Dean's World Line In The Sand: Make A Choice
Dean
Back in the 1950s William F. Buckley Jr. conducted a purge in the ranks of his young publication, The National Review. He was running a conservative publication at a time when conservative publications were not respected and were thus by nature low-circulation. In those circumstances it would be hard to stand on principal and refuse to associate with certain parties who might provide short-term gain.
Buckley refused to align his publication with elements on the right that were excessively hateful, rabidly racist, or just plain nuts. The whole thing came to a head when Buckley one day drew a line in the sand:
You could either be a John Birch Society supporter, or you could write for the National Review.
One or the other. "Both" was not an option.
This is a minor correction to my friend Ron Coleman's earlier article by the way. It was not anti-semites he threw off his publication, although he was no anti-semite and hired many Jews. No, it was radical frothing nutjobs who saw Communist conspiracies everywhere. Buckley was staunchly anti-Communist, but would not align himself with people who saw everything as a Communist plot.
Today National Review is still one of the most respected conservative intellectual journals. The John Birch Society is rightly remembered as a bunch of right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists.
Not that the National Review is the greatest publication in the history of the universe, but it's a venerable and respectable institution that's made a difference in the world. I find the example inspiring.
And, having wearied of fighting constantly against Islamophobic fools on Dean's World and other places, only to have people ridiculously deny the very possibility that there could be any such thing as Islamophobia even when the evidence is presented them full in the face, I've decided to draw a similar line in the sand:
You can be an Islamophobe, or you can contribute to Dean's World. You cannot do both.
This is meant for front-page contributors, submitters, or even commenters. It is time for you to make a choice, and to live by that choice. Because I certainly intend to.
Simply put, you must agree withto all of the following assertionsassumptions:
1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.
2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
Is this a test of "ideological purity?"
Why yes. Yes it is.
If you cannot accept, wholeheartedly, all of the above 5 assertions--without exception or weasel-wording--then if you are a front page Dean's World contributor you should turn in your keys and say goodbye. You can do it gracefully or ingracefully. You can do it by email or by posting whatever you want on the front page before you go. Your choice. But you need to do it: you need to leave.
Furthermore, I will accept no more debate upon this matter by commenters bent upon snarky, snotty, Islamophobic irrationality. You should either stop using your comment account, or you should be prepared to simply be thrown out without further ado.
I'm done with this.
By the way, feel free to take us off your blogroll if you can't handle this. Or to ask me to take you off of ours.
We can still be friends if you want. I have relatives and even friends who are racists, sexists, homophobes, even anti-semites. But I won't provide them with a forum either.
Criticism is fine. Intellectual argument is fine. Traditionalist moral arguments are fine. But I will not provide a forum for haters or paranoids.
I'm done. Islamophobia has no more place in polite society than any other form of irrational hatred, and I will no longer be any part of hosting discussions or "debates" with Islamophobes.
*Update*: Made a slight modification above. Sorry about that. Nothing really major though.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Heartening
- The new Editorial Policy
- "Ideological Purity"...
- My two cents
- Non-Negotiable
- Dean's World Line In The Sand: Make A Choice
Religions often have to wrestle with democracy and modernity. That is nothing new.
So I don't think I need to repeat myself.
I hope you see my point. If not, well then don't. The line in the sand is drawn. It's not negotiable.
You need to clarify this statement e.g. "waged by Islam" in place of Muslims.
There are some Muslims like Osama Bin Laden who are waging such a war. They are extremists and rare - just like David Koresh, Rev. Jim Jones, and I might add, Pat Robertson - who does more damage to Christianity with his mouth than anything James Cameron may have found in Jerusalem.
So, off to the Czar's World gulag for thought crimes I go!
Pffft.
I agree wholeheartedly with 1,2,4,5.
However,an answer to #3, that is any more than a best guess or assumption, requires a thorough understanding of Islam and its varied forms and a thorough understanding of most religions to boot.You are requiring one to know "most religions" to such an extent that he can say that religion x is no less compatible with modernity than religion y, not even insignificantly so,while religion y is no more compatible with modernity than religion x,not even insignificantly so.Not at all.
I don't know if there is anyone at all that can answer your question(as worded)with proper intellectual rigour.
I am nitpicking because my continued presence here
testifies that I agree with your assertion as worded, not necessarily as you mean it.
Also,I have to know exactly what you mean,because
to continue using your forum without passing your test may in fact be stealing.And even if it is not,it is not something I'm willing to do.
Also,please specify what you mean by Islam.There are many forms of Islam.Some most certainly compatible with goodness.And some most certainly not.
In other words, they are based on faith and belief. And I am faithless and a nonbeliever. If a phenomenon cannot be studied in terms of reason and logic, then I have no interest in it whatsoever.
That means I don't want any of this religion crap cluttering up my life. I don't want my wife or daughter to feel compelled to dress in freak costumes like black cockroaches because of some rule that an ignorant priest, pastor, rabbi, imam or mullah cooks up in what I think are vain efforts to make him and the rest of us more godly.
Because I couldn't care less even if there is or is not a god, or gods, or goddesses, or all the rest of the heavenly show. I figure that none of that is going to make me immortal, so I'll croak one day no matter what the rest of you believe or do not believe.
Does this mean that I want to have unlimited immigration in this country of people from anywhere, including Europe? It sure as hell does not.
In any case, as you know, race and religion mean nothing to me, but culture means everything. So if anybody in this country wants to practice Islam, I have no problem with him or her doing that, so long as the life he or she leads is strictly as a member of the predominant culture of the USA. Otherwise, I want nothing to do with them.
---
As for your comments about the John Birch Society (JBS). I had not even been aware there still is such a group. But thanks to your link, I looked them up.
And I have to tell you that I find myself in agreement with nearly everthing they claim they are for. Including unlimited gun rights for american citizens; America first in all international matters; putting a militarily guarded fence along out border with Mexico, and using armed force to enforce it; keeping this country from falling into the pit of socialism under any guise; cancelling any efforts to create a north american union with free access of foreigners into our country; and so on.
