Not sure what you're talking about. There is an article by the guy at the beginning of the thread, in case you missed it. He explains his position there. So if you want to extrapolate and reference his work, you have a sample to use. My suggestion was to use his words when referencing his words, rather than a short summary by a third party. It isn't necessary to buy his book to do that. Of course, if your extrapolation is based on the title of his book then one might suggest THAT is silly. The whole 'can't judge a book by its cover' thing comes to mind. As I previously indicated, I don't see him saying we should offer up gays or unwed mothers to Islamic fundamentalists. Your quotes from Publishers Weekly, while quite scholarly, do not seem to prove anything about that one way or the other.
I will take this to heart. Using the same logic you can no longer reference any comments by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unless you read them in the original Farsi, right? I mean, you wouldn't want to talk about his words unless they came out of his mouth, not filtered by a second party, no mater how scholarly. In case you missed it, the whole article is a response to criticism of his book. The following, in fact, are the first four sentences of said article which deal exclusively with said book. And you think it is odd that I am referencing his book in discussing his comments? I find it odd that you think the article and the book aren't intrinsically connected and part of the same discussion.
There are many Muslims who feel that Western Liberalism is the next ideological opponent after Communism. That alone doesn't incite people to blow themselves up. Before terror movements spread outward, most were confined to their own countries. Terrorists were fighting their own oppressive governments in order to overthrow them and mold the public in their ideology. Decades of failure and frustration have led them to believe that we're the source of these governments power. Our liberal ideals helps the recruitment angle because the discontents in the public have synonymized their government as puppets to ours. This is despite the brutality of these authoritarian regimes. Understanding terrorism is a messy endeavor, and I can't get how one giant book can disregard the foreign policy angle while writing out facts with a straight face.
I've only read the thread title and glanced at the first page so I apologize if this has been brought up before. Denash D'Souza is an idiot and I don't know why people take him seriously. I once heard him on NPR say that overpopulation wasn't a problem since you could fit everyone in the world in Texas. My internet time is limited so forgive me for not elaborating more.
wait..what?? so getting to the root of the problem is a mistake?? we should ignore it? i must be completely misunderstanding what we're all talking about. i really don't feel like i'm participating in the same discussion.
I'm not saying to ignore it, I just don't think that we need to try to find out why people don't like us or hate us when there's millions of them who feel that way about us for different reasons. Trying to focus or pinpoint it on one specific reason or related set of reasons won't really help us because even if we are able to adress the problems of 5 million radical Muslims, all it takes is one or two guys who feel angry at us because they think that subways are the work fo the devil. These people all have very different reasons, if we tried to get to the root of every single one of them, we'll wind up whipping ourselves into a useless frenzy.
I'm somewhat perturbed max, that you seem to be defending these writings. This disucssion, and the author's disturbing commentary is a direct attack on tolerance. Tolerance and acceptance of ideologies, viewpoints, and lifestyles outside the constrained boundaries set forth by religious dogma. What he is advocating is appeasement. That maybe our liberal western society should "throwback" to Hawthorne-esque puritanism. He is also advocating a childish blame-game. That it's not the fault of god-fearing conservatives, it must be those liberal hippes and the fags that caused all this. Although you are correct in that there is probably a similarity between the islamic fundamentalists and fundamentalist christians with respect to moral guidelines, christians have (albeit with great disgust) accepted that societies are more than just communes built around a church, and that diversity makes a nation, and every individual within it, better equipped to understand themselves, and stronger in the face of dangerously narrow-minded enemies. Saying that D'Souza is an idiot does not mean that one is therefore pro-gays, pro-abortion, or pro-whatever. It means that you recognize the basest rights of man to live free, and unconstrained - even if that means he is living a "life of sin". It means you accept the *gasp* liberal notion that collectivism is an unacceptable way to live. More importantly, this "blame-game" apporach ignores that modern chrisitians have already managed to civilly change their point of view. Why is it that these idiot fanatics are suddenly incapable where the whole of western society was? Why is it that everytime an opportunity arises, it seems that religious and socially conservative folks seek to relive some past glory days of theological facism? It seems dangerously close to tacit support of the terrorist point-of-view. My two cents.
