Michael Hampton points us to a New York Times article documenting yet more cases of United States citizens being detained without cause.
Meet Abdullah al Kidd. He’s a United States citizen. He was born in Kansas and attended the University of Idaho, where he played football. Mr. Kidd was shackled and held without charges for sixteen days by our dear United States Government. On what charges? Why, none whatsoever. His offense? Studying Islam in Yemen and holding a round-trip ticket to Saudi Arabia. On what affadavit? A false affadavit containing incorrect information, submitted by the same government that detained him. As the government sums up its case, “there is no dispute that plaintiff purchased an expensive airline ticket to a foreign country with which the United States did not have an extradition treaty.” That’s the government’s justification.
As you argue or hear others argue that all this Homeland Security nonsense is worth it, that the curtailment of our liberties isn’t a problem if you haven’t done anything wrong, that we should just shut up and do what our government tells us to do, consider this case. Ask yourself: what keeps you from being the next innocent victim of our newly emboldened police state? Oh sure, maybe you have light skin, and maybe you don’t have an Arabic name. Maybe that protects you today. It may not protect you tomorrow.
First they came for the members of a religion
and I did not speak out
because I was not of that religion.
Then they came for the members of a country
and I did not speak out
because I was not of that country.
Then they came for the people of a political view
and I did not speak out
because I was not of that political view…
I take it this is based on the quotation from Rev. Martin Niemoller:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
Irregular Times is already on the slippery slope with its opposition to mainstream protestant religious expression.
You’re being silly, right, Layla? Because I’m sure you know we don’t oppose religious expression. We oppose religious coercion. You know this, so you’re being jokey. Right?
No joke.
Jim said, “If you can’t handle your religion, its ideas and its adherents behavior being harshly criticized, then you don’t have to continue to come here.”
Jim’s evil twin jClifford said, “I’m quite willing to make fun of religious hucksters of all cultures…â€
Some other readers have expressed similar sentiments, sometimes paired with the idea ‘someone made me go to church when I was a kid.’ Well, people make their kids do all kinds of stuff–go to school, brush their teeth, stay out of the street, do chores, visit relatives–but the going to church thing seems to trigger some deep hostility. I don’t understand it.
This one from Jim: “I do not have an ‘open mind.’ My mind is not so open as to fall out. Our minds are filtering instruments that function to detect and reject bullshit.”
Your message goes way beyond opposing religious coercion. You proselytize for atheism. Religious expression by nature concerns itself with truths we cannot understand with our minds.
I don’t understand your hostility.
Layla, you twit. I’m using a nicer word than what I’m thinking; I don’t like being selectively quoted. Read in context. I specifically told you you were WELCOME here when I wrote this. My point was that if you made the choice to come here, you shouldn’t then whine about this website being what it is. My point was expressly NOT to tell you not to come here; it was to note that you choose to come here.
I support your right to express your religious point of view. In fact, I PAY FOR IT.
I do not support your feeling that you should be able to express a religious point of view without anyone criticizing you for it. I call that line of bullshit for what it is. Your freedom from religious establishment is not a requirement that everyone pretend along with you. See, we all have that freedom. Not just you. All of us.
You have before used the word “bashing” to refer to people criticizing the validity of your religiously-based ideas. And now you equate someone criticizing your ideas with what you know Niemoller was referring to unless you’re quoting from sheer ignorance — the HOLOCAUST??? Someone criticizing your ideas is equivalent to the HOLOCAUST??? How rich.
This all-too-common “I’m entitled to my Christian opinion, and you’re entitled to extol it” point of view is exactly why you encounter “hostility” from me. Try harder to understand it.
Ooh, good one, Layla:
“Your message goes way beyond opposing religious coercion. You proselytize for atheism.”
Now, you don’t mean to say that proselytizing puts you on the slippery slope to being a Nazi, do you?
Are Christians who proselytize on that slippery slope? Or just atheists?
We’ve seen this with Layla before: One standard for Christians, another for everybody else.