Interestly, JBS claims they are making political inroads into all sorts of countries, including Israel.
Does this mean I would become a member of JBS? Hell no. I don't waste my time or money on ideologists anymore. But from what I've seen of them, I think I wish them well.
---
But none of this probably addresses the point that I think you are trying to make. Which is that you want a litmust test in regard to acceptability of Islam on the part of American citizens.
Which flies directly in the face of:
"Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy."
I think your latest gauntlet, if you are serious, makes a real joke of that. So maybe you ought to pull that off your masthead if you intend to exercize thought control about Islam over your contributors and commenters.
And no, I surely don't think SMA would approve either.
Besides. What happens in the long run if events prove you wrong and Professor Samuel Huntington right? Maybe, just maybe, we are in a conflict of civilizations with them. Maybe he knows something about intercivilizational conflicts that you don't.
What then?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I think if the Iraq project is not abandoned, we might see Iraq become to the Middle East what Kurdistan is to Iraq right now: an example of how things can be.
I do wonder what happened to the "Democracy! Whisky! Sexy!" guy. I know he's not alone.
Still.. while I agree 95% with these points.. I don't know that I can agree 100%. If that makes me an islamophobe.. well.. I guess that's what I am.
It's your site, you're free to make the rules.
of what you are requiring of a commentator to remain:From what you wrote before your list,i gather that a commentator must agree to all five assertions to remain a welcome commentator;from what you wrote
following your list,I gather that the condition applies only to front-page contributers.Could you please clarify?
In many respects I don't have any great problem with alot of the list, but I do find it troubling, mainly because it is a litmus, thought-crime oriented thing.
If you really want commenters to hang up their hats, thats your prerogative, Dean. Just be sure you're clear on why.
I can only say I agree with #1, #4, and #5.
#2 is more or less semantics. It is possible to identify a pattern (not only one-way, of course; but it is a pattern) of expansionist and/or extortionist attack directed at cultures loosely referred to as "the West" (and not only the West BTW!) and which come, speaking generally, from cultures that fly under the banner of Islam, and motivated to large extent by that faith's aspiration (again, speaking loosely) to one day bring all of the earth under its temporal power. It is then semantically defensible to refer to this historical pattern as a "war with the West". Now, it may not be all that useful or constructive to refer to such a complex history in this simplistic way. However, I would not be willing to say that "There is no" such historical pattern. There certainly is, and to deny it is just plain ignorant or dishonest. So the strongest statement I can make on this point is "It's unhelpful and overly-simplistic to speak of a so-called 1400 year old 'war with the West'."
#3 is devoid of intellectual content. I don't even know what it means and I doubt you really do either. What does it mean to say that Islam is/is not something "as a religion"? This is opposed to what? Can Islam be X "as a religion" but Y "as a pop song", "as an antifreeze", "as a pair of tube socks"? What? And even if I could clear that up, how am I supposed to gauge whether Islam is "inherently" incompatible with womens' rights, etc.? "Inherently" is a trap you're setting up. I say Islam is more incompatible with womens' rights than almost any other religion/culture/ideology (it's all 3) you could name, then you'll presumably come along and say "Aha, but is it INHERENTLY so??". Which means what, exactly? I say, to paraphrase Mr. Gump, a culture is as a culture does. There's no such thing as "inherently"; that's meaningless. If it's AT ALL possible to say a culture treats women poorly, then Islam qualifies! If Islam doesn't qualify (because it's not "inherently" bad on womens' rights "as a religion", or whatever your clever phrasing is), then NOTHING qualifies. So your "inherently" qualifier is meaningless; presumably you define "inherently" in some weird, tricky, strict way such that Islam doesn't count as being "inherently" bad on womens' rights even though, in plain English, anyone with 10% of a brain, including you Dean, knows full well that Islam is pretty fricking bad when in comes to womens' rights. So what I'm saying is there's no intellectually-honest way for me to answer your #3, because you've set forth terms that are either meaningless or whose definitions are shifty. Here's the strongest I'd be able to say: "There are plenty of Muslims who treat women just fine (etc.), and it's perfectly possible for what we'd consider a decent society to exist in the context of an Islamic-dominated culture."
So that's my answer; yes to #1, #4, and #5 only; but I'd have to modify #2 and #3 significantly. I like your blog and think you're a very good blogger (although that opinion may depend on your answer to this question): Given my above answers to your test, should I leave? Just give me the word if that's what you want,
I'm reading and knodding, "of course, of course..." But at 3 I said, "Gee man, I'm not sure that's true".
4 and 5 will bring no disagreement from me either.
Just 3. At least not as it is currently worded.
It should be obvious that if you examine 20 religions and plot them on a scale of "compatibility with modernity" then you would get a more or less random distribution with some higher and some lower. To assert that Islam is near the top of that list and expect people to take that at face value is dogma Dean, not logic or reason. I would not feel comfortable saying the same thing about Christianity, much less Islam.
#2 I am okay with so long as you recognize that Islam itself may not be at war with the West, but there are some pretty significant elements that most demonstrably are engaged in that war.
Dean, would you say that Islam has no more problem with Israel than any other religion?
I guess if you think that is sufficient to bump me off of Dean's World, well, heck Dean, it's your world.
But personally I think demanding that people subscribe to such a statement is going to have two effects you will regret.
1. It will cost you some intelligent, quality posters who simply don't agree with every aspect of your position on this, but who are not remotely Islamophobic.
2. It will lead some people who hold views incompatbile with your test to lie about themselves.
Overall I think this mandate is not consistent with the principles and openness that I've found Dean's World to be a haven on the Internet for. If you enforce such a mandate, then I believe you've lost a significant amount of those principles.
But, hey, it's your world Dean.
You've known me (electronically) for about 4-1/2 years. Like most other folks, I have my own loves, hates, petty triumphalisms, fears. About politics, international relations, and just about everything else. You've read me like an open book all this time, so you know all of the above.
But I don't think I ever have taken religion seriously. And I find myself living in a time when the world is trying to make folks like me join up with one team or another. And that bothers me.
