Leave It To NRO…
And Andy McArthy not to fan any flames in the wake of brutal attacks. McArthy pushes,
First, the question on everyone’s mind, the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room that we are supposed to ignore or be ostrasized from polite society is: Was the gunman (or gunmen) Muslim? Under the circumstances of the war against us by Islamist terrorists, it is bizarre that this perfectly natural question can’t be asked.
Oh, I don’t know Andy, maybe people are tense about the question because the spike in the perception of anti-Muslim discrimination in the US following 9-11 hasn’t substantially abated in the eight years following the attack…
Or maybe everyone’s just busy being weak-kneed, politically correct, liberal pawns. Regardless, isn’t there a twenty-four hour moratorium on unfounded conspiracy speculation in the wake of such a disturbing massacre that you’re in contravention of?
(h/t: Alex Massie)
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- All this makes sense to m...
- If my government is going...
- Pardon. In the Sarah Pali...
- The emphasis is on "claim...
- I don't have any particul...
- Sarah Palin!Seriously. On...
- "When in actual fact, we ...
- Sorry, CA has proven time...
- That "not repudiating the...
- If we're going to run wit...
-
87 comments
It’s the 5th of November. Maybe he was an anarcho-libertarian.
Maybe it’s a little of both? It strikes me as quite likely that there are a number of people who hear the shooter’s name and think, “hot damn, a Muslim, I knew it, damn terrorists.” There’s also a number of people who probably thought, “That sounds Muslim, Damn, this is the worst because ‘mericans are quasi-bigoted and can’t be trusted not to be discriminatory or hateful towards Islam and Muslims.”
The biggest problem I have is that the 24 hour news and analysis cycle has so conditioned us to expect instant facts, instant commentary, and a filler of word association context. So rather than focusing on say the tragedy and needs of people affected, we’re asking why, what does this mean, who’s to blame, what does this mean for the President, etc….
Though, personally, I find it interesting that so many (more?) people seem to be honing in on the confirmed shooter being a psychiatrist.
Dara
November 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I dunno, Kyle, that fascination seems pretty straightforward to me. If our Army psychiatrists can go postal at the thought of returning to Iraq, it’s much more difficult to have faith in the ability of those psychiatrists to treat a generation of soldiers coming back from Iraq in Afghanistan.
Kyle
November 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
That makes sense, my surprise is at the relative weight of the fascination as compared to his being a.) an officer and b.) his name/religious affiliation.
But I’m tone deaf on these things. (the degree of fascination)
I dunno, McCarthy seems like he has a point to me.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTFiMjdiZWQ2ZmEzOGJkZThjMmRhMzI2ZmFhOWNlM2Y=
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/update__12_dead_in_2_attacks_at_fort_hood.html
I knew the Right was going to go there as soon as I heard the man’s name. I wonder what they’d be saying if the killer had been white? Given the Right’s reaction to some other fairly recent shooting sprees, I expect they’d have gone with “lone nutcase”. But in the Right’s eyes a person can’t be an individual if they’re Arab or Muslim, can they? They have to be part of a conspiracy.
I’d say this case looks like someone who broke under the pressure of war.
Jaybird
November 5th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
My first thought was that it was an anarcho-libertarian who had decided to put the whole “people shouldn’t fear their government, government should fear their people” into practice.
To my shame, I felt relief when I heard the guy’s name.
Scott H. Payne
November 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
There was some speculation that there was more than one shooter, but that seems to be debunked now and Hasan is now purportedly alive and in custody so I guess we’ll learn definitively what happened and why.
Scott
November 5th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Broke under the pressure of war? There is nothing I’ve seen that the suggests that the shooter has ever been overseas before this.
Scott H. Payne
November 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Yes, reports have it that Hasan served at Walter Reed before being transfered to Ft. Hood.
Not sure the link you provide says what it says. It doesn’t say anything about actual discrimination agains Muslims. Only perceived discrimination.
That being said, I eagerly await the other political shoe to fall. Namely, guns. I suspect it will take this line of reasoning…
Gun nuts say having armed teachers and students would be a great way to prevent or minimize school shootings. But this dude shot like 40 people ON AN ARMY BASE.
Not sure if the reasoning applies here, given the circumstances. But we will hear it. To the credit of the anti-gun folks, however, at least we haven’t heard it quite yet.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Sam,
I’ve edited the post in light of yr comment, though I don’t think it substantially affects the point of bringing up the polling. If the phenomenon in question is American discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims and there is a perception amongst Americans that discrimination towards Muslims remains high post 9-11, then I think one has a pretty good basis for believing that there is a correlation.