Tony,
I don’t agree with proselytizing. I am frequently a guest at a mosque; I tell my Moslem friends Allah wants them to be Moslem. I think the Koran goes farther than the Bible in this regard, saying (Baqara 62) Allah created all the different religions for a purpose and that there is a place in paradise for all. My Moslem friends have also been my guest at church. I invited them with the idea that they could see for themselves what Christianity was about. No one was rude to them; no one talked to them about changing religion.
We live in a pluralistic society. I believe it is important for religious groups to recognize each other, reach out to each other, respect each other, find common ground, and develop relationships with each other. I could probably do this as an employee or as a student, or as a neighbor, but I choose to do it as a member of a church. Yes, I include atheists in this group, again, if they choose to respect my beliefs as well.
“Now, you don’t mean to say that proselytizing puts you on the slippery slope to being a Nazi, do you?”
No, I didn’t say that, but what is proselytizing anyway? It is one thing to teach people about your religion and the beliefs that go with it, so they understand where you are coming from, and so you can find common ground. It is quite another thing to expect them to embrace your beliefs as their own personal truth. The second I believe is the beginning of something dangerous.
Jim, Jim, Jim, what am I going to do with you now? ‘Twit’? TWIT!?#! Do you have any idea what that word meant in Shakespeare’s time? How is it possible to think of a word less nice than that? You have been listening to too many naughty podcasts.
I have yet to hear what religious point of view I have expressed that you are disagreeing with. So far you have only attacked me as a person by namecalling. Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and other members of the religious right are shown much more respect on this forum, since their ideas and not their personalities are discussed.
In my experience, if someone says “take your time” it is to introduce the concept of speed into the conversation, and get them to hurry up. If someone says “you are welcome here” it is to introduce the subject of the person’s welcome, which had not been questioned previously.
“My point was that if you made the choice to come here, you shouldn’t then whine about this website being what it is.”
This is the old “love it or leave it” argument of the sixties. The argument at that time was if you didn’t agree with the Vietnam war, you should go to Canada instead of pointing out the immorality of the war and working for change. It is a point of view that considers itself to be the only authority, and does not accept dissent. It is the opposite of free speech.
“This all-too-common “I’m entitled to my Christian opinion, and you’re entitled to extol it†point of view is exactly why you encounter “hostility†from me. Try harder to understand it.”
What ideas of mine are you criticizing? What is it you think you’re being asked to “extol”? I am trying to understand, but the only thing I’m getting out of this is that ‘the only true progressive is an atheist progressive’. I fear that once again the Democrats will shoot ourselves in the foot with petty infighting, while the religious right turns more states red.
I know IrregularTimes doesn’t support any single religion, and that they mostly focus on Christianity because it’s a site that focuses on US politics, and the only religious fundamentalists frequently having a say in that are Christians.
That said, I’ve repeatedly heard their support for people who have a religion without wanting it to be forced onto other people.
We’ve had quite a few Christian members here, and mostly so long as their religion was a personal thing, not a compulsory thing, they were welcome.
The only bias I’ve seen from this site to Christians in general is that they think the “good” Christians should start speaking out more against the fundamentalists who are misrepresenting the religion.
Yeah, you pissed me off that much. No, I have no idea what “Twit” meant in Shakespeare’s time, but I know what it means now.
You want me to spell it out, what pisses me off about your conduct?
1) You go on occasionally about how Irregular Times “bashes,” when clearly we are nonviolent.
2) Another way you express it is in offhand comments that religious people don’t seem to be “welcome” here.
3) You compare Irregular Times’ criticism of religion to the Holocaust.
4) Lather, rinse, repeat.
This frustrates me because it’s such a misreading of what Irregular Times does. I mean, SWEET LACK OF JESUS, LOOK AT THE SUBJECT OF THIS POST! It’s about someone who is NOT LIKE ME in color, name, or religion being shackled without charge, and me being upset about it.
Irregular Times has no problem with religious people existing or being here. We pay for you to have that privilege, and we begrudge it to no-one (except the spammers and one guy who was trying to do clumsy extortion… ask around).