So for me, the problem isn't Islam per se. Sometimes its the Moslems per se. Sometimes I wish I lived in an era when people didn't take all this crap seriously enough to murder one another over it. But now I see it growing into something monstrous and irrational.
Could I live an in islamized America? I don't really know. Because the experience around the world is that freedom either died out or never got started in just about every islamic society.
Is that an inherent problem about Islam, or is it just because Moslems are raised in some crazy tradition that flies in the face of everything we take for granted in western civilization?
Anyway, think all this over. The day will come when you will be glad you kept alive the principle of:
"Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy."
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Which means that you think Osama Bin Laden is somehow an "authentic voice" for Islam.
Stop trying to rationalize it. #3 is as stupid and destructive as all the rest. If you don't recognize this, there's an obvious course of action for you:
Look up in the upper right hand corner for the little "X" button. Click it. Then don't come back.
If you want to embrace fucking nutjob conspiracy theorist murderer logic, then do it somewhere else. This isn't the place for you.
This point is as non-negotiable as all the rest. There is no 1,400 year old war except in the minds of deluded psychopaths. If you think there is one, then you need to go and play with your fellow paranoid nutjob friends.
"Non-negotiable" means exactly what you think it means.
I don't much give a fuck whether you like it or not, either. Go find somewhere else to play if you cannot accept basic sanity as a precondition to discussions.
"It's unhelpful and overly-simplistic to speak of a so-called 1400 year old 'war with the West'."
and
"There are plenty of Muslims who treat women just fine (etc.), and it's perfectly possible for what we'd consider a decent society to exist in the context of an Islamic-dominated culture."
Yeah, I'm an "Islamophobe" all right. Congratulations on ferreting me out! Bye,
I think the 1,400 year war one is #2, not #3. Or am I missing something?
If you dont buy #3, the most reasonable and clearcut of all of them, then you're a liar if you claim to support teh war in Iraq.
Pick a religion. Put it in the place of Islam in #3 and think about it. Unless every religion in the world is identically compatible with modernity, then some are more and some are less. Which ones are more and which ones are less is a matter of debate. To assert as you and Dean have without any empirical proof that Islam just happens to be in the top 90% of religions in compatibility with modernity is simply dogma. It is quite debatable. And as I said before, I would be just as uncomfortable saying the same thing about Christianity. I know a significant number of Christians, mostly of the fundamentalist variety, that I find to be almost completely incompatible with modernity. How does that compare to Hinduis, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc.? I think that would be a long and interesting discussion.
If we could keep accusations of "Islamophobia" "Christophobia" "Hinduphobia" and "MormonoPhobia" out of the debate.
I'm not going to leave on my own account. If you want me out of here, you'll have to kick me out. I enjoy your site to much to leave on my own.
If you do, so be it. If not, thank you for not evicting me. But your wording of #3 is not something I can agree to for the reasons I have stated twice.
Yes, it must be done at times. But I don’t think you have reached the point here where it is necessary. Yet.
But thresholds of pain vary.
That being said, I have no problem with it. It’s your world, literally. And I actually think your guidelines make sense. All of them.
And I’ll sign up with no regrets.
My biggest worry is that this might make it harder to get insight into what the "best and brightest" of the idiots and assholes are thinking.
I sure as hell ain’t wasting my time going to the websites where they normally hang out. You were just the right "bait" that brought the most literate ones to light.
I'd be a lot more comfortable if you threatened to throw people out for calling your other commenters idiots and assholes when they disagree with them. That's a line in the sand I could get behind.
Asshole.
I cant believe everyone wants a real debate about a topic like that. Whats next, the Dean's World Forum on the Holocaust?
Since when did "defending the liberal tradition" come to mean "we can slander people at will" ? there are bounds on debate, not on speech. You can say anything you want, but no one owes you a debate if you choose to say something vile.
isn't that sort of a pedantic distinction? I mean surely we can agree that there is a general spirit here, and that a generous reading would produce no or little confusion? only if you take it in a narrow and, frankly, pinheaded fashion will you come up against the nit you are picking here with regards to "some more some less." the general sense here is that you must agree that islam is not inherently incompatible with democracy. as aziz says, it is a fundamental prerequisite for support of the iraq and afghanistan wars.
l0l0ll0l!!!!!!
ur freakin kiddin me.
NR0???
the ppl that gave us such gems as "bat yeor, the world's foremost authority on dhimmitude"?
WTF is up wid dat?
Cargo cults.
Druidism.
im a nightelf druid in the World [ofwarcraft]
=)
ha ha, ppl think i hate christians...i dont.
I'm just holdin up a mirror for them.
Read my latest-- the Iraqi Rape Squad and
Wild Justice
As for the term Islam(the religion).I after some study have come to see that there is no such thing as one monolithic Islam.There are many strains, and no not all of them are "compatible" with all of the things Dean mentioned.And, no, not all the "bad" strains are modern either.The Rambam was force to flee Spain and then morroco from the almohads,and extremest strain of Muslim who waged a successful "Islamic revolution" against the tolerant Islamic Moors(if my memory serves).When Dean or you use the word Islam,to what strain are you reffering to?I understand why you would not consider as legitimate Bin laden,who's strain of islam is a modern construct or even the wahhabim that(according to Lewis)have only been around since the 1800's.But what makes you able to disqualify Islamic views such as those animating the almohads of the 13th century.
At any rate,I'm an on board with a #3 [that disagreeing with which]
I take it that that suffices to keep commenting in good faith.Though i must say that I feel that i don't understand how that fits the wording of the assertion in the post.
Hmmm... I too am a druid, but not in WoW.
JayMaster:
Whatever my personal politics or ideology may be, I don't find it necessary to act like a middle-school bully when I don't get my way, or when someone points out my limitations.
Me, a bully? Come on now.
So I’m to assume you’re intimidated by being called a name?
I’m starting to think it’s a lack of humor on your part.
Or a lack of wit.
I don't know which is worse.
To follow up, and in all honesty, I do value your opinion, and I hope you don’t go away.
