A local CAIR boffin wrote a gloating letter to the New York Times rejoicing at CAIR’S success at getting Brandeis to shit all over Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomes Brandeis University’s cancellation of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an activist with a long record of vicious anti-Islam statements, some of which are quoted in your article.
It’s not “vicious” to criticize a religion, even harshly. Religions, like corporations, are not people, and do not have feelings to be viciously wounded.
We should all take note, however, that opposition to the honorary degree for Ms. Hirsi Ali did not come only from the Muslim community, but also from Jewish students and faculty members at Brandeis, one of America’s great Jewish-sponsored institutions of higher learning.
The lesson here is that those committed to a nation and a world of justice and peace can accomplish wonders when working together across different communities. This is in keeping with the values of pluralism, compassion and human dignity enshrined within both Islam and Judaism.
JACOB BENDER
Exec.
Director, Philadelphia Chapter
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Philadelphia, April 9, 2014
What world of justice and peace? What does Islam have to do with justice and peace? What country is there where Islam is entangled with the government that is a beacon of justice and peace? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Somalia? Indonesia? Malaysia? Afghanistan? What does Islam have to do with justice and peace? I don’t mean mouthing the words, I mean actually bringing it about.
And what does Islam have to do with the values of pluralism, compassion and human dignity, either? Same question again – where is the Islamist nation that’s an example to the world of pluralism, compassion and human dignity?
And now that we’re on the subject – why does American or any country need such a thing as “Islamic Relations” at all? There’s no Council on American-Catholic Relations is there? Or Council on Buddhist-Islamic Relations? Or any other equivalent?
Piss off, CAIR.
Given the controversy, CAIR has gained a rather Pyrrhic victory, significantly they don’t seem to understand.
Why do we need CAIR, or any of its international equivalents? Because the Kuffar must understand the requirements and the demands of Moslems, CAIR and the useful idiots it attracts, are simply instruments of Islamisation.
Most Moslems believe that Islam, with all its violence, chaos, misogyny, brutality, oppression and intellectual torpor represents ‘justice and peace’. Despite all the multiculti fairy dust that’s sprinkled about by apologists for Islam, they can’t hide the truth about the repugnant culture of majority Moslem countries.
CAIR is simply evil. That’s all there is to it.
And now that we’re on the subject – why does American or any country need such a thing as “Islamic Relations” at all? There’s no Council on American-Catholic Relations is there? Or Council on Buddhist-Islamic Relations? Or any other equivalent?
I’ve often entertained the same thought.
And why should anyone even give these rancid bigots the time of day?
Do not return their calls, do not respond to their e-mails, and if they then show up at your door, just slam it in their god-damned faces
I think religions are a mix of people and ideas. When a muslim says, “I am part of the muslim religion”, what philosophical basis is there for telling them they are wrong?
I ask because I’d actually like to understand. What is a person, when you take away their beliefs, their politics, their ideas of right and wrong? I ask because I’d like to know what it is that differentiates what is left from anyone else – what is it that makes the person an individual, once all their ideas have been separated out from them?
When someone says, islam is a part of me, or islam partly defines who I am, I don’t see any reason not to respect that. For that reason I don’t see religion as being an unconditional target for harsh or vicious criticism; I’ll always acknowledge responsibility for the human consequences.
So can anyone answer my question?
Yeah, I meant, “part of the islamic religion”. My bad. Whatever. My question still stands.
@4
“When a muslim says, “I am part of the muslim religion”, what philosophical basis is there for telling them they are wrong?”
What point are you making, do you mean wrong doctrinally, or in practice? Moslems are continually saying that infidels are in error, or moral degenerates, is the implication that they can’t denigrate non-Moslems the way they do?
“When someone says, islam is a part of me, or islam partly defines who I am, I don’t see any reason not to respect that.”
You appear to be (1) conflating two different principles–we can respect an individual’s right to a religious belief, but not the religious ideology itself, particularly if it’s morally repugnant, or its practice violates the laws of liberal democracies. (2) and also assuming that religious rights are somehow a distinct category from human rights.
“What is a person, when you take away their beliefs, their politics, their ideas of right and wrong?”
In what way does challenging an individual’s religious ideology “take away their beliefs”? Why should any ideology be protected from criticism?
@6 “Moslems.” — aagggh! Your agenda is showing.