A random sampling of Americans could, of course, be wrong, but I’m inclined to believe that said random sampling of Americans has a reasonable grasp on the demonstrated attitudes of their fellow citizens.
WTF!!! Who’s the moron that allows Muslims in the US military?
Oops! I forgot, we got one in the White House.
E.D. Kain
November 6th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Bob – could you cool it with the anti-Muslim stuff? Generalizing entire populations of people is the sort of thing we are trying to avoid in our comment threads. I have no disagreement that there are radicals in the Islamic faith that want to keep this fight brewing as long as possible. I have no disagreement that due to the nature of Islam and especially the political reality of Arabia combined with a fundamentalist reading of the Koran, it is very easy for these violent radicals to manipulate others to their own hateful ends.
But this does not mean that the entire religion – or especially the entire people who belong to that religion – should come under the wide umbrella of a singular negative judgment.
At least not here.
Thanks.
Bob
November 6th, 2009 at 10:27 am
The NYT reports this morning that Maj. Nidal “…joined the Army right out of high school….”
That would mean he joined the Army in 1988 or 1989. Who was the “moron” in the White House? Either Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush.
Yeah, those morons.
Valentine Joseph
November 7th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Bravo, you are point proving this article’s point. That took balls
Look it’s good to be concerned about anti muslim behavior. No arguement from me there. But the mans background is relevant and while we certainly shouldn’t be knee jerkedly assuming that his background immediatly explains all of this but his background is relevant. Pretending it doesn’t exist or ignoring it is just as bad as obsessing about it.
Bob Cheeks
November 6th, 2009 at 8:17 am
North, my astute albiet confused young friend, if you haven’t noticed it’s the Muslims killing us, not us killing the Muslims!
Hey, my generation is about to hand over the levers of power to you guys. Good grief let’s get with the program!
Mark Thompson
November 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am
There are a few hundred thousand dead Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who might beg to differ, Bob. Since when did you become a neo-con?
Bob Cheeks
November 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Mark, my remark was centered on a specific geographic location (USA). Americans, rednecked or otherwise, aren’t lynching Muslims. Neither are they shooting up Mosques, raping their women, or injuring their children.
If you believe this Major had the ‘right’ to kill Americans because the US military is engaged in active operations against his desert dwelling co-religionists in AF and Iraq, I’d prefer you were a little more specific. I have no desire to put words in your mouth.
And no, I’m not a neocon. But, following 911 and the massacre of nearly 3,000 Americans, we have the obligation of doing some really serious thinning of the Muslim population.
North
November 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
So then we had an obligation of doing some serious thinning of Japanese american population after Pearl Harbor?
Oh! Or after after Fort Sumpter or after Concord and Lexington we had an obligation to do a serious thinning of the white English Protestant american population?
Bob Cheeks
November 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
North, please, you’re a lot smarter than that.
As I recall your pres., FDR, removed all Japanese-American citizens to ‘camps.’ And, then to FDR’s credit significantly thinned out the Japanese population. That was the price they paid for a sneak attack on a US military installation, and dude, we’re talking about the massacre of 3,000 American civilians.
Kyle
November 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Thinning sounds so creepy and borderline genocidal.
The point that needs to be ridiculed here is that when I guy named Timothy McVeigh kills a bunch of Americans it’s a terrible tragedy and a crime. When a guy named Mohammad Atta does so, it’s a clash of civilizations.
The point that needs to be made (and has) is that cultural familiarity has a dampening effect on fear-induced hysteria and threat recognition. We didn’t lock up the Japanese because they were particularly nefarious. We locked them up because we didn’t understand their culture and thus what level of threat they posed to us. The reasonable response to this, however, is not thinning or imprisonment but learning.
Given that militant Islam hardly poses an existential threat to this country, I see no reason why we should rush to either judgement, condemnation, or fear.
Bob Cheeks
November 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Kyle,
“Given that militant Islam hardly poses an existential threat to this country,…”
There’s some folks in Texas that don’t agree with you. Also, let me, respectfully suggest you read Jayna Davis’s The Third Terrorist (I’m not being snarky!).