Irregular Times has a huge problem with so many religious people (including you) thinking they have a ticket to both express their beliefs AND not have anybody question or criticize those beliefs. That is a line of bullshit that passes for clean in most of America. It’s not going to play here. Your beliefs will be criticized here, just as my beliefs will be criticized here. If you don’t want to have your beliefs criticized, don’t come here. If you want to come here, prepare to have your beliefs criticized (just as I give you a space to criticize mine). That’s not a threat, that’s not a suggestion that you leave, it’s a description of what this website is and will continue to be.
Hold on a second: Does proselytizing put you on the slippery slope toward being a Nazi? Yes or no.
You’re avoiding a simple yes or no answer, because you’ve got a double standard going: atheist proselytizing, yes. Christian proselytizing, no.
No, you didn’t say the exact words “proselytizing puts you on the slippery slope to being a Nazi.” But you did say Irregular Times was on that slippery slope. Asked if you were kidding about that, you said you weren’t, and that Irregular Times “proselytizes for atheism.”
Don’t try to have it both ways. Spell it out.
Then you go on to say that expecting others to embrace your beliefs as their own personal truth “is the beginning of something dangerous.” Now, whatever could you mean by “beginning” of “something dangerous,” since we’re talking about “slippery slopes” to being Nazis?
If that’s not what you’re talking about, what exactly DO you mean by “beginning” of “something dangerous?”
“Harbinger” of “running with scissors?”
“Omen” of “darting into traffic?”
“Precursor” of “poor hygeine?”
Sorry Layla, you’re just not slick enough to say both yes and no at the same time and be convincing. So please, spell it out.
If you’re going to fight with someone, I always think it’s a good idea to say something nice about them first. So I’ll skip the name-calling stuff and say straight out that I agree with 90% of what Jim says about everything. Maybe that’s why he says I’m such a twit.
Now for the fight. Read again, Jim what I said about religion-bashing. I stated the readers of the diaries would not give high scores to an essay unless it bashed religion. I also quoted some religion-bashing, name-calling remarks made by readers of the Bomjan piece. None of your readers came back and said it was not their intention to bash religion.
I think you know what I mean by religion-bashing, but let me make it even more clear. I mean it as the opposite of hagiography. I wouldn’t expect this forum to waste time idealizing, venerating, or idolizing religious figures or beliefs, especially when those views are not shared by the writer, but neither would I expect them to blast someone who was engaging in bona fide religious expression, at the same time they were doubting or questioning the ideas or the political machinations behind the believers. If the shoe fits…
No, I did not say you were engaging in a holocaust. I said you were on a slippery slope. I don’t have a crystal ball that tells me what someone is thinking or feeling or what their motivations are for writing a particular phrase, but I sense a lot of hostility or maybe just discomfort with Christianity in particular.
But that’s an interesting question. Does the kind of speech you are engaging in—the kind I perceive as hostile to Christianity-lead to holocausts? To ponder the question I went for my daily walk and ended up at the abandoned WWII Nike missile site at the other end of the lake. How did the holocaust happen? According to Niemoller, it was first the communists, then the trade unions, then the Jews. I couldn’t get my mind around the question. I just kept seeing the bright green moss growing over the acres of concrete that covered the underground missal vaults I was walking over. Swords into plowshares….missile sites into public use areas…
No, Jim, I don’t think what you are doing is hate speech, not yet. But we know the price of freedom. And the place to begin with vigilance is with ourselves.
yemen…Yemen? Did you say YEMEN? He went to yemen and then he just went out of Yemen, when everyone I know who has ever been to Yemen has gotten kidnapped faster than you can say ‘habeus corpus.’
A round-trip ticket to Saudi? How did he get that? I only know one person who got into Saudi and it was on a transit visa to Kuwait. She had to have the home phone number of a Saudi Big Honcho just to get across the border. A few years ago the Saudis were disappearing and sometimes killing Brits who worked at the British Consul after making some alcohol charge. (That was after the Japanese cartoon Pokeman was banned in Saudi for being too ‘Jewish’) My Arabic tutor taught English in Saudi for a while because they couldn’t get Brits to stay anymore.
Layla,
You’re being silly. What makes you think that religion deserves special protection from criticism?
Get a grip. People have the right to criticize what religious people say and do in the name of their religion. It’s not bashing. It’s criticism.
