I received an email today (from The Hobo Brasser) which appears to be an article from a man named Sam Harris.
Harris presents himself here as a Liberal with a well-established Bush Hatred complex, but he writes to describe his current disenchantment with Liberal Politics (or Philosophy, if you care to put a kindly slant to it.)
The title of the article is "
Losing Our Way in a World of Religious Extremism".
Actually, the email I received is only an abridged version of "
Head-In-The-Sand Liberals", an article published September 18, 2006, in that great Liberal Fishwrapper the L.A. Times. It's not an important detail, I just mention it because in the first draft of this article I said I didn't care enough to waste the time researching it. After I finished writing the article, I decided you deserved to at least read the original, if you cared enough to read the commentary.
However, there were a few statements that I do care about, for perverse reasons of my own, and I choose to fisk them if only for the exercise.
Here's a selection:
Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists; but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.
Here's my first quibble, the quote (I added the emphasis) that "
Islamists are not technically fascists".That may be so; Lord knows we have been searching for a phrase which distinguishes the people who cut off head in front of a video camera, fly airplanes into skyscrapers, and force journelists to convert to 'their' religion at gunpoint from those of the same religion who don't do these things.
The problem is, it must be "politically correct".
No, the problem is that it is impossible to be both descriptive and politically correct.
But in recent history (since old age and arrests have gentled Sein Fein and the IRA, the Red Army, the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Basque Separatists), we have a few basic rules which pretty well define Terrorists:
- Not all muslims are Terrorists.
- All Terrorists are muslims.
- There is no third point. That pretty well sums it up.
So let's give some credit to the Bush administration for at least making a good effort to name the bunch of muslim terrorsts in a way that doesn't offend the muslims who are NOT terrorists.
Harris seems to reject the term "Islamic Fascism" because Fascism isn't a precise description. Let's look at that, using Dictionary.com definitions:
fas•cism
Pronunciation: (fash'iz-um), [key]
—n.
1. (sometimes cap.) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes cap.) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (cap.) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
My guess is that Harris objects to the usage of the term "fascism" because definition number one refers to "a governmental system lead by a dictator". The objection is that (a) the movement is not confined to a single nation-state, and (b) there is no single obvious dictator involved.
This is mere quibbling. The situation is not really new in history, given the muslim conquests of European cities and states in past centuries, but there doesn't really exist a term which applies to religions rather than "governments" (read: nation/states).
And the fact that no single "dictator" is currently leading the attacks is yet more quibbling.
What is important is not the clearly defined source of the attacks, but the goals and means of the movement.
"... forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."I think we can all agree that this well describes the movement, with the possible subsitution of the word "religion" for "nationalism".
In the final analysis, the Islamic Fascists deliberately and consciously, themselves, consider theism above nationalism and racism.
Hmmm ... this must appeal to Liberals, with their philosophic emphasis on "inclusiveness". All nations and all races are welcome, as long as you embrace the muslim religion. Yes, I'm being facetious here, but it's still a valid point.
Speaking of Liberals, here's anothe quote from the emailed article:
Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.
While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.
There are a lot of "loaded" words here, too.
Words that add emotional overtones beyond the obvious surface meanings.
That angers me, and I don't like it when someone manipulates me like that.
You probably don't like it, either.
Words like "religious lunatics", mainly because the quote equates Islamic extremists with Christian fundamentalists. That's just wrong. How many videos are circulating of Christian Fundamentalists beheading innocent civilians, stoning their own women, or forcing religious conversion at the point of a gun? How many skyscrapers have they destroyed?
Harris, an avowed athiest, is perhaps disingenuous when he attacks "religious lunatics". He isn't just against Christian Fundamentalists. In a recent article, he took great pains to rail against the sins of "
Religious Moderates", as well. One may be correct in understanding that he considers any religious belief system to be a fatal character flaw.
But there are words which ring true to me, too
"Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't."There is some truth there. Words can describe the world as it really is, rather than as we would wish it to be. Words that disavow "moral relativity", and recognize absolutes.
Absolutes, such as cultural, religious and national survival.
The American people ... generally a Christian Nation (see note below)... don't hate muslims. But they fear the extremism that they see in this decade, and they are generally prepared to to defend themselves from a people who seem (judging from what we see in the media) determined to force us to accept their values and their lifestyle even against our will.
We read that America is the most religious nation in the world. I don't know about that. I'm not religious, and so I don't know a lot of people who are predominatly religious. But we all know that we live our lives as we see fit, and are likely to object when someone tries to tell us how to live our lives.
I don't cleave to liberal philosophy. I think some ways of living are right, and some ways are wrong. But I won't tell any man how to live his live, and I won't let any man tell me how to live my life.
This is perhaps why President Bush's challenge to "Bring It On!" was so appealing to me.
This is the thing about a free people. We'll argue with anyone about anything, but we won't allow them to force our conversion to a belief system that we don't really believe in, at the point of a sword or the muzzle of a gun. (What hypocracy on both sides!) You can kill us, but you can't beat us.
The situation is remotely analgous the the 1948 John Wayne movie "Red River". Here, the main character "Dunson" is so driven by his personal priorities, he forgets his own loves and his own humanity.
This is how I see the Islamic Fascists
(tm).
They think that they have a corner on the market of culture, religion and life-style.
We think they have nothing, and despite their acknowledged earlier contributions in mathematics and astronomy, we have to ask:
"What have you done lately?''Murder, mutilation and rhetoric don't count.
Note:(Ironically Harris just published a book named "
Letter to a Christian Nation")
I have a subscription to a statistical service (statcounter) on my blog, and one of the options is to view the frequence of viewing by various browsers. If you click on the image on the left, ImageShack (a photo-hosting service which I find more convenient than hosting full-size images myself) will pop up a readible sized image.
(Case 1) from the Bay City Times (Michigan): 
On the other hand, if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family with bodily harm, don't bother pointing your Lion at them in hopes that they will be intimidated. Lion doesn't give a rat-fart whether you get robbed, as long as nobody pokes their paw with a bony knee.