My point is that religions are a mix of ideas, practices and people. Ophelia thinks religions are just like corporations. Well, no, i don’t agree, they’re far more disparate and diverse things than that. A corporation asserts a corporate personality and vigorously defends against imitators it in the courts, advertising, everywhere. And they have legal protection to do so. A religion not.
There are 1.6 billion muslims in the world. 1.6 billion versions of islam. 1.6 million doctrines, 1.6 million practices. Some of them are more consistent with each other, some very weak and not very committed (no reason why they should be) and some of them are bloody appalling. But there is no one islam, a fact that cannot be dealt with using simplistic binary divisions like islam and islamist or radical muslim and moderate muslim.
So when a muslim says, “I am part of the muslim or islamic religion” I mean in all ways – doctrinally, in practice, and philosophically.
Yeah, some muslims say infidels are in error, some say infidels are moral degenerates. They’re wrong. But not all muslims say those things, so I can’t pin the accusation on islam.
You say we can respect an individual’s right to a religious belief but not the religious ideology itself. Well, yeah. But that’s not what’s being said. What’s being said here is that the religious ideology is a separate thing from the human that holds it, therefore it’s okay (morally, politically etc) to be boundlessly vicious about religion. I don’t see why that’s the case. A human is defined by their personality, which is in turn a mixture of ideas, emotions, thoughts, views, feelings, etc, and I include their religion under all of those headings. So if you say something ‘vicious’ about a person’s religion, yes it is an attack on the person.
Challenging a person’s ideology doesn’t “take away their beliefs”, I never said it did. What was being asserted is that a vicious criticism of a religion can’t hurt a person. I’m saying a person is a mixture of the physical being and the psychological being – a mixture of who they are physically and their ideas. Religion is part of someone’s ideas and practices, and therefore their identity. Yes, they can change it, but if they choose not to, it is part of their identity. If in the process of observing what a person is, you disregard their religion, and their politics, and anything that is a mere ‘idea’ like their views about history or their emotions, what is left? What is there left that actually defines them as a person, other than their physical form?
I don’t think there’s anything much left that differentiates them as a person from anyone else. Yes their physical form is a part of their being, but in matters of personality it’s just one part. Are we really saying that it’s okay to viciously criticise anything in someone as long as it’s not their physicality? That seems like an extremely materialist position to base an opinion on. I don’t think it’s sustainable.
In criticism – yes of course, criticise people’s ideologies, etc. But keep a sense of proportion about it, and use the effect on the person as a guide to what that sense of proportion is. Yes, severely criticise the power structures of those states where the regime has put forward a vicious version of islam to subjugate their populations. And wherever religion is used as an excuse to oppress, criticise the oppressor. Oppressors deserve a taste of their own medicine. But to extrapolate the actions and beliefs of some religious people as if they are the true ideology of the whole religion is not credible, and a few quotes from a dead text don’t square the circle.
My basic question, about what is left of a person when you ignore their ideas, remains unanswered, as usual.
@7
You’re begging the question, implicit in your argument is that there’s something intrinsically precious and distinct in religious ideology, however you haven’t demonstrated that there is.
” So if you say something ‘vicious’ about a person’s religion, yes it is an attack on the person.” If someone says something vicious about an individual’s politics is that an attack on the person, and if not why not?
Where oh where do you propose that the line is drawn? You still haven’t demonstrated why in challenging a person’s beliefs we’re “taking something away.”
“My basic question, about what is left of a person when you ignore their ideas, remains unanswered, as usual.”
You’re begging the question again, what do you mean by ‘when you ignore their ideas’, what is your remedy, that we ‘respect’ drivel in order not to diminish those who believe in it, and again, how far must we go in accommodation? How would you treat a believer of a religion that required human sacrifice?
There wouldn’t be any science, democracy or industrial society if some of our ancestors hadn’t challenged others’ religious and cultural beliefs.
Oi, @ 7, no I don’t think “religions are just like corporations.” I didn’t say that. I said “Religions, like corporations, are not people” – which is a much much narrower claim. It’s also true.
Also @ 7 – “What was being asserted is that a vicious criticism of a religion can’t hurt a person.” No, I didn’t mean to assert that, or imply it. I meant that a religion can’t be hurt the way people can be hurt. That’s not the same as saying a “vicious” [I continue to think that’s the wrong word] can’t hurt a person. Anything can hurt a person, pretty much. But I think it’s a rhetorical trick to use emotive person-based language for impersonal entities.