You’re obviously not dumb.
I believe Islam is a heresy on Christianity much like Mormonism, and anyone who follows its tenets is making an unfortunate choice. It's much like my brother, who smokes. I love my brother, and each time he lights up it saddens me all the more. He doesn't seek my approval in this regard and I don't offer it, yet we seem to get along.
Cast me out or don't, but this is where I stand.
I don't see how considering Islam to be a heresy of Christianity violates any of Dean's points, especially when you put Mormonism in the same bucket.
jaymaster:
I appreciate your comments and note the irony in them, which wasn't bad, really. If you can keep offensive insults out of your opinion, I would value them more highly.
As to whether I leave or not, that's up to Dean.
Please delete my commenting account - not because I disagree with you necessarily (although I think rationale arguments can be made about some of your 5 statements) - but because if someone disagrees with you about this, you say they are using "fucking nutjob conspiracy theorist murderer logic," which is just frankly rude and childish beyond belief.
There are some interesting discussions that happen here, but when you go off like this (whether it's about Islam, Christianity, large corporations, or whatever), the whole thing just becomes inane and boring. If you just want your site to be your own little echo chamber, more power to you. I'm tired of wading through your stupid rants to find the good stuff. I won't be visiting often.
I'm sure you're thinking "good riddance," but you know, I'm thinking the same thing.
Pete Nelson
we really are on different planets. You invoke Christianity as a religion that is incompatible with modernity?
Hello, logic lesson. If someone is modern, then their religion is not incompatible with modernity. The mere presence of co-religionists who are total nutjob asshats is not a counterexample.
You infer things into what people say, and then attack them for what you infer. Then, after you misconstrue someone's position based on what you heard, not what they said, you attack their logic.
I did not say Christianity is incompatible with modernity, that is merely what you heard. What I said is that I would not be comfortable saying that Christianity is MORE compatible with modernity than "most" other religions. Just as I am not comfortable saying the same thing about Islam. Or Buddhism. Or a host of other religions.
I am not comfortable making such statements because I realize that I do not have the level of knowledge of all religions that would allow me to make such a statement. I simply cannot assert that it is true. And my personal ethics will not allow me to "pledge" something that I do not believe.
Is that more clear?
I'm sure by now you realize that Dean's WORDING indicated that he was asking for a statement to the RELATIVE degree of compatibility.I know that you are saying to yourself "why are they quibbling about wording,lighten up".The answer is that my presence from this point on is a statement that I am on board with #3 as it is WRITTEN in the post,it's almost like signing a contract.I wanted to elicit enough WRITTEN clarification from Dean so that I can POINT to what it is excatly I signed on to.
To follow on with naftali's post, Dean's original post clearly said that you had to agree to the exact wording, he said "If you cannot accept, wholeheartedly, all of the above 5 assertions--without exception or weasel-wording"
Trying to read things into Dean's post such as "he really meant that Islam is not at odds with democracy" would, in my opinion, qualify as "weasel-wording."
These are Dean's rules we are playing by, so I'm sticking to them.
people need to go to lebanon, dubai, karachi, kuala lampus
muslims have better skyscrapers, ski resorts in the sand; they have the freaking louvre and guggenheim museums in the UAE; south african muslims are leaders in politics and apartheid and aids initiative; palestinians, despite all their issues, have the highest number of phd's of all arabs; modernity is not the issue for muslims, political freedom is
i really recommend the # 3 doubters to travel the muslim world. in most parts you'll feel overwhelmed by modernity. in fact, many westerners that do go into the muslim world today come back slightly confused b/c they went to experience the rustic and came back talking about michael jackson, jordan, dr dre and other post modernist kitsch
bravo dean. although i will say that if people dont pass this test that doesn't mean that they are islamophobes; it just means they are islamophobes according to dean. my definition of islamophobe is different. i'll make a post about it at some point.
I think perhaps we might not agree on what "modernity" means if you think it means museums, skyscrapers, phds and ski resorts.
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on what an "Islamophobe" is.
With that being said, and in the interest of more high comedy, Dean, I would like for you to prove that your assertion #1 is true. Nix #1.
#2 is certainly debatable. If you put a few mosts in there, it would be better. Like this:
I could really get behind that kind of statement...
#3 See Above
#4 Not speaking the lingo here , I had to go look these two words up, and so...what's the big deal? Most religions that have survived from antiquity have some stuff that a lot of the practitioners would love the world to forget about. These things get brought back to life in these kinds of debates. Meh...
#5 Huh, I don't know when you have the time to do all this empirical scientific evidence gathering and analysis. If you wouldn't mind publishing your results in a peer review journal somewhere? Thanks. There are facts, and then there are "things which are not facts", one of which could be an opinion. This is your opinion. It may or may not be true. My opinion is that it is only mostly true...;)
I may or may not be an islamophobe, but I do know one thing I certainly AM, and that's... not wanted here. So kick me if you want to Dean, I will not conform to your assertions, because I think they're mostly silly and not well thought out.
What a virtuoso display of either rank intellectual dishonesty, shocking illiteracy, or pure laziness on their part. Hey guys, please go actually read #3 (if able?). You know, like, what it actually says? Not what you're pretending it says?
As for me, yes, I'm definitely out. Delete me Dean. I hope this comment does it. This whole post &thread is a big disappointment; I had not known you/some of your co-bloggers to be quite this intellectually dishonest, nor so fond of straw-men, nor (on a very basic level) so petty and, it now seems to me, not even all that bright.
You can decide if you want to delete my comment account, but in the interest of fairness this is what I believe:
1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.
2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" waged by the vast majority of Muslims.
3) Islam as practiced by many Muslims is just as compatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, and democratic pluralism as Christianity / Judaism.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
If you decide I am not ideologically pure enough to remain, then please purge me. If you choose to do so, however, I must say that you're betraying the liberal tradition you say you hold in such high esteem.
