Friday, June 26, 2009
Crazy Crap / Law and Order / Politics / Silverman Despite Their Intolerant and Misguided Views, Islamophobes Have a Sense of Humor
Posted by Jack Silverman on Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:22 AM
What is the New English Review, you ask? I'm still scratching my head on that one, too. There's no discernible mission statement or "about us" page, though there are individual bios of the various editors, publishers and contributors.My point, of course, was that New English Review sounded like the name of a literary magazine or a journal on current trends in grammar. Yet oddly, the site was dominated by anti-Islamic rhetoric and fear-mongering, with the sole aim of convincing the world that all of our current global problems are not the result of complex geopolitical, economic, tribal and cultural factors--they're the result of Islam. D'oh! It's that simple! And here we were wasting our time trying to have a nuanced understanding of an extremely complicated situation. Anyway, though I was just trying to make sense of the odd disconnect between the site's name and content, this "discernible mission statement" comment really got under their skin. There were several comments about it then, and now, a month later, they're still talking about it, as revealed in a June 21 post on their blog, The Iconoclast:
It has been exactly one month since it was first reported that New English Review does not have a "discernible mission statement". Despite several news organizations' efforts, NER has defiantly refused to provide one, in an obviously extreme display of extreme-right-wing extremism. Erstwhile-contributor Artemis Gordon Glidden was heard to mutter, "They can have our mission statement -- when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers. Mission statement? I got your mission statement right HERE," as he mopped the dark, empty marble halls of NER's international headquarters. Mary Jackson added, "They can love that mission statement up their Mama Cass," as she squeegee'd the windows. Hugh Fitzgerald said something witty about Pushkin in Italian (which unfortunately no-one understood) over the hum of his buffing machine. Esmerelda Weatherwax and John M. Joyce were busy arguing over which radio station to tune in, and Jerry Gordon was doing vocal exercises to prepare for his radio show. Rebecca Bynum said, "Can we please just finish this up? I've got front-row tickets to tonight's big concert at the Opry." The Tennessee National Guard has been mobilized, and the Obama Administration is reported to be closely monitoring events. Stay tuned for further late-breaking updates as they become available.Imagine that! Right-wing extremists grasping onto one tangential point having little or nothing to do with my central argument, then obsessing over it to divert attention from the flimsiness of their own argument. What an original concept! Anyway, despite fomenting hate and intolerance, at least they have a sense of humor. A good sense of humor? You decide.
Comments (24)
Showing 1-24 of 24
like
dislike
You are so right.
In line with the example set by Muhammad (peace be upon him), if this were a Muslim country, the intolerants at the New English Review would have long since been put to death for criticizing Islam.
Extreme right-wing people can have a sense of humor - everyone has a sense of humor. But extreme right-wing attempts at joke making just don't work.
Wouldn't writing a mission statement be a better idea?
Dear Mr. Silverman,
I am aware that any criticism of Islam automatically consigns one to the "outer darkness of right-wingdom," as Hugh Fitzgerald so memorably put it at our symposium, "Understanding the Jihad in Israel, Europe and America," but I am also aware that since your blog post, "World's Most Respected Islamophobes to Gather in Nashville for Symposium," seemed to have been instrumental in the decisions that led to the cancellation of our contract with Loews hotel, and since you expressed such gleeful delight in that cancellation, "Loews Pulls Plug on Islamophobe Symposium," you might also have an obligation to actually engage those speeches presented in Nashville on May 30th.
They will remain on our front page until Tuesday evening after which they can be found archived here:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/42023/sec_id/42023
(Hugh Fitzgerald's speech will appear in the July issue)
"Monger Fear"? You bet. Top quality fear at rock bottom prices.
For one day only, we have a special offer on fear: Buy One, Get One Free, exclusively for NER Customers. Spines tingled, or your money back.
Click here for details - you won't regret it:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/21638
New English Review (est. 2006) - purveyors of fear and high dudgeon to the Crowned Heads of Europe.
"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
You have, of course, read the Koran and the Hadith? Naturally, you have studied in great detail the behaviours of some Muslims in the free world - specifically those who fly planes into buildings, blow up tube trains full of innocent passengers, tear around Bombay shooting people on sight, blow up commuter trains in Madrid, kill hostages in theatres, amputate limbs from alleged criminals on the flimsiest of evidence (evidence which wouldn't be given the slightest credence in any other country on earth) in Somalia, invade provinces in Pakistan and destroy girls' schools, torture and kill Jews in Paris, advocate the killing of gay people and act on that advocacy?