If you can’t deal with that, then it doesn’t say very good things about the values that your religion is teaching you.
Layla,
Your selective quote of Niemoller — “According to Niemoller, it was first the communists, then the trade unions, then the Jews…” — leaves out the verb: came for. Not criticized. Came for. As in hauled away, into the prisons, into the camps, never to be seen again.
And your point is that I’m a Nazi in training because I criticize religion?
No, I don’t think I need say anything more about that. You’ve done all the work yourself.
Oh, so you’re on your way to being a fascist if you criticize “someone who was engaging in bona fide religious expression?”
Now, does that really make sense? I mean, by all indications, Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden are engaged in expressing genuine religious sentiments–screwy though they may be. Does criticizing either of them bring you closer to being a Nazi?
I mean, here’s Irregular Times coming to the defense of the rights of somebody who’s religious convictions they do not share. And you take this occasion to tell Irregular Times they’re on the path to fascism, then cast suspicion on the person whose rights were violated: Just what WAS he doing in Yemen and Saudi Arabia?
If the day ever comes that Christians start getting rounded up without due process in America, Irregular Times will be there to stand up for their rights– even while they disagree with their religious teachings.
Well, Tony, we’ll probably have been hauled off to jail long ourselves long before then.
But, yeah, otherwise I agree with you.
I don’t think this guy Abdullah is the poster child of ‘detained for no reason at all‘ but I would agree the law is being misused.
Niemoller was the fourth one he himself listed, he did indeed spend the war in a concentration camp and he was indeed seen again. He made the famous remarks after the war.
This is not a ‘selective quote’. If you follow the link you will see it in the original German with two possible English translations. Other links at that site will direct you to discussions of whether Catholics were ever included in Niemoller’s list, and who was taken away first, which historians consider to be important because it describes the actual historical sequence of repression.
Junga says, “People have the right to criticize what religious people say and do in the name of their religion.†So, what did I say and what did I do that anyone does not agree with? I have yet to hear it.
Instead, my church is being equated with Charles Manson and Osama ben Laden.
And more name-calling.
Then a misrepresentation of my remarks. Read them again, Jim. “No, I did not say you were engaging in a holocaust.†And “I don’t think what you are doing is hate speech, not yet.†But you insist you are a Nazi in training, so I give up, I will just agree with you.
No recognition of any right to engage in religious expression or practices. No recognition of any freedom of religion for Christians. Only the right to engage in ‘a-religion’ by atheists, a right that I have consistently defended.
The issue of irrational hostility directed against Christians is being demonstrated, but not addressed.
Layla says,
“No recognition of any right to engage in religious expression or practices. No recognition of any freedom of religion for Christians. Only the right to engage in ‘a-religion’ by atheists, a right that I have consistently defended.”
Well, sorry to be blunt, but that’s bullshit. We support your right to engage in religious expression every time you come on here and post. We don’t just support your right to engage in religious expression, we PAY FOR IT with our copious webhosting fees. We PAY for people who disagree with us on issues of religion, and politics, and the environment, and gays, and war, and and and….
On the day that the government tells Christians that they cannot express their Christianity (when their speech isn’t paid for on the government dime), you will find me venting my spleen in outrage on Christians’ behalf. But that’s not what’s happening in this country right now.
In this country, right now, the Bush admininstration is funding Christian proselytization and conservative Christian fundamentalists are expressing their ever-stronger assertion that they have the right to shove their religious standards down other people’s throats. So you’re damned tootin’ that the Christian religious system of today could stand a little criticizing.
You see, the only thing we don’t support is the feeling some Christians seem to have that they have a “right” to express their religious stances without anybody being able to respond critically to those stances. Yes, when you write here and tell us what YOU think, in an act of expression that we support in principle and with our own money, we will respond by exercising our OWN right to tell you what WE think.
That’s the back-and-forth of liberty. I continue to be mystified by your unwillingness to support that.
When I see someone who wants to respond critically to my religious stance, I will support that. I have only seen personal attacks, misrepresentation of my position, and name-calling.