Ok, I understand. I still disagree, because I think religions consist of people, and I think you’re still relying on a people/idea dualism to ignore effects on people. I don’t think people are physical and ideas are abstract. I think people are largely defined as personalities by their ideas. Their ideas, and religion, are part of them.
That’s not to say you can’t criticise them. You’re free to say what you like, and others are free to say what they want about what you say, I’d just urge people to be precise about what they’re criticising and to be proportionate. If I say something a horrible theistic regime in the middle east, or a horrible practice that a portion of the religion follow in that context, and then extrapolate that by reference to a dead text or some other device to some pleasant muslims living somewhere else, I take into account the hurt I might be causing to the pleasant muslims just trying to go about their lives.
In the west, muslims get spat at, their graves get grafittied, mosques get vandalised. That behaviour comes from a culture of generalising that I don’t think people should contribute to.
My previous reply was to Ophelia @10 and @9.
@8 (RJW) The only intrinsically precious and distinct thing in religious ideology is the people who hold it, because they’re human beings. The way to ignore the human beings is to say that ideology is an idea and people are people – i.e. that the two things are separate and exist in different realms, one vulnerable to hurt, the other not. However I disagree with that approach because I think they are the same thing. So I’m not begging the question, I’m refuting a premise.
Yes, if you say something vicious about an individual’s politics, it is still an attack on the person. It’s why you have to be proportionate what you say about politics just like everything else. I’d expect people in politics to be robust, so I’d have no problem viciously criticising their politics.
You ask, “Where oh where do you propose that the line is drawn?” I’d suggest the answer is at the point where you think the wrong people might be hurt, or where the right people might be hurt but disproportionately. There are no absolutes in that, you have to make a judgement about it and we will not all agree on our judgements because they’re subjective and unpredictable. Absolutes like a simplistic people/idea duality are much easier to understand, I agree, I just think that’s a false absolute.
I’m actually not proposing that we “take away” or “ignore” someone’s ideas. Anyone’s. I’m just making a philosophical observation about what I perceive to be the false dualism between a person and their ideas. I’m saying that in the context of deciding how much hurt you might cause, you should not disregard the effect of your criticism of an idea on all the people who hold it. You should not say, “oh, I’m only criticising an idea, and an idea isn’t a person, therefore I cannot cause hurt,” because I don’t think it’s true to say that.
I’m definitely not saying that you shouldn’t challenge other people’s beliefs, ideas or anything. I’m saying we should be proportionate to to the degree of hurt it will cause to the person holding those ideas. I agree that “there wouldn’t be any science, democracy or industrial society if some of our ancestors hadn’t challenged others’ religious and cultural beliefs.” By all accounts, there have been some pretty nasty theists in history who deserved to be taken down from a position of power, as there are today in Iran, Saudi etc.
In answer to your last question, if someone was a believer of a religion that required human sacrifice, I would treat the religion with utter contempt and I would make vicious criticisms of it, in the full knowledge that my vicious criticisms might contribute to some hurt being caused to the people who hold the religion, hopefully enough to make them give it up.
Ophelia would object to me making such vicious criticisms of the religion. on the basis that it is philosophically not possible to be vicious to a religion. Well, I beg to differ. If a religion is making human sacrifices, vicious criticism of it is deserved. I suppose the only grounds on which I might object to the word vicious is that it might imply sadism on the part of the vicious person, but to be honest I wouldn’t be too worried about that if the criticism had some effect on stopping human sacrifices.
Some versions of islam being practiced in some parts of the world require people’s deaths, and I think it’s right to viciously criticise those versions. But the muslims running my corner shop or who are my colleagues don’t subscribe to those versions of islam, and I don’t want those muslims to be hurt; if I viciously criticise ‘islam’, I know it will contribute to a culture that hurts those muslims, and I don’t want to be part of that.
Before learning more about CAIR, I was supportive of the idea that Americans could use a source of education, post 9/11, to counteract the hatred of Muslims and A-rabs going around. It’s truly toxic. Half the country votes Republican, and basically supported the extermination of Muslims. The right was split between those who echoed Bush’s rhetoric, but defined the set of “good” Muslims down to the empty set, and those whose only criticism of Bush was “falling for their propaganda” rather than admitting this is a holy war in which Muslims are exterminated or Americans will be.
Those who criticize Islam on rational grounds are caught in the crossfire, lately, because any criticism is interpreted as Islamophobia (see also: antisemitism), but Islamophobia is a real thing (see also: antisemitism). Folks like Hitch and Pam Geller didn’t help any.