I'm losing count of the number of revolting actions, atrocities, undertaken in the name of Islam. I'm also losing count of the number of times that I have failed to hear the vast body of spiritual and good believers in Islam condemn those who perpetrate such acts.
I presume that you have a complete understanding of Sharia Law - that you have read the last sixteen centuries of Islamic reasoning on thas topic - and that you approve of it? What, you haven't! Really? 'Quelle surprise!'
May I suggest that instead of studying some mythical, and supposedly complex, "geopolitical, economic, tribal and cultural factors" you actually bone up on the how Islam perverts, and subsumes to its own use, those selfsame factors? May I suggest that you actually analyse Islam instead of assuming that your preconceived ideas on the subject must be true simply because they chime so resolutely with your liberal conscience - not that there is anything wrong with a liberal conscience for we would not be the free societies we are today without liberalism, but being liberal does not free anyone from the obligation to study the subject that they talk about.
There is no mission statement at NER because mission statements aren't worth the paper that they are written on - they are vacuous feel-good words designed to placate people like you: the hard of thinking! Mission statement! Honestly, just grow up and read us. We don't need a mission statement because our 'mission', if we have one, shines through in every word that we write. Readers at NER are intelligent enough to read properly and to evolve, from what we have written, their own sense of what our mission statement is, or might be (if we had one). NER doesn't tell its readers what to think, or how to think, we allow them to think for themselves and to judge us by their own reasoning. Our readers are intelligent enough not to need that sort of c**p or that sort of guidance.
Mission statements are for wimps who can't bear to let their readers think for themselves and that's why we continue, weeks after your original comment, to poke fun at you. Quite simply, we are still laughing about, chortling over, your complete inability to see just how crass and silly you actually were.
For us, this, your 'mission statement' thing, is the best joke we've ever heard, and symptomatic of everything that is wrong with your ways of looking at our societies. 'Mission statement', 'complex geopolitical, economic, tribal and cultural factors' - just meaningless words that you use in order to cloak your complete inability to actually think about, or come to grips with, the world as it actually is. They're just a panacea, that dangerous daughter of Hygeia, that allows you to feel at ease in a dangerous world while not having to think about the dangers that we all face.
I don't wish to insult you but you are, for many of us who post and comment at NER, just a laughing stock - and we can't stop laughing at the inanity of what you originally posted.
'Mission statement'. Good one! Haven't laughed so much in years. Hand me another tissue, please, my tears, of laughter I assure you, have dampened the one in my hand beyond use!
'Mission statement', 'mission statement'! If I don't stop laughing soon I might rupture my spleen!
OK, fourteen centuries - I was never any good at arithmetic; and not much better at grammar and spelling by the look of my last post here!
Uh, John. Yes. That was my point. The mission statement thing was not important, and it was funny that NER latched onto that single point and made such an issue out of it. As you are now. I don't give a damn about a mission statement. We don't have a mission statement.
So we're in agreement on that issue. Though you seem intent on arguing with me about it, can't we just agree to agree?
And I'm glad I'm providing laughs for NER. I like to brighten people's days.
(Okay, this is the fourth time I've posted this comment here in the past 24 hours. Maybe there's some technical problem that is blocking my comments while allowing others' to get through?)
Jack Silverman said:
"Imagine that! Right-wing extremists grasping onto one tangential point having little or nothing to do with my central argument, then obsessing over it to divert attention from the flimsiness of their own argument."
Jack, Jack, Jack. Right-wing extremists? If you say so, you're the self-appointed expert. But I must tell you that I voted for Barack Obama in the general election, Hillary Clinton in the primary, and have voted Democratic ever since I was old enough to vote. I am pro-abortion-rights, pro-gay-rights, pro-gay-marriage, pro-universal-healthcare, pro-womens'-rights, pro-free-speech, pro-religious-tolerance, anti-war-in-Iraq, and so on. Which is exactly why I am ... against Islam.
Islam is the viewpoint of a 7th Century paedophilic, misogynist, looting, raping, slave-taking warlord, (and I can back each of those terms up with quotes from the holy Qur'an and the ahadith) codified for eternity, with no mechanism for a Reformation such as what Christianity went through. Islam is what it is, and it is not subject to changing values as society develops over time. Mohammad makes GWB look like a card-carrying ACLU/NAACP/NOW member by comparison.