Please do not equate my denomination with the ‘Christian right.’ In fact, millions of dollars have been spent by this ’Christian right’ to destroy my denomination and two others:
“The political right-wing operating in the guise of a gaggle of so-called “renewal groups†particularly one named the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), has acquired the money and political will to target three mainline American denominations: the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Episcopal Church… The IRD’s conservative social-policy goals include increasing military spending and foreign interventions, opposing environmental protection efforts, and eliminating social welfare programs.â€
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2003/0710.shtml
“IRD hopes that their supporters will take over the United Methodist Church in the same way conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Church during the 1970s… We now know that the Institute on Religious Democracy is operated and funded by some of the most extremist political operatives in the nation.â€
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/10/update_the_inst.html
So many people want to destroy us, you have to think we are doing SOMETHING right.
Layla,
You’re projecting. Nobody’s called YOU someone headed down the slippery slope to Nazi-ism. The worst I’ve called you is a “twit,” which despite what Shakespeare may have meant by it, now refers to (Merriam-Webster) “a silly annoying person.” That describes behavior, and your behavior — in calling Irregular Times (which enables your speech) somehow restrictive upon you and in the same breath calling for Irregular Times to restrict its speech to saying nice things about Christianity — has been both silly and annoying to me. And I’m not equating you or calling you a fundamentalist Christian conservative, either. I’m responding to your mystification about why anyone would feel hostility to Christianity. Well, that’s why.
Not projecting, follow the links. I didn’t put them up there just to look blue and pretty. The same people who funded Whitewater, Monicagate, and dug up Paula Jones. Financed by Adolph Coors (remember the Coors boycott?-he’s a nasty one), $1.6 million from Richard Millon Scaife who financed the 8-year campaign against Bill & Hillary, $1.3 million from Lynde & Harry Bradley foundation with ties to John Birch Society. These people are not baking cookies. More in Stephen Swecker’s “Hard Ball on Holy Ground: The Religious Right v. the Mainline for the Church’s Soul,” but you can find the gist of it on the web. These are not just name-calling. They sent a troll to crash our bishop’s retirement party. These are the people who are really threatened by religious expression.
“Nazi-ism”? “restrictive”? “calling for IT to say nice things about Christianity” Don’t put words in my mouth. If you want to disagree with something I said, please use the exact statement, don’t make up something. You are calling yourself these things. This is not up to your usual standards.
It looks like the Christian extremists have finally turned on Christians who aren’t extremist enough for their tastes.
That probably explains why Layla’s so touchy about people even appearing to contradict or criticize her religious beliefs–because there actually are people out there who really hate her religion, and want to destroy it. And these guys play dirty.
Well welcome to the club, Layla. They may just have turned on the Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians. But they have been throwing every ounce of venom they could muster at atheists for decades.
Just wait and see what the right-wing Christian extremists start saying about you, now that you’re in their crosshairs. See if it doesn’t start to sound a lot like the stuff they’ve been saying about “secular humanists” for the last quarter century.
The thing you’ve still got to get through your head is that, while “secular humanists” might argue with Episcopalians, Methodists or Presbyterians, or even make fun of them every once in a while, they are not implementing an orchestrated campaign to destroy them.
The people setting out systematically to destroy your faith, Layla, are self-identified CHRISTIANS.
Mario, while the expression “secular humanist” may sound like it refers to atheists, it actually is a conservative evangelical label for liberal or mainstream protestantism. American Prostantism split into two camps in the 1880′s as a response to intellectual revolution 1) new scholarship threatened long-standing assuptions about biblical inerrancy and literalism, 2) Darwin, Freud, Marx claims for material determinism 3) social revolution, immigration, new worldviews from Roman Catholicism, industrial revolution, urbanization, all undermined the perceived authority of traditional Christian doctrine.
Liberal protestant churches embraced modernity and re-adjusted doctrine around new ideas such as evolution; concentrated on social reform, the building of a more perfect society on earth. Fundamentalists viewed this as a human-centered theology rather that a god-centered one and circled the wagons around “right doctrine.” Fundies have been vigorous since the 1920′s, but were under the radar until the 70′s and Jerry Fallwell.