Bob
November 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The size of the Muslim population in the US is unknown because the census does not collect such information. Estimates vary, a lot. From 1.1 million to 7 million. In contrast Wiki gives the number of Japanese-Americans interned during WWII as 120,000.
Are you seriously suggesting that the government roundup and detain, indefinitely, perhaps several million people?
Bob Cheeks
November 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
No, ship them to Canada and let Scott deal with them!
Bob
November 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Scott is just married – he has better things to do.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
True, though we have a spare room for house guests and strike a naturally gregarious and hospitable attitude in my humble abode.
Bob
November 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It will take a miracle on the order of the “loaves and fishes” to turn that guest room into suitable housing for these castoffs, and Jebus I don’t even want to think about the drain on your bank account. Scott, better set up a Paypal account, maybe BC will contribute.
Fuck, who am I kidding?
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Jebus, maybe?
North
November 6th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Bob, FDR did intern a lot of Japanese Americans during World War II, Canada did something similar. I know for a fact that those actions are considered one of the darkest moments of genuine shame in the history of Canada and I believe most Americans feel the same.
Yes there was a war and yes many Japanese were killed. Had the war gone differently I dare say that many Americans would have been killed as the Japanese tried to pummel the continental US into submission. But to say that “thinning” the respective populations was the aim rather than a side effect of the war seems hyperbolic.
I refuse to believe that terrorists represent an existential threat to this country. Refuse. To believe otherwise would require either to have a hysterical belief in the capabilities of a bunch of tribal semi medieval middle-easterners or to have a genuine contempt for the ideals and principles on which our society functions.
It is the same reason I refuse to believe that Muslim immigration represents a significant threat to the societies of Europe. To do so requires that you believe that young people presented with a choice between the principles of the Europeans and the misery of their retrograde nations of origin would choose the latter rather than the former. I have a higher opinion of human potential than that.
If a squishy agnostic like me could be as confident in our national and civilizational character and identity I’m puzzled by why a man of obvious faith with genuine love of the country like you, Bob, would not be.
Bob Cheeks
November 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
North,
You are a nice agnostic, also I might add, I too, used to be an agnostic. Someday we’ll talk!
Let’s for the sake of brevity set aside the librul president FDR’s actions re: the Japanese internment camps. Also, let us remember the heroism of two Japanese regiments (425th???) that served in Europe and I believe were the highest decorated regiments in the war.
There are those scholars who would tell you that Islam has been at war with the West since Mohammed was ridin’ his camel down around Mecca. For a certain number of Muslims that’s the condition…war with the West…the fight to establish the worldwide Caliphate.
The point is you have three types of Muslims: those who are thoroughly westernized and hate the Jihadis for causin’ all the trouble, the Jihadis themselves, and those who, in some way, support Jihad.
The problem is, of course, the age old…how do you tell the good Muslim from the bad one?
Now, as you know, the first order of gummint is to protect its citizens.
Our gummint (both commie-Dems and neocon Republicans) have determined not to mess with the Muslims in the US. The result, as you know, is that every once in a while some wacked out Jihadii kills one or more Americans and you libruls wring your hands much as Bro Diekes in his latest.
North, old palsy (and I’m beginning to see you as the son I ner had) this has absolutely nothing to do with “national and civilizational character and identity” of the USA and dude, I have no idea how that crept into the conversation. This has to do with the gummint of the US protecting it citizens by destroying the will of the Muslim to engage in Jihad, even if it means destroying Islam, and it does NOT mean going to Iraq to “take democracy to the Middle East,” it means making those that support/serve Jihad pay for that support with their lives.
North
November 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“There are those scholars who would tell you that Islam has been at war with the West since Mohammed was ridin’ his camel down around Mecca. For a certain number of Muslims that’s the condition…war with the West…the fight to establish the worldwide Caliphate.”
-Now I am no scholar Bob, but I love classical history. So I can tell you with great confidence that ever since the first heresies and schism that various flavors of Christianity have also been gamboling merrily through history trying to establish various holy empires of God. So they share that with their younger Islamic cousins.
/snark off
Bob, you’re a good man to debate with. I think we got to this point off this post:
“North, please, you’re a lot smarter than that.
As I recall your pres., FDR, removed all Japanese-American citizens to ‘camps.’ And, then to FDR’s credit significantly thinned out the Japanese population. That was the price they paid for a sneak attack on a US military installation, and dude, we’re talking about the massacre of 3,000 American civilians.”