Here is my prediction: One day, it may be 1 year from now, or 10, but one day you will come to realize (because of future events, or maybe even because despite yourself you will begin to investigate what Islam actually teaches) that you have been defending a belief system that stands against everything you believe in. In your desire to be open-minded and tolerant, you have supported a fascist belief system that stones gays to death, beats women for going in public without being covered head-to-toe, encourages forced marriage (i.e. rape) of pre-teen girls, and so on. Think of me then, Jack. I won't say "I told you so." I just happened to figure it out before you did, but many others figured it out before I did. But the day will come, because Islam will not change for you or anyone else, it will not swerve. Investigate what the "Gates of Ijtihad" are, and why they are important.
And now on to your main point (I wouldn't want to be accused of ignoring your main point in this post), that I was grasping on to one tangential point etc. I don't know how you do it, but you've got it exactly backwards again. Here are some quotes:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090530/NEWS01/905300331/1001/NEWS
"The group's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2009-05-30&ID=270832
"The group's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=963415&lang=eng_news
"The New English Review's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."
http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20090531/NEWS/305319965/-1/RSS%26rssfeed=RSS
"The New English Review's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."
And of course, some words that might sound familiar:
http://thesop.org/index.php?article=16351
"What is the New English Review, you ask? I`m still scratching my head on that one, too. There`s no discernible mission statement or "about us" page..."
(Thanks to Mary Jackson for compiling this list)
In other words, the media is simply parroting the same lines, over and over. They are grasping onto one tangential point having little or nothing to do with New English Review's central argument, and obsessing over it as if it has any significance whatsoever. Instead of putting some effort into investigating, let alone trying to rebutt, the writings at the New English Review, they (or should I say you) are acting as if this is some sign of hidden malevolence.
"New English Review, they're comin' to gitcha!"
As for what your central argument was in your original post, I'm not sure what it was. That Islam is not responsible for Islamically-justified terrorist attacks, and that New English Review should not be allowed to have a meeting in Nashville? Unfortunately for you, our gathering went along quite nicely. The speakers were fabulous, and I met some fascinating people from across the globe who are all well-educated about Islam.
I'll cross-post this at New English Review, since most NER readers, like me, don't often read the Nashville Scene, except for the rare occasion when Rebecca Bynum is kind enough to provide a link.
Oh, BTW, I don't want to insult the other writers at New English Review by giving the impression that they all share my liberal views. I speak for myself, and so do they.
I've posted my comment 4 times in response, but it hasn't shown up.
What are you afraid of Jack? An honest discussion?
Artemis, I know paranoia comes naturally at NER, but if you're suggesting we're censoring your comments, you're way off base. We encourage all comments, no matter the viewpoint. However, computer programs sometimes filter things that look like spam. I will check the system to see if your comment is there, and clear it. If not, I will give you my email address and you can email it and I will post it. Did we filter any of your comments on the other thread?
The spam filter often knocks out posts with a lot of links in them, Artemis, which may be why you're comments are getting killed. It's also good not to use the words "viagra" or "cialis."
Artemis,
I posted the most recent comment, since it was a reprint of the others that hadn't shown up. Sorry about that. It's rare that genuine comments get filtered, and please let us know if it's happening. I'm assuming the different URLs might have set off the filter.
And you're right to call me out on the "right-wing" thing. But the extremist part I still stand-by. Left-wing extremists also like to harp on one point too. Though I'm not suggesting your a left-wing extremist either. Just that your views on this topic are extreme.
Rebecca, I currently don't have time to read every story on NER, due to other mundane tasks I have to perform here, but I did read your piece, "Islam as Religion."
You argue your point well, and are clearly a gifted writer. I'd gladly have you on my debate team. But I plain disagree with your main points, that Islam is not a religion, and doesn't attempt to exalt value, nurture, advance morality etc. Do I find certain things in the Koran over-the-top and offensive? Yes. As I do in the Bible too.
Are there major problems within Islamic culture? Yes. Am I a cultural relativist, who feels that no one society is better than another? No. But I also feel that blaming Islam for everything, or thinking that other political factors aren't just as important if not more so, is missing the point, not to mention thoroughly counterproductive. I feel this sort of rhetoric feeds the Islamic perception that Westerners are out to get them.
