krauthammer points to Presidents Truman and Nixon, who joked about Jews, and who helped Israel, to show that anti-Semitism in the United States isn’t a path to the holocaust.
Slick, but not true.
While jokes about race and religion may be in poor taste, they can still be humorous within context. I’m sure the Rwandan Hutu joked excessively and derisively about the Tutsi before slaughtering them by the hundreds of thousands. Then again, joking about the intelligence of a blonde won’t lead us in the same direction because we all know that there are smart blondes. It depends on the intelligence of the one who laughs, I suppose. If you hear only dumb blonde jokes, experience only dumb blondes on TV, and have no experience with meeting smart blondes, then where does that leave you? Your world-view becomes “Blondes Are Dumb.”
It’s not the joke that makes the anti-Semitism, it’s the laughing chorus afterwards.
So a joke can be just a joke, and cooler heads can prevail when real matters about anti-Semitism come about, but take note of the public opinion. After all, Michael Richards can yell “Nigger!” and everybody throws a hissy fit, but when he yelled “Dirty Jew!” in April (2006), not a peep was heard. (There’s debate about whether Richards is Jewish or not.)
When it’s easier to laugh at a Jewish joke than it is to laugh at a Black joke, what does that say about the attitude of the society?
Is the U.S. on the verge of a holocaust? Not likely. Will it idly sit by if something were to happen to Jews in other countries? That’s more and more likely.
And we should never forget the great quote from Martin Niemöller about standing idly by while others around you get slaughtered:
“In Germany they came first for the Communist, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
In the article ““Muslim Feminists” in NY want to start Qur’an council“, Jihad Watch quotes from Reuters:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Muslim feminists from around the world vowed to create the first women’s council to interpret the Koran and overcome two stereotypes about their religion: Muslims are terrorists and Islam oppresses women.
The United States of America has a proud tradition of freedom from religious persecution as a tenet of our society. No matter if you worship trees or fairies or imaginary men in the sky, it’s your choice, and no one can harm you on your basis of belief.
A secular government allows people to make their own choice — to self-determine — on how or who to worship, if you worship at all. A secular government is freedom from religious persecution because it allows anyone to step away from a religion if they find it doesn’t agree with their sensibilities any more, and to not fear reprisals from others of the religion one leaves. The force of the faithful will be met with the force of the government, set up to protect its citizens from unwarranted harm (can’t insulate people, after all; risk is part of living).
So what happens when the belief of one religion goes against the supposed norms of the society one lives in? Here is where secular government needs to step aside; it’s that freedom of religion thing.
If a woman wants to be led by a man in Shari’a fashion, she should be allowed to determine that course herself. If she doesn’t want it, she should be allowed to step away from the religion and go free. The choice is hers.
Further, if that woman chooses the path of Jihad, and chooses to agress against others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, then she should expect to meet Allah sooner than she may’ve wanted to, based on the accuracy of the aim of a citizen of the secular society.
So, if you want to wear your burkha or nijab, go right ahead. Don’t expect people to treat you with openness, though, since you’re covering yourself according to your faith. And if you raise your children to worship the Jihadi way, expect to be heartbroken when someone kills that child — following your teachings — who doesn’t think they should be attacked because they don’t believe what you believe.
The sword is double-edged and very sharp. While a government might equivocate, its individual citizens aren’t usually very tolerant of being attacked and killed.
**********************
Speaking of raising children in a religious manner, this has become a very tricky subject to broach in this society. Saying or doing anything that might be construed as “harm” to a child is something that can land a person in jail.
I guess I’ll dare the wrath of the masses and try to — as best as possible — speak my mind.
Instead of diving into the sexual aspect brought up in the Jihad Watch article and the Qur’an, I’ll try to focus on more general issues. One issue that comes to mind is the faith healing aspect that surfaced a few years ago. If I recall, a child — or some children — died because the parents believed in faith healing and not taking medication or surgery.
Many people were troubled by this, and I can understand their frustration and shock at someone not trying to help their child the best way they know possible. But that’s the crux of religion, and family in particular: it’s not up to you to decide what’s best for one family, or how they practice their religion. Even if their children die, even if they kill themselves, as long as they don’t harm you or your family, then you have no say in the matter. Their children are theirs to raise as good or as bad as they see fit.
I know, it’s harsh. You scream and rail inside, wanting to save those poor children from a life not as good as what you think they deserve. Doesn’t everyone have the right to life?
Sure, they have the right to life by being born. They also have the right to death because they will die, sooner or later. They have the right to live as they choose, or how their parents choose until they reach the age of majority.
Let’s flip the scrip and have them impose their will on your children. You want to take your children to a doctor because they’re sick, but you will have to do it clandestinely or you will be put in jail and your children will be taken away, or you can call upon your faith — the accepted course of action — and hope things turn out okay. Now, if your child dies on the operating table, the faith healers are vindicated in their beliefs, expounding about how dangerous such a practice can be, and not only do you lose your child by trying to help them the best way you thought you should, but you now have to go to jail for it. If your child lives through the operation, and it’s found out that the child was indeed secretly whisked away to a doctor *gasp* for help, then your child is safe, you feel good in that you did the right thing, but you still go to jail. Sure, your child is alive, but your family is broken because someone else didn’t like your personal course of action, and you imposed that sacreligious action upon your children (how DARE you?!).
Sure, it sounds ridiculous to most people, but if you can impose your will on someone else, but they can’t impose their will on you, then there’s something inherently wrong with your philosophy. Sometimes, you just shouldn’t meddle. Individual wills should not be imposed on others based on personal belief. Try to convince them with dialogue, certainly, but using physical force on someone so they conform to your beliefs is anathema. This philosophy should be in your heart: leave me alone.
So while we can consider how the treatment of other people’s children may be a tragedy, if you aren’t willing to have them impose their will on you and your children, then you need to leave them alone.
The only time you should get involved is when something physically affects you. There are plenty of issues out there affecting you right now that you should be involved in, but how the Joneses — or Abdullahs — raise their children isn’t one of them.
Now go hug your kid(s) if you’re glad you have them.
Update 20061201: I may be using poor examples or analogies here… something’s eating at me about this for days and I can’t put my finger on it… will have to revisit later.