The problem of course is that the comparison is a terrible one. The Japanese were a coherent and relatively monolithic national group (and also a genuine threat). I’ll refer you at this point to Chris’s post on the main page about the great variety within Islam. You can’t group punish Islamists, contrary to even their own dogma they truly are not a coherent group. They have no central command that can surrender. They have no industry to blast. We cannot destroy them without becoming, ourselves, monsters. Our only means of defeating our enemies in this fight is by the strength of our ideas and principles.
Kyle
November 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Yeah, I was with you until the characterisations of both terrorists and Muslim countries.
I also think the concern about European immigration isn’t so baseless, considering their relative homogeneity, relative secularism, and extremely low native birth-rates. It’s as at least as concerning as Japan’s looming lack of young people. Sizeable demographic shifts usually aren’t painful and tumultuous. Also, I’m extraordinarily uncomfortable with characterizing European convention and Islamic convention as progressive and retrograde.
North
November 6th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Perhaps it wasn’t a perfect description Kyle, I was probably a touch harsh but my general point was sound. Islamic terrorists or even Islamic fundamentalists can be a problem. They can cause some terrible things to happen, maybe even the occasional spectacular one. But the can not destroy us. They are incapable of doing so.
A while back I’d agree with your second paragraph entirely but further reading on the demographics and relative populations have calmed my concerns on this issue a lot. The Middle East in general and Muslim immigrants to Europe in particular are showing significant declines in fertility. As for introverted communities I believe historically the western cultures have been able, over the course of a couple generations, to moderate insular communities quite effectively.
Last sentence. I was writing in a hurry. Perhaps retrograde isn’t the best word. I think a defense of it could be mounted but perhaps a better pair of terms would be dynamic versus stagnant? Primarily when comparing Arab and Mediterranean Muslim countries specifically versus western European ones.
North
November 6th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Yuck, I really garbled my original post didn’t I? Mark beat me to it though Bob my friend. We have been blowing Muslims into kibble for working on a decade now.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Fair point as always, North. And as Mark notes below, Hasan’s background is now coming out in context of a number of factors. Mark links to an AP piece, I found the following WaPo piece quite good, personally.
My point, though, is that it is not altogether bizarre to find people tense about discussions of Hasan’s potential Muslim background based, at the time, upon his name given the context in the country. To suggest that people are acting bizarrely is to ignore that context, which I do find bizarre.
As mentioned above, with Hasan alive and in custody, we will no doubt find out a great more about what actually occurred than our speculation with yield.
North
November 6th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Yeah, I’m with you in this case in particular Scott. My very garbled original post was more generally targetted to be honest. I feel that the way the left has a tendency to bend over backwards to avoid (some may even say hide) the issue of the racial/ethnic background of people who behave criminally is stupid. Of course the rights obsession with the same to the exclusion of everything else is idiotic.
Long post short: All pertinent information is good. There should be no attempt to conceal/soft peddle/ignore the background of the perpetrators and there should be no fixating on the same to the exclusion of all other information.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Short answer shorter: agreed.
Kyle
November 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Well said.
Looks like Bob Cheeks from the dick head patrol has checked in.
Now that the facts are starting to become clearer, the picture is one in which his religious and cultural background was one of a number of “but-for” factors that combined to create a perfect storm. The AP article on this is quite informative:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting_suspect
This is gonna be a tough one to deal with. His religion does seem to be the primary engine behind this, but not in a “kill the American Infidels” sort of way.
There’s the elements that we see in a lot of spree shooters – girl (or lack thereof ) problems, poor performance at work, feeling trapped in his current place in life (he wanted out of the military). But a number of these elements are the result of his religion – he was too demanding in his religious requirements on dating services. Part of the reason he didn’t want to deploy was because of his feelings of kinship with other Muslims. (He enlisted before 9/11 and had wanted to get out afterwords. Odd that he seemed to feel some conflict of interest but the army apparently had no problem forcing him to stay and earn his college money.)
When he snapped his mind was probably more in a state similar to the V-Tech shooter than that of a suicide bomber, but what drove him there were many issues related to being Muslim and how that played out in his life. Its a subtle difference and won’t matter to the folks at Jihad Watch, but one to keep in mind.
Mark Thompson
November 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I nominate this for the best comment in the thread. This sounds exactly right to me.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Agreed. And the point about broad discourse not picking up on the nuance of what is at play here reinforces the concern here within expressed. Sometimes the subtle differences are really, really important.