The only other way for me to form an opinion would be for me to dedicate substantial time and effort to educate myself on the subject, possibly even learning Arabic. Doing all that still gives me no guarantee of reaching a correct result, though. So instead of doing all that work, I choose to be open minded enough to listen to hopefully well reasoned opinions of others and consider whatever facts these others have brought to the table.
Color me undecided, since I try to err on the side of possibility. I have friends who endlessly debate and comment on the smallest bits of theology, always believing that they are in the right. I prefer to shrug when it gets down to the small stuff...I'd rather not prefer to try to tell God what His opinion is, and just believe what He didn't leave up to argument.
Dean, it's your world, and if your five points aren't up for argument, that's fine by me. They sound reasonable enough. I for one wish the best for Islamic culture. When you get down to it, they're people just like anyone else, and they want the same things we do.
Taking the point of view that "it's either them or us" and thinking combatively, and closing your mind off from other possibilities would be a very hazardous thing to to when you're talking about a religion with over a billion adherents.
I think a person can believe with all his intellect and heart that ALL five of these are 100% WRONG, and still be a polite, respectful contributor and commenter. These are, after all, ideas. We MUST separate ideas from people. When we disrespect (or slander, belittle, injure, abuse and even murder) people BECAUSE of their ideas, that's where the problems lie. People deserve to be loved and respected even if they have completely screwed up beliefs and behaviors.
I, for myself, do not agree with all of the 5 statements, that however does not mean that I feel then need to attack Dean or anyone else here on a personal level. However, I do request the privilege of continuing to voice my opinions and thoughts from time to time, when I do not agree with the contributors and commenter's ideas.
We as individuals, and as a society, must be able to condemn behaviors and ideas without loosing site of the fact that each person has worth and value SEPARATE of their values, behaviors and ideas.
false
use of these terms proves the speaker has absolutely no understanding of islam, and is, well....
Just another moron from stupidtown.
dhimmitude and eurabia are fake words, and the ppl that use them reveal their profound ignorance in doing so.
did u know...every time i ask for hard data on eurabia, my comment gets deleted? the pajamafia and gerard van der leun have both deleted my cmments.
free speech....meh.
If you will notice, I do not comment on anything having to do with Islam anymore on this site. I just sort of agreed to disagree and let it go at that.
As a commenter, I will honestly tell you that I do not agree with 1, 2 or 3.
If I am welcome, I am willing to post the occasional comment on a non-Islam topic. Are you saying that you want no comments from anybody on any subject who doesn't agree with your five conditions, or does this only apply to posts that are about Islam?
If you mean the former, then I will no longer comment here on any subject.
Dean didn't choose his words randomly. People think he's being absolutist in #3, insisting that "Islam is no more incompatible than other religions"; but in fact, by overlooking the word "inherently"...
...they're missing the point. To disagree with #3 as written is the absolutist position. Disagreeing means "Islam as a religion is inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism. It cannot be reformed without no longer being Islam. There can be no true Muslims who support modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism."
#3 as written entirely allows the following statements (not that I agree with all of them):
* Islam as a religion is largely incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism. There are a few good branches of Islam, but it's mostly trouble.
* Islam as it is practiced today is completely incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism. Muslims need to get with the modern world.
* Islam as a religion has some real problems with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism, and really needs a reformation.
* Islam as a religion today is incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
* Islam as a religion has difficulty with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism.
* Certain forms of Islam are inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
* Certain practitioners of Islam are inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
* Islam as practiced by many Muslims is just as compatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, and democratic pluralism as Christianity / Judaism.
To disagree with #3 as written is to say that there can be no modern Muslims who support minority rights, women's rights, and democratic pluralism. Hello? I'd like you to meet Ali Eteraz. And Aziz Poonawalla. And G. Willow Wilson. And DanielH. And...
To disagree with #3 as written is to ignore the periods in history when much of the Islamic world was far more "modern" than its worst aspects today, and indeed far more "modern" than Christianity of the time.
"Inherently" is the key to #3. You can agree with #3 and still criticize the hell out of Islam or Islamic societies or individual Muslims; but if you believe that Islam as a religion is inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism, then you're ignoring reality in favor of your prejudices. You are, indeed, an Islamophobe.
No, that's wrong. The opposite of statement #3 is:
Islams as a religion is more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
Now, I don't know what "most religions" means. That depends on what you consider a religion. However - and here's the critical bit - you don't have to believe that Islam is inherently incompatible with modernity to disagree with #3. You just have to believe it's more incompatible than "most other religions" (whatever you take that to mean). Even if it's 1% more incompatible. Even if that doesn't mean it's totally incompatible, or that there aren't plenty of examples of Muslims who are perfectly modern, or even if you believe that Muslims WILL end up doing just fine with modernity.
Anyway, I probably should shut up, as I think I'm no longer welcome here, as I'm arguing about the line in the sand which one has to agree not to argue about to be welcome any more.. but I thought I'd point out that you missed something anyway. A parting shot, if you will.
"Accept what I say or suffer the consequences"
Sounds like Dean's World is incompatible with debate and conversation, at least on this topic.
I would suggest you close the comments on all of your posts that mention issues in the Muslim world. Why have a comment section when there's no room for debate or when dissent is not allowed?
If you were to say "Christianity is no more inherently incompatible blah, blah, blah..." I'd feel the same way.
I'd say to myself, Whoah self! What about Mennonites? What about the extreme fundamentalists!?
When you start talking about Islam as a religion, you have to include all the morphs of the religion.
And...
For me, I also tend to adhere to the notion that a religion is what its followers say it is. If my friend Shah says his wife will have to wear a head covering and not permitted to go shopping without accompaniment and that he believes this is good because his book and his imam say it is the way it should be... than yes, Shah and his Imam and their interpretation of his book have a problem with modernity.
If Dean were to say most morphs of Islam...
Or if Dean were to say Muslims as a people...
don't have a problem with modernity, I'd agree.
But he is doing the same thing with Islam that make him bristle when it is done elsewhere. He is generalizing to the a degree that obfuscates the truth.
Clarenancy
No. He is saying that those who generalize can leave.