Even if I were to agree that Islam is worse than Christianity, what's the point? I feel that Buddhism is better than Christianity. So?
As far as Muslims killing other Muslims, do you care to venture a guess as to how many Muslims we've killed in the last seven years? And how many Christians or Westerners have the Muslims killed?
Judging from your arguments, I assume you feel that Obama is being an idiot for reaching out to the Muslim world, and trying to find mutual respect and tolerance?
Dear Jack, you say,
"But I plain disagree with your main points, that Islam is not a religion, and doesn't attempt to exalt value, nurture, advance morality etc."
You are making my point. Simply saying "I disagree" doesn't advance your argument. Why do you think Islam is a religion? (And arguing that lots of people say it is isn't good enough. Many people have believed many erroneous things throughout history.) WHY do you believe Islam exalts value, advances morality, nurtures the individual, preserves wisdom and has a transcendent purpose?
Please give examples and use one side of your blue book only.
Secondly, you should understand that according to Islamic thought, non-Muslims are by definition aggressors against Islam. We can't change that understanding no matter what we do.
Obama's attempted outreach is no more misguided, in fact, I would argue, is less misguided than George Bush's "Light Unto The Muslim Nations" project - trying to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. However, it is not clear to me how doubling down in Afghanistan and lavishing development funds on Pakistan is any different or any smarter.
I must assert that I believe the root of both misguided policies is the lack a of deep analysis of Islam and Islamic societies. Both policies are the products of wishful thinking and wishful thinking has historically been a major contributor to the kinds of human error that lead to world wide conflicts of the most disastrous kind.
I don't believe we will deal effectively with the Muslim world until we stop pretending Islam is something it is not - something we wish it to be - something similar to Chrisianity and Judaism, an "Abrahamic faith."
Islam differs from other religions in very profound ways. Playing "let's pretend" with out Muslim friends won't change that.
By the way, I wish Obama all the best in pulling out of Iraq. I pray he will not be drawn back in on humanitarian grounds, but I'm very afraid that will be the case.
So Rebecca my question is this:
If reaching out to Muslims is wrong, if treating them with respect is wrong, if allowing them their religion is wrong, what is your proposed solution?
I shudder to think.
Oh come now, Jack. If treating Islam similarly to communism causes you to shudder, then shudder away.
What does that mean exactly?
You're answer is "treat them like communists"?
Can you be a little more specific?
Does that mean ignore them? Engage in Cold War tactics?
I'm glad that the problem was just a technical glitch.
Jack Silverman said:
But I also feel that blaming Islam for everything, or thinking that other political factors aren't just as important if not more so, is missing the point, not to mention thoroughly counterproductive. I feel this sort of rhetoric feeds the Islamic perception that Westerners are out to get them.
That is a textbook example of a straw-man argument, as you and the members of your debate team must be aware. Writers at New English Review say that Islam is a (or "the") major cause of Islamic violence, of Islamic economic failure, of Islamic scientific decrepitude, and so you restate our position as being that there is absolutely no other factor involved, it is only Islam and nothing else. Take your debating opponents' position and restate it in an absurd way, and then discredit THAT position.
It is very dangerous, both physically (see Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, Ayan Hirsi Ali, and others who have criticized Islam and then seen fatwas published calling for their deaths) and in terms of being labelled an "extremist" and beyond the pale, to point out that Islam the belief system is to some degree responsible for the current state of Islamic societies. We can talk about to what degree Islam plays, and what the other factors are, but if you are willing to say that Islam plays some role, then welcome to "extremism."
You say that Buddhism is better than Christianity, so what? This isn't about ranking the relative "goodness" of different religions. As long as the religion doesn't call for murder or various other things I disagree with, then I celebrate all religions. If Buddhists were beheading people on a daily basis and backing it up with quotations from Sidhartha Gautama, I would be against Buddhism. They're not, and I'm not.
I'm against Islam, Aum Shin Rikyo (who set off nerve gas in the Tokyo subway), Reverend Jim Jones (who killed a California Congressman and several others before committing mass suicide/murder), Branch Davidianism (though they settled for killing only themselves), and ancient Aztec worship of gods of war that demanded human sacrifice. None of those religions should be welcomed into our society, without at least having a discussion about them. And if I'm against allowing Aum Shin Rikyo members to immigrate to our country, it's not out of a "racism" against Japanese people, for God's sake. My goal is to minimize religious violence, which I don't consider to be "extremism."