Chad
November 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Thanks. But since he survived (and details are still being confirmed) this subtle point could be completely blown away by some revelation or announcement. If he opens up and announces “I did it for the Jihad” then everything changes. While there can still be a conversation about how in his right mind he still is at that point, it will be little more than an intellectual exercise amidst the hell that will break loose.
Scott
November 6th, 2009 at 9:35 am
MSNBC is reporting that Hasan reportedly shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ as he started shooting so we may have already reached that point.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am
True. That would, at least, be an assessment of the facts based upon a confirmation of Hasan.
bcg
November 6th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I don’t think what he claims after the fact is really that relevant. Imagine you’re him. Which do you want to say, now that you’re already hated? “I did it for Jihad,” or “I did it because my life is pathetic” ?
North
November 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Agreed. Good analysis.
I look at the chart you’ve posted, Scott…
Is the question one that can be answered-in-theory? It strikes me that it is an answerable-in-theory question. Is it not one?
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I might be under coffee’d at this point, but could you clarify? you mean that the charts seems to indicate in theory that discrimination against Muslims went up and has, relatively speaking, stayed up since 9-11?
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I’m looking at the question in the chart.
“Does Islam Encourage Violence More Than Other Faiths?”
Is this question answerable-in-theory? It strikes me that it is.
While it is certainly possible to see that the question is *REALLY* asking “are you prejudiced against Muslims?”, I don’t know that that is a fair interpretation when reading the answers.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Ah, I suppose it is, though certainly it is a difficult one to answer, particularly in a broad historical context. Honestly, I picked the chart because it made for a good visual, which doesn’t make it, perhaps, the best representative of the whole poll (which is worth reading).
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Well, I’m reading through the poll now and stumble across something like the section describing “Religious Similarities and Differences”.
The numbers that they get are well within understandable boundaries (“More than one-third of non-Jews say Judaism is somewhat or very similar to their own faith (35%), while 47% say it is somewhat or very different.”)…
This part of the poll is telling: Americans are more likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims than against any other religious group asked about in the survey. Most people say there is not a lot of discrimination against Jews, atheists, Mormons and evangelical Christians in the U.S., while nearly six-in-ten (58%) say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims.
I read the poll and see people pushing to be open-minded and inclusive despite themselves. When they say “there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims”, I don’t see the implied “as well there should be!” following but an implied “and we need to work on that”.
Am I reading it wrong?
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
See my response to Sam above.
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“A random sampling of Americans could, of course, be wrong, but I’m inclined to believe that said random sampling of Americans has a reasonable grasp on the demonstrated attitudes of their fellow citizens.”
But if you polled people about schools, you’d get a large number of people who say that the schools in this country are awful and need to be improved upon… and an equally large number of folks who are pleased with their own particular school.
I suspect that a similar dynamic could be at work here. In the wake of 9/11, a huge chunk of the country fell over backwards (outside of the “anti-idiotarian” crowd) to explain how Islam is, of course, a religion of peace and these terrorists were, in no way, representative of Arab culture or Islamic culture.
This happened again when the riots happened wrt the Mohammed cartoons.
I’ve no doubt that, once again, we’ll see a similar thing play out.
We can even have polls explaining how everybody else needs to be a lot more enlightened when it comes to Islam.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
So you’re incredulous that Muslim and Arab Americans experienced a sharp increase in discrimination in the wake of 9-11?
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“In the wake of”… I’m pretty sure that they did. Would I have said that the wake had calmed down significantly by November 4th, 2009? I would have, actually.
And yet I would not be surprised to see polls saying that those other people needed to be a lot more tolerant of Islam at the same time.
And we’ll calm down again. The Fort Hood “tragedy” will fade by Christmas in the public consciousness in the same way that the beltway sniper did a few months after it was discovered that he had “Islamic ties”.
Mark Thompson
November 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Speaking of the DC sniper, he’s set for execution next week. I’m a death penalty opponent and all, but if people like him were the only people we ever executed (guilty beyond all doubt, unremorseful, and a calculating, mass-murdering random spree killer), that opposition would fade in a hurry.
Man….I still remember the feeling of looking over my shoulder at every gas station, doing everything I could to present the smallest target possible, just as I was finally starting to feel comfortable riding the Metro again a year after 9/11.
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I remember discussions of how the sniper was, most likely, a disgruntled white male who was pulling a Michael Douglas from Falling Down and what this meant for our society.