He's not saying "Islam is completely good." He's saying "If you think Islam is completely bad, you're an Islamophobe. Leave."
and one of the dogmas happens to be that the dogmas and laws are immutable then even if adherents
abandon some and maintain others therby adapting to x,that does not mean that the original system of dogmas and laws was compatible-in fact they had to be changed-just that the adherents were.
Crud, second time I've agreed with MikeCA today. I better up my medication...
Upon further review, I will take this to mean that comments by people from me are allowed as long as we stay away from the subject of Islam. Which I do.
That's Orthodox, Catholic, and most Protestants.
If you believe this, then all other religions, not just Islam, can only be tools of Satan, because they divert people from the truth that saves. So, for that matter, is the demon Rum.
This is standard Christian teaching. Christians generally don't teach it so baldly (Dean demanded baldness - no weasel wording!) because (among many reasons) to do so is not loving or merciful, and we are commanded to love our enemies. It also isn't very persuasive.
But of course, if you love your enemies, that does mean you have enemies, doesn't it?
Pope Benedict is not welcome here.
There is also q lack of symmetry. Will Muslims who believe that, for example, paganism is the work of Satan - even though it must be tolerated - be excluded?
2, 3, 4 and 5 are fine. But 1 runs afoul of standard Christian theology and doctrine, and is a test many Muslims would fail if it were applied to them.
Yours,
Wince
It is Dean's blog, so obviously he can make whatever rules or ideological purity assertions that he wishes to do. However, I honestly disagree with most of Dean's assertions, albeit from a different perspective than some other folks here.
"1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world."
I don't believe that Islam is Satan of the Anti-Christ. After all, I am a deist so I am generally distrustful of organized religion. However, I do believe that Arab Islam in particular is trying to destroy black cultures, including traditional religions and even black Islam - which has historically been more moderate, with Mali and Senegal as examples. I point to various "Islamization" and "Arabization" campaigns by Arab governments and groups in various African countries as my backup.
2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.
Every year, there is seemingly a new country on the African continent that gets classified from black to Arab. Everyone is talking about Iraq and Israel. Meanwhile, a far bigger occupation that has historically been far more brutal, and has been going on and off for over 1,000 years - rages on: Arab Muslim occupation of black land in Africa - which they invaded - and their gross human rights violations towards black populations. Sudan, anyone? Just last month, I saw Somalia called part of the "Middle East" and "Arab" country in one of my local papers here in Chicago, in a discussion about the Islamic battles there. Say what?!?!
But yes, I do believe that
White folks have (rightly) been called to task for their historical brutality against black folks in Africa. Black African leaders have (rightly) been called to task for brutality towards their own peoples. Meanwhile, Arab Muslims continue to get let off the hook in regards to their historical and current treatment of black folks. It is long overdue to have this discussion, and I will continue to highlight the issue.
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
I agree if we are talking about black / African Islam, Asian Islam, Kurdish Islam, etc., which I've argued on my blog (and taken heat) have been moderating influences within Islam. However, I strongly disagree when one talks about Arab Islam. The freest Islamic countries and areas are non-Arab. That is fact.
Christianity and other religions have also historically treated folks shabbily, but have mosed forward. I do not see the same with Arab Islam, especially when it comes to views and treatment of black women.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
Not terms that I use. I've never even heard of the taqiyya term.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
Agree if we're talking about American Muslims, unless someone has shown otherwise in his or her specific actions. For abroad, I disagree with not proving more about opposing terrorism. It would be nice to see more often.
I understand that terrible things happen within "Islamic" countries, but those things happen not as a will of Muslims, rather they happen as a force fed political/power struggle. You can not blame a religion for that or proceed to say that it is "inherently" that way as that statement is false. You can take the Quran and Hadiths, Jurisprudence to condemn almost all of what is taking place in the name of Islam today - so are we willing to now say that Islam is inherently the opposite of all of the things that are being argued? (no, that's not expected)
Virtually of of Martin's defense of Dean's comment, which rewrites Dean's comment in a myriad of ways, qualifies uneqivocably as "weasel wording."
Dean wants a pledge, the pledge has to be based on his words Martin, not YOUR interpretation of his words.
I still wonder if this holier than thou attitude will continue if there are Islamist bombs somewhere near to him. I rather doubt it to be honest having watched the change in some of the people I know in London before/after 7/7.
There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.
So the whole zone of war vs zone of Islam thing in the Koran is to be ignored? Its not "a war" but the whole point of Islam is to convert the entire planet (as is Christianity for that matter).
All good or all bad
It is still inaccurate and I can't agree.
If the phrase were reversed, for instance...
3) Islam as a religion is no LESS inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
I would STILL disagree.
Which Islam are we talking about?
Dean is no less a poopy head than most men.
No,
Dean is no more a poopy head than most men.
Well, NEITHER IS TRUE.
Dean, and Islam and most men and most religions are far more complex than this phrase can encompass.
Therefore, I will not swear by either.
And anyone who thinks I should or be ostracized is a big poopy head! At least in this instance!
Most of the time that I have observed, Dean is not a poopy head. This time he is :(
THAT is a statement I can swear by.
Clarenancy
Dean's not saying you can't argue that Islam needs fixing. He's saying you can't argue that Islam is inherently unfixable.
As I far as I can see, there are many many takes on Islam, and to assert that there is only one monolithic Islam and to choose as it's face the very best of it's versions.Is to make the same intellectual mistake as spencer when he asserts that the very worst approaches are the face of that same one monolithic Islam.
Which is something Dean is neither doing nor asking anyone else to do.
Which is what Dean will no longer tolerate on the blog that he hosts.
If Dean himself endorses your interpratation (and more comments than mine have pointed out the omissions in your "dictionary" definitions Martin), then fine. Until then I'm going by Dean's words, not yours.
Please, then, explain: are Ali and Aziz and Willow and DanielH following a false Islam? Or are they not supportive of modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions?
One of the two must be true; or else there is a third alternative, which is that they have demonstrated another form of Islam, and Islam may be compatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, and democratic pluralism.