I'm an atheist, so I'm not proselytizing for any particular religion. I can look at the values taught by Jesus and Mohammad and see the differences between them, and see the effect those different values have had on their respective societies. It's no coincidence.
You see the beheading of Buddhist schoolgirls in Thailand, the beheading of British tourist Edwin Dyer in Mali, the beheading of Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, the beheading of Polish geologist Piotr Stanczak in Pakistan, and so on, and see only a string of coincidences, of political factors that independently caused Muslims to behead non-Muslims around the world. I look at these incidents, and look at the teachings of the holy Qur'an, and see that they were carried out in accordance with mainstream Islamic teachings.
You think that the beheading of non-Muslims is not mainstream Islamic belief? Fine, then tell me which Islamic sects claim that the following Qur'anic verses no longer apply in modern times:
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
The Hanfi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence (which the majority of Muslims follow) all agree that violent jihad is justified. So do the Jafari (Shi'a). So, which Muslims reject the exhortations to violence? The Wahhabis, Deobandis, Madhabs, Alawites, Kharijites? Who? Maybe the Ahmadiyya, but they are far from mainstream Muslims.
Jack Silverman said:
"As far as Muslims killing other Muslims, do you care to venture a guess as to how many Muslims we've killed in the last seven years? And how many Christians or Westerners have the Muslims killed?"
Here is where I diverge from many liberals. I don't think that the U.S. is going around and indiscriminately killing Muslims or anyone else for the sake of Imperialism, or for "oil". We should have never invaded Iraq; that was an unmitigated blunder. But even there, we toppled a brutal dictator, and allowed the Shi'a majority to vote-in a somewhat representative democratic government.
How many Taliban did we kill in Afghanistan? Not enough apparently, since they still rule the majority of the Afghan countryside. They would surely welcome Al Qaeda members back to train for future operations against U.S. and Western nations if we allowed them to.
That said, I don't think that military operations are the way to defeat Islamic violence. No matter how many Taliban are killed in Afghanistan, Talibanism (i.e. Islam) will continue there. If we could prevent any further Islamic attacks on non-Muslims without killing a single Muslim, that would be fantastic. That would be my goal, in fact. More "extremism" on my part, I know.
Oops, when I said Branch Davidians killed only themselves, I was thinking of the Heaven's Gate people. The Branch Davidians killed 4 ATF agents, before committing mass suicide/murder.
Dear Jack,
Once upon a time, there was a socio-political system called Communism. Communism was like a religion for many people because it promised a new life, a new man, a new heaven on earth and many, many people believed in it and followed those who promised it. And then it came to pass, that those people who had believed and who had overthrown the old ways and embraced the new way of Communism were gradually enslaved and many were murdered outright and many more were starved. As many as 100 million people died. During this time, there were a few who escaped the chains of communism and revealed to others the true nature of the system and many gave their lives in the attempt. “The essence of Communism is fascism,” they said. Many did not believe them, but they were heard by the leaders of the free people and those leaders opposed the spread of Communism and sought to free those who were enslaved. And thus it came to pass that Communism is no longer a strong force in the world and the free people remained free.
That is why it is important to read Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Magdi Allam and many others who have had the mental strength to escape the prison of Islam, a system they were born into, and who have risked their lives to openly declare themselves apostates – opposed to the religio-socio-political system of Islam.. All live under a constant threat of death by the true believers who do not allow any Muslim the right to leave Islam and or any right to criticize it.
Don’t you owe it t yourself, to your children, to hear them?
"Do I find certain things in the Koran over-the-top and offensive? Yes. As I do in the Bible too."
False equivalence. Scholars of the Koran claim that it is the dictated, actual, words of God delivered verbatim to Mohammed and accurately handed on to his followers. No mainstream Christian believes that about any part, or the whole, of the Bible.
Normal Christian believers, and I'm not talking here about zany fundamentalists or weird survivalist sects but about normal Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and Orthodox believers, believe that the Bible is, or may be, the Word of God as filtered through the fallible minds of free men and free women and therefore could be corrupted by any preconceived notions which those minds might have ported. We believe this because we believe, on ample evidence, that God granted us the absolute and ultimate freedom: the freedom to reject or accept Him - the promise, and premise, of the Eden story in Genesis.