It stopped meaning things for our society after we caught the guy.
“Or maybe everyone’s just busy being weak-kneed, politically correct, liberal pawns. ” = BINGO!
I’m really confused as to why religious beliefs are worthy of all this extra-special sensitivity. Religious ideas are freely chosen belief systems, just like Communism, Maoism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Democracy, etc.
I understand that it is wrong to hold prejudices against innate qualities, such as being gay or heterosexual, male or female, black or white, etc. (And I agree with this view.)
But why is it wrong to be anti – this or that religion? People freely choose these views, and are therefore responsible for the results.
And the history of religions, including Christianity, is in large part a history of burnings, imprisonment, torture, massacres, wars, blood feuds, repression of free speech, slavery, treating women as property… yes?
And I’ve read more than enough from Andrew McCarthy to know he is a disgusting authoritarian with little regard for the truth. Being anti-Muslim is the least of his pathologies. So I’m not here to defend him.
Being anti-Communist is okay, but being anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim results in an instant charge of “bigotry”. Yet all three are freely-chosen belief systems with a shameful history of violence and repression (yes, I do think Communism is the worst!)
But if there is something fundamentaly good about Islam, then where are all of the democratic governments in the Muslim world? Where, in Muslim countries, are women treated with equality? In which Muslim countries is it safe to be gay? Or Christian or Jewish or Buddhist?
What’s so special about religion?
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Imagine loving a grandparent. Imagine that grandparent dying.
Imagine being given an opportunity to see them again. Moreover, imagine that you, at the same time, will have the opportunity to live in a mansion surrounded by loved ones. You’ll be able to do it over this time. Do it right. As peers. More than that, you’ll finally understand, perfectly, your place in the world and understand why and how it all works (and, this time, it will work).
Now imagine someone else coming up and taking that opportunity away from you. What is the nicest name that you might come up with for this person?
That’s part of why I think this is so near/dear to so many people.
You’re not just calling them dumb. You’re killing their grandparent that they loved very much a second time.
Bob
November 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“But why is it wrong to be anti – this or that religion? People freely choose these views, and are therefore responsible for the results.”
I think you need to explain exactly what you mean.
Who is to be held responsible? All coreligionist? Are all Catholics to be shunned because some priests like young boys? Or held responsible at law?
Kyle
November 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I mean there are two components to this.
Cultural and Governmental. In a governmental sense, we’re sensitive to that because of the free exercise clause. Culturally, I think, we tend to adopt certain principles of government as society, though I would agree with your questioning that – in this case – there may be not be much reason to do so.
Though, to be honest, I actually think this is a really interesting question. Something to think about…
Speaking of the chart, what would be useful is some metric of whether violence against Muslims have actually risen since 9/11. Because if you go back to the post:
“Oh, I don’t know Andy, maybe people are tense about the question because the spike in the perception of anti-Muslim discrimination in the US following 9-11 hasn’t substantially abated in the eight years following the attack…”
If violence against Muslims is not on the rise, or if it has fallen since the attacks, then this seems like a poor reason for people to be tense about. If, for instance, violence against Muslims has not, in fact, increased, but people are “tense” because they perceive that it has increased… this does suggest some kind of cognitave disconnect.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Because violence against Muslims is the only useful metric in determining discrimination?
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I wouldn’t use “have to deal with a lot more bullcrap at airports” as a useful metric. The government has done a good job of spreading that around pretty evenly.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
What if said bullcrap involved unexplained and prolonged detention for no discernible reason other than one’s visible ethnic membership? Would that make it a useful metric?
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Are there numbers for such? Could we compare those numbers to numbers of other ethnicities detained for prolonged periods?
Additionally, I’d, without joking, say that my reading of the poll was that “discrimination” was a more generalized “discrimination” similar to “racism” found in the general population.
If we’re also talking about “the government” discriminating against Muslims, I’d point out that the Republicans lost their majorities in the House and Senate in 2006 and took even bigger losses in 2008 and losing the White House quite handily. If the government continues to discriminate against Muslims, I don’t know what else you could ask from the American People to do on a governmental level to rectify that.
If we’re just talking about the general population discriminating, I’d like to see numbers and make comparisons. I honestly think that we are out of the “wake of 9/11″ for the most part (and, hey, let’s define “for the most part” as give or take 15%).
Sam M
November 6th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“Because violence against Muslims is the only useful metric in determining discrimination?”