I simply can't believe Dean put that word in there by accident.
that's exactly the point and therefore Islam can not be "inherently" all of the things that Dean is saying that it can't be.
Also, I don't think that we can ignore the whole marriage of power/politics/religious movement but we do have to separate the byproduct of that marriage from Islam as a religion.
If version x of Islam stated that "you shall not be modern" and that "you shall not change the laws" that version is inherently incompatible with modernity.Now it's adherents can ignore the version,come up with a new one,what have you,but that speaks to the inherent compatibility of the adherents not the version.I firmly believe some takes/versions of islam are inherently incompattible
with goodness while others most certainly are,i suspect that Dean and even perhaps Ali would agree
with me.But frankly i feel that #3 as worded is simply not specific enough to allow for a logical
answer.
Naftali,
If Islam can be x or y, and x is a set of beliefs compatible with modernity, democracy, freedom, and women's rights while y is a set of beliefs not compatible with modernity, etc., then the very fact that Islam can be x proves that Islam, in itself, is not incompatible with modernity, etc. I think your position unambiguously falls on the acceptable side of Dean's "line in the sand."
But if parts of Islam are not incompatible with goodness, then those are a proof by example that Islam as a whole is not incompatible with goodness. That doesn't preclude observing that some parts of Islam are incompatible with goodness.
the problem is that by using and interpreting "inherently" that way, then sure, Islam isn't "inherently" (bad on womens' rights, inc. w/modernity, etc.), BUT NEITHER IS ANYTHING ELSE. By that usage, there's simply no such thing as a religion, culture, or institution which is "inherently" ("permanently") ANYTHING. Yours is a bar that's set so low as to be nonexistent. Religions, like all human institutions, are complex and dynamic, and simply can't be reduced to so-called "inherent" properties in that way.
I could certainly have interpreted Dean's #3 as you seem to, and ignored the issue re: "than most religions" that others have brought up to you because you're ignoring it (why is it that only Dean's litmus-test defenders are allowed to bend the wording of all his items?), but it would have done Dean discredit to assume that he had taken the trouble to lay out a litmus test item that is so vacuous and devoid of content. I had not (previously) thought him so shallow as to engage in this kind of - yes - weaselly-worded wordgame.
But hey, maybe you're right and I'm wrong after all. If that is so, then I cannot sign on to #3 for the simple reason that it is a STUPID statement devoid of meaning which evidences no rational thought, and by appearing to endorse it, I invite only misunderstanding and further intellectually-dishonest word-game manipulation from the host so as to puff up the apparent monolithic agreement with his particular interpretation and views.
Either way, I refuse to play along with Dean's puerile game, &I deserve to be deleted (have I been yet?). I find myself disgusted by what Dean has done here, and embarrassed by my prior (rather high) opinion of him - god, to think I actually defended Dean's behavior to others I know. I have some apologies to make!
Nothing in this post is consistent with Dean's stated view of defending the liberal tradition, which is part of what attracted me to this blog. And it's supremely ironic that Dean claims as his motive a need to combat "irrational hatred", because irrational hatred - for anyone who dares disagree with them - is precisely what he, and his fellows, have displayed here in this thread. There is nothing at all rational about laying out blanket statements of orthodoxy, insisting others agree with them precisely as written, changing/ignoring the wording when people balk, raising/lowering the bar at will, and refusing to debate the issue further. That is, in fact, completely irrational. This was a witch hunt Dean. Did your witches float?
of takes on Islam, collectively as the definition of "Islam as a religion".I am trying do distance myself from a wording that can also be taken to mean all takes on Islam individually.I suspect that Deans intent is along the lines of your understanding.But to remain here is a statement that I agree with assertion as worded.Which is why all the sane commentators here have been clamoring for a clarification in writing.
You haven't paid attention to the Islamophobes, then. They will happily assert that Islam can't be fixed, merely controlled. Some will go farther, and say "or eradicated." Those "can't be fixed" people are the ones Dean's rejecting.
And I'm not ignoring the comparison to other religions, but that doesn't change the significance of the inherency argument. It just shifts it. "Yeah, Christianity, Judaism, they have their flaws, but they're fixable. Islam? That's not fixable." Sorry you can't see Dean's point. It's written in plain English.
I think it's an intentionally low bar.
Those "can't be fixed" people are the ones Dean's rejecting.
No, Martin, I am here to tell you, in no uncertain terms, that he has also rejected people like me, who took the trouble to read Dean's actual words and take them seriously. Who are not Islamophobes in any way, shape or fashion but don't buy into his bogus (and in some cases meaningless) dogmatic statements. That is my point.
Maybe it was also my mistake? The defenders of Dean's #3, ironically, don't really seem to be taking what it actually says very seriously. Or is it that they don't understand what it says?
I certainly don't think Islam "can't be fixed" but AT THE SAME TIME I cannot endorse #3. #3 does NOT say merely the equivalent of "Islam can be fixed" (if it did I'd have no problem with it!) and if you are telling me otherwise, you are either being intellectually dishonest or lack reading comprehension. Which?
DanielH:
You raise an interesting and relevant issue, but you're applying it 180 degrees backwards. It's Dean et al who insist on pretending that definitions are perfect and absolute, after all they're the ones who object in principle to e.g. generalizations about Islam (at least, negative generalizations) - see, as long as they can find one exception, generalizations are invalid and "Islamophobic"! Someone operating from an appreciation of the difficulty of defining categories sharply would not have come up with these absolutist litmus tests; instead he would accept that it is perfectly defensible, indeed necessary, to make generalizations (even if one disagreed with those generalizations, of course) in the course of thought and argument. Dean's post demonstrates that he does not qualify.
Here's the statement:
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
Here's the contrary statement:
3) Islam as a religion is more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
"More inherently incompatible" means "can't be fixed". Read the definition of "inherently". If Dean had left out that word, this would be a whole different argument.
You, like Aziz, are interpreting not only Dean's words to conform to your own perspective, you are also interpreting mine.