Fundies have an angry, militant “us against them” view of the world. “The dark hates the light.” Revelation says an anti-christ will arise to do battle, and the secular humanism of mainstream protestantism is seen as the force driven by Satan. I’m not sure where you atheists fit into their world view, whether you are important enough to battle against or whether you get lumped in with us. In any case, you are invited to explore your dark side with us and read bible, and believe whatever you damn well feel like believing. Actually we don’t waste time hating them becasue we are too busy singing “amazing grace”; the hate is all on their side, which might also tell you where the darkness is.
I don’t think the atheists on this site are consciously trying to destroy religion, but there is un underlying current of hostility toward religion in general and christianity in particular. Others have remarked on it too, but maybe they’re not even aware of it, as they seem to be otherwise responsible people.
You say “underlying current of hostility toward religion in general and christianity in particular,”
I say “willingness to honestly criticize religious ideas when we deem them worth of criticism, and to criticize efforts by religious people and institutions to shove their standards down others’ throats.”
I understand that you don’t like it when religious people force others to follow their own parochial standards of behavior. But are you also saying that it’s inappropriate to criticize religious ideas? Because clearly, we are not enforcing our beliefs on anybody. We’re simply expressing our ideas. Is it the expression of opposition to one set of religious beliefs that you can’t stand?
That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s a real one, because if the answer is yes, then gosh and crackers, YOU qualify as a baddie too. I mean, look at your last comment, Layla: you’re “bashing” the “fundies”! You’re calling names! You seem to have an undercurrent of hostility toward fundamentalism! Why are you so hostile? You seem to be an otherwise responsible person!
Yes, that last paragraph was written with tongue firmly placed in cheek: using your own words in reductio ad absurdum ad nauseum fashion. I support your right to say what you say, and I support others’ right (even the fundamentalists’ right) to come on here and criticize you right back. You feel comfortably free criticizing fundamentalism. Why shouldn’t others be comfortably free to criticize other religious points of view?
“Why shouldn’t others be comfortably free to criticize other religious points of view?”
Apparently, it depends on whether the religion in question is “bona fide.”
If it’s bona fide, criticizing it puts you on the road to being a Nazi. If it isn’t, criticize away!
Question is, how can you tell if a religion is bona fide? Layla’s not clear on that, but she has given us some examples:
Bona fide: Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian.
Not bona fide: Fundamentalist, Manson Family, Osama bin Laden.
It’s bad bad bad to lump together bona fide with non-bona fide, even though they are all religious (ooops, pardon me: bona fide=religious; not bona fide=servants of evil).
In the interests of avoiding plagiarism, let me add the above material (#26) was taken from the teleclass study guide “Beliefs and Believers†by John K. Simmons that I have mentioned before.
Look at my last paragraph again, Jim. I’m afraid it refers to atheists, not fundies. That’s ah, you, actually. Y’all do seem to be otherwise responsible people, but perhaps unaware of your own hostility? Maybe it’s not intentional; it doesn’t fit with the rest of your editorial stance.
“I understand that you don’t like it when religious people force others to follow their own parochial standards of behavior.†We agree on this.
“But are you also saying that it’s inappropriate to criticize religious ideas?†I’m not sure where you’re going with this one. A belief by definition cannot be proven, so what is there to discuss or criticize? Maybe an example would help me understand what you mean by ‘criticizing religious ideas’.
Bomjon was resoundingly ridiculed on your pages, yet from what I know about the eight-fold path of Buddhism, he is doing something very much in keeping with his religious traditions and culture. I do think it is appropriate to question the type of political forces that surround this phenomenon, as you did.
“Because clearly, we are not enforcing our beliefs on anybody.†Here’s where the problem starts. Because you have not criticized my religious point of view. You have misrepresented my remarks, equated my church with Charles Manson and Osama ben Laden (that was Mario) and called me names (that was Jim).
You, Jim, were very clear about the name-calling thing and made sure I understood what you were calling me and what it meant to you. This amounts to a personal attack, not an attack on ideas. If this is not an attempt to coerce me into silence, I don’t know what is.
Since you claim to support religious freedom, I take your statement at face value, because I regard you as a responsible person. But your words are very much at odds with your actions.