No. Because you pointed to a chart that said people think discrimination against Muslims has never wained from 9/11. And that this seems to be a reason people are loathe to be asking the questions MacArthy wants to ask. Actually, your original post said nothing about “perceptions.” It said that the reason we are loathe to ask these questions is because discrimination against Muslims ACTUALLY increased and has not abated since.
But is this a good reason not to ask/discuss those questions? It certainly does not seem to be a good reason to not ask those questions if, in fact, discrimination against Muslims has not increased. In fact, if it has not, now would seem to be a really good time to go ahead and ask those difficult questions without fearing that people will go all cuckoo and start bombing mosques. Because if they did not, actually, do that in the wake of 9/11, I see no reason to think they would start now.
A Latino shot and killed a few people in Florida today. I wonder if the NRO, or bobby cheeks or the right wing talking heads will be asking if we should be “thinning” Latinos or Catholics (since most but certainly not all Latinos are catholic) will anybody ask his family if they love America or put all Latinos under more scrutiny.
JosephFM
November 7th, 2009 at 11:01 am
They will probably blame it on immigration, actually….*sigh*
Greggy,
Your pres, BO, when he was puttin’ the mouth on the Cambridge police mentioned that “Hispanics” were “profiled”…so, I guess they are already “under more scrutiny.”
NRO and McCarthy continue: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmE4NTdmOTVmNTI5MmJkNzMwNjdmNTUxOTZlMzVlYTE=
Life is easy I guess when all our problems are caused by the Arabs and Mexicans.
Let’s stop calling these attacks “a tragedy.” In Greek drama, a high man brings himself low. Not so here. Nor was this an earthquake, flood, or volcano erupting. “Tragedy” suggests hands off, too bad, time to move on. Not so here.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
What would you prefer we call it, Hudson?
Attack, massacre, rampage, are good, for starters. When the WTC was attacked, there were two basic responses: that it was a tragedy, which represented a distant, hands-off approach–send a few NYPD detectives abroad to arrest the criminals. Or: there was anger; OBL wanted, dead or alive. The former was expressed by the literati and intellectuals; the latter came up from the stinking, smoking pit at Ground Zero. The men down there were fighting mad. Today, on Nov 6, 2009, the fighting ship USS New York was christened by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, in New York Harbor, with 7.5 tons of WTC steel in its bow. That’s the way most of us felt–hit them back, hard.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
There you go. Let it never be said I don’t listen to the readers.
3:01 post should read “Not so here,” and today’s date is Nov. 6. Sorry about that.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
So amended.
By the way, tragedy: “3. A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life”.
I think what happened at Ft. Hood qualifies. That it should be seen as “hands off” is, really, your own perspective.
Bob
November 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
To paraphrase Jaybird during my tiff with Freddie, “those online dictionaries are only good for Scrabble.”
I’m guessing he meant spelling disputes – certainly not definitions.
Only the unabridged OED, paper, will suffice.
Scott H. Payne
November 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Sigh, you people are so demanding. I only have the Canadian Edition handy…
Tragedy
1 a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe. 2 a a sad event; a calamity. b a tragic element; tragic circumstances.
Satisfied?
Jaybird
November 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
My complaint about online dictionaries has to deal with how limited they are, true.
I can see why some people prefer the word “tragedy”. I can see why others would prefer “murder”. I can see why yet others would prefer “terrorism” (though until “allahu akbar” has been confirmed, they should probably speak in more hushed tones).
To say “One shouldn’t use that term!!!” is fair enough. One hopes that one comes prepared with a more accurate term that one is prepared to defend, however.
If one is using an online dictionary and hoping to trump the OED, one should either be prepared for disappointment or have many friends ready to mock on one’s behalf (“can you believe that dork has an OED? Nice magnifying glass, dork!”).
At least Steyn is a moderate voice. Oh wait, never mind:
Scott, I’m impressed. This is the first time in all my blog commenting that a moderator/author has corrected one of my posts. What a true gentleman! My difficulty with “tragedy” in this type of horrific event is that it implies a lack of responsibility. It just happened, I just snapped, the devil made me do it, society is to blame, anyone could have pulled the trigger.
No, not everyone facing overseas deployment would have picked up two guns and started shooting. Society needs a clear narrative, even at the risk of oversimplification. You cannot build or maintain a society based on murkey narratives. It is acceptable for a gentleman to express clear thoughts and strong emotions.