This is how I know we're not having the same conversation! Because I'm not intending to do what is perturbing you! I'm fine with collectivism. I do NOT want theocracy. And I didn't see that he was calling for us to move towards some Victorian society. I'm just saying, I can understand the notion that says these people who hold on to this very intense, strict religion would feel threatened by our creeping culture. Not that I prefer their culture to ours!!!! BELIEVE ME, I DON'T!!! I'm certainly not calling for an attack on tolerance. But I do think that is a huge part of what Islamic extremists hate about the United States. And just because I think THEY think that...doesn't mean I hate that. And doesn't mean that I think we should transform our culture to become some puritanical state. Believe me, there is nothing I want less than that.
understood Max, and I agree with all of your post except this: The other issue that I think should be briefly mentioned is that this "culture-creep" is not directly correlated to the "liberal-ness" of a culture. America spreads to where the money is - and usually won't settle for a "no thanks" if the quantity of money is large enough.
I completely disagree. I've read that it would cost somewhere around $9 billion to provide clean water to the entire world. Americans spend $9 billion the day after Thanksgiving. What do we value? What do we count as priority? It's much more difficult to kill people who are feeding you...who are building schools for you. Seems like a good place to start. Who we are is very important. What we do is an indication of who we are. "The war against terror is bound up in the war against poverty. We have to do more than just fight them when they come after us. We have to do more. We have to engage with these nations to remove the causes of terrorism, to remove the hopelessness and the poverty and the despair… " -- Colin Powell
ok..and i agree. look, i have no problem with liberal politics, in particular. so i guess we need to be clear about how we're defining liberal. because even the most conservative person in the US would look odd to those who adhere to radical Islam. an episode of SpongeBob would be heresy. help me understand better what you mean.
I just don't see it as a big deal. People are going to hate us no matter what. The Muslims have had a centuries old history or animosity with the West. The only difference is that with planes and the Internet, the World has gotten a lot smaller and now those radicals can wreak havoc with their bombs instead of having to gather up an army to invade the infidels. This anger towards us is not anything new, it's been there for centuries.
the intensity of it is VERY new. particularly in places like the UK...and throughout Europe. we're the big kid on the street...and there always be resentment for that. mostly because, the big kid usually uses it power to get what it wants. we can absolutely alleviate the problem, i believe.
But then what you are saying is kind of against what the author said. he blames the issue on their hatred of our freedoms and what we do with them, while most liberals blame it on our foreign policy towards the Mideast, which you seem to agree with.
Great post Max (#52 re:hotballa)! That is exaclty what most of America seems unwilling to understand. As to the above post, what I was saying is that the "tolerance" of America towards abortion, gay rights, men and women dancing, etc... is not the driver for culture creep. "D'Souza asserts that what they really hate is our licentious culture." Which is fine and proabably true, but D'Doofus than conveniantly forgets to point out that said licentiousness is not being forced upon them simply because were arrogant liberal twirps, deadset on destroying age-old religious societies, but because we take our culture with us when we go off and make money in every corner of the world. The culture is not itself a driver for the expansion the fanatical muslim world hates. That's just money - money that, ironically, enabled almost all the backwater muslim nations to get out of the stone-age. And that's where it really gets complicated: Since poverty is an enabler of terrorism, one would assume this foreign policy is a good thing. But if the money is funneled to only a few rich families, the poor in these nations can still be easily manipulated by religious nutballs, who (in more gorgeous irony) use our cultural identity (specifally, their hatred of it) to solidfy their power base. However, unless America keeps it that way, we won't make half as much money since a country with a firm middle class would never let itself be as exploited as american companies would like. Man I could go on about this... Yeah yeah, I rant away.
i'm not agreeing with the author entirely. that's what i've been trying to say over and over again. first, that i have no idea who this guy is or what his history is as a writer. second, that i think he's at least partially right...that our culture is threatening to people who hold on to radical Islam.
bah well I really don't care either wya, you know how I feel about the whole debate in the first place. I'm willing to bet half the 9/11 suiciders thought we were heretical infidels who allowed our women to wear short skirts, and the other half were angry at us because of our foreign policy, and there were probably a few who got pissed off at a SpongeBob episode.