I stand by what I've said. I'm not the only one who has said it. I am quite comfortable in the knowledge of my own ability to read and comprehend the English language and I don't for one second concede that your ability to read and comprehend is superior to mine.
I am going to try this one more time. Here is Dean's #3:
I have twice pointed out that it is inconceivable that every religion on earth is equivalent in being compatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism. I.N.C.O.N.C.E.I.V.A.B.L.E. Understand?
Since it is inconceivable that all religions are equal in this regard, it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that some are more so than others.
To be able to state that "Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernigy, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions" then requires the individual asserting such a thing to be able to DEMONSTRATE FACTUALLY exactly where each religion falls on the spectrum, so that you can then look at "most religions" and decide if Islam actually is in the proper range to qualify for "most" status.
This is an impossible task. I defy you to do it Martin. It. cannot. be. done. Period.
So, to make this statement then is reduced to a statement of BELIEF, Martin, not fact. And when a statement of belief is stated as a requirement to participate in a particular group, it is DEFINED as DOGMA Martin.
So this is Dean's World Dogma, pure and simple. And what Dean is asking his posters (and perhaps commenters too, that isn't so clear) to do is to sign up with this dogma.
I don't do dogma Martin. Or at least I try not to. And I'm not doing this one. Dogma has no place in a "liberal tradition" especially one supposedly dedicated to debate.
I am no islamophobe. But I am no islamophile either. I also do my best to debate issues factually and reasonably. If my voice is not welcome here because I refuse to submit to dogmatism on a point that is pure opinion and cannot be proven, then so be it.
Your efforts to re-interpret Dean's words to make it more palatable may salve your conscience Martin, but they do nothing for mine.
and here's a little multi-religious bs for ya ;-)
Reformation Fellowship of the East Valley, Mesa, AZ (circa 1995)
"In the beginning God made man male and female. He made Adam first, and then made Eve from Adam's rib. This order of creation subordinates wives to their husbands in marriage, and women to men in the church. As an act of submission to their Creator women are commanded to submit to their husbands and to male leadership in the church. Women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in any formal capacity in the church."
Jerry Falwell
"Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line."
Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
"...make dads the godly leaders [of the family] with the women in submission, raising kids for the glory of God."
In Israel:
The segregation of city buses and the creation of "morality squads" that patrol Jerusalem's orthodox streets to root out "immodest behavior" are part of a new and controversial campaign launched recently by local leaders of the Haredi community, which follows a very strict interpretation of Judaism
Now, this is just on women't rights - I can find the same on the rest of the religions in regards to injustices done in the name of religion.
I still concur that Islam is not "inherently" ..... any more than any other religion.
Nope. Not at all. Completely missing the point. If you went and ranked all those religions from compatible on the left to incompatible on the right, then this statement...
...means Islam is somewhere in the middle of the pack. And this statement...
...means that Islam is way over on the right. But this statement...
...means that Islam is way over on the right, and can never be moved to the left. That is dogma. And that's what Dean's rejecting.
My conscience needs no salving here. Maybe you should be looking in the mirror.
Dean's words mean: if you think Islam can't be fixed, leave. They are as plain as that.
No they are not and I disagree with what you say Dean's words "mean". It's nice that you have come up with a more innocuous interpretation for yourself of what you think Dean's words "mean", but Dean himself was very clear that we had to accept his items as written. I took that requirement seriously; you are not. By Dean's rules, you should probably be banned too (just saying :).
Thanks for rewriting out #3 and its logical inverse. Far as I can tell, you've done so correctly. But the problem is, as I said, #3 (and its inverse) is a MEANINGLESS, VACUOUS STATEMENT. As I've explained, neither Islam nor any other religion is "inherently" anything. Thus, #3 is vacuously true: Islam is "not more inherently incompatible with modernism etc than other religions". Similarly, the inverse of #3 is true: "Islam is not less inherently incompatible with modernism etc than other religions". Since no religions or any other human institutions are "inherently incompatible" with anything, none are more (or less...) so than any others. It's a meaningless, stupid, potentially misleading statement, I refuse to sign onto it, and someone of integrity and intellectual honesty would not have asked me to do so verbatim in the first place.
I think all Dean is trying to do is provide a platform for rational discussion.
On the contrary, he's made it quite clear that he is not interested in rational discussion.
In other words, "I don't like what it means, so I'm going to declare that it's meaningless, decide Dean really meant something else, and argue with that."
The statement means what it means. Some people see Islam as inherently bad. Dean wants them gone.
Your interpretation of the word "inherently" is only applied to Islam in your analysis. I apply it to all religions in the same context and so the result is that, in the hypothetical plot of religions against compatibility with the things Dean listed, Islam lands SOMEWHERE, perhaps on the right, perhaps on the left, perhaps in the middle.
It is precisely because you cannot, with factual certainty, say WHERE it falls, that I have a problem with this statement of belief that it WILL fall in a place that agrees with Dean's statement.
I expect that Islam as practiced today by many of its followers would fall somewhere on the right. I just don't agree that it's inherently on the right. Ali and Aziz and Willow and DanielH prove otherwise.
No, I'm not saying it's meaningless because I "don't like what it means". Now you're just putting words in my mouth - more intellectual dishonesty.
It's meaningless because it contains no meaning (for crying out loud, I've shown that both it AND ITS CONVERSE are true!). There is no meaning for me to "like" or "dislike" about it in the first place.
It. is. vacuous.
The statement means what it means.
True. But in this case, what it means is [the empty set].
Some people see Islam as inherently bad. Dean wants them gone.
The thing is, I don't see Islam as inherently bad IN THE SLIGHTEST, but Dean wants me gone also. Get it now?
Maybe Dean's litmus test is just poorly constructed - too many "false positives". The problem is, he refuses to budge, clarify, or discuss. So what the hell am I supposed to think?
Get it yet?
Logically, if Islam is not inherently anything, then Islam is not inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism. I can't see why you're arguing against a point that you agree with.
What you don't seem to get are that there are people who think that Islam is inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism. You may think that what they believe is nonsense, but they believe it nonetheless. And Dean doesn't want to put up with them.