For that reason we mainstream Christians do not believe that the Bible is the actual, dictated to some sort of shorthand-taking prophet or father, literal Word of God. We reserve to ourselves the right to let our God-given intellect inform our interpretation of the writings handed down to us by our predecessors in the Faith.
You solemnly seek to equate fundamentalist Muslim belief in the Koran - a belief which, demonstrably, many Muslims have - with a version of the Christian belief which just a few fundamentalist, mainly American based, sects maintain: that the Bible, or (to be more precise) their version of the Bible, is literaly correct and is Gods' actual words as dictated to, and accurately written down by, His prophets. That is a ridiculous proposition and a ridiculous belief!
It is also a ridiculous belief state for Islam to maintain. If, as they (notional Muslims) maintain, the Prophet of their religion was merely a man then how can the Koran, and their religion, not be tainted with their Prophet's biases. Men hear but they do not necessarily accurately transmit.
The Prophet's biases and His outstanding sense of grievance as His time went on, and as His so-called revealed words became increasingly desperate and violent, demonstrates, in His increasingly more sickening approach to the Jews and to the Christians, are at odds with, in a direct clash with, the message of Christ as we evolved it. Mohammed's message was to hate and kill all those who dared to disagree with Him - Christ's message was, and is, to love and forgive those who cannot see the redemptive power of love and forgiveness.
If you find certain things in the Bible to be offensive then that is because you have not yet learnt how to interpret the Bible - how to accurately deal with Biblical recension - and because you don't understand that the New Testament fulfills the Old and that the Old Testament is over, it's done with, only the New Testament matters - you, and others like you, continue to harp on about the irrelevancies of the Old Testament and its teachings as if we mainstream Christians believed in all of them, today.
You make, you continue to make despite everything we say, some false equivalence between that which we Christians do NOT believe in from our ancient texts and that which many, many Muslims DO believe in.
I find that, and it's purely my personal opinion, you simply don't have the knowledge, the depth of study about Islam, or the deep understanding of the culture and values of our societies, to argue with us, to refute, or attempt to counter, our arguments about and surrounding Islam in the West. You certainly have no understanding of mainstream Christianity!
You haven't actually read the Koran or the Hadith, have you? You haven't actually read the Christian Bible either, have you - nor have you dealt with its recension? You haven't actually read the great text of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita.
You profess to find Buddhism more to your liking than any other faith and you are entitled to do so and I applaud your choice, but I wonder whether or not you have actually read the Buddhavacana (the Word of the Buddha) and the other texts, including the Sutras, in Sanskrit (or in translation), or the Suttas. I'll wager a pound to a penny that you haven't!
Yet you seek to castigate us and call us 'right-wing' - to equate us with some spurious form of fascism which exists only in your head because we seek freedom and justice and, most importantly, equality.
So, if you judge us in such a harsh way then you must judge any other belief system equally as harshly. If you judge our Christian texts in an unforgiving way then you must apply the same standards to the Islamic Texts and the Buddhist texts which you profess to believe in.
In the interests of liberty and justice there has to be a level playing field.
So, answer me if you can, when did Christians last fly civilian airliners into buildings? When did Christians, acting in accordance with their Bible, last run amok in a city and randomly kill people? When did Christians, conforming to some exhortation to kill people who refused to believe as they do, blow up commuter trains full of travellers? When did Christians kill school teachers (Thailand) simply for the crime of teaching females?
I could go on (and on, and on). Isn't it time that you started to think about your knee-jerk reactions to anyone who challenged your ridiculous orthodoxy? And as for your writing of 'The mission statement thing was not important, and it was funny that NER latched onto that single point and made such an issue out of it. As you are now. I don't give a damn about a mission statement. We don't have a mission statement.' Then, why the hell did you bother? We don't have one either but your lot excoriates for not having one when you don't have one either! What on earth were you trying to say? Are you really trying to say that mature discussion about our societies and their futures are just some fun that you will indulge in as, and when, and in some ways, that you see fit and can be bothered with?
I get the sense that you don't treat communication on the Web with the same seriousness that I do. Your readers should know this fact - and should know how lightly you value them. This is not fun and games - this is serious debate and your inability to engage is a mark of your lack of respect for your readers.
I know when I'm being patronised! Please don't patronise me.
The post by 'Anonymous', above, about 'false equivalence', is mine. My apologies for my inability to use this medium properly! I'm still learning.
