Rosemary, that took some guts. I am agonizing over this and I'm only a casual acquaintance of Dean these days.
I actually don't think Dean wants an echo chamber. I think that some people might be interpreting his intentions properly, that of wanting to stop true islamophobia on his site.
I just don't think that dogma is the way to do it. If someone proves to be an islamophobe, ban them. If Dean wants to do it without seeming authoritarian and arbitrary, pull together a steering committee to review all ban requests.
But to ask people to state that they believe the unprovable to be able to post here is too much.
Does it make me an Islamophobe to notice that people who strap bombs on themselves in the name of Allah are ... muslim?
Suicide bomb vests were first developed and used by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Between 1980 and 2000 the Tamil Tigers carried out 168 suicide attacks on both military and civilian targets. The Tamil Tigers are predominately Hindu.
Good for you, Rosemary. Now I know why I like slavic women so much. You girls have more spunk than most Americans I run across. Sometimes, you sound as though you were Stefi's sister, if she had one, and that's a compliment.
See if you can pick up Ron Coleman and some of the others. I've had frequent reason to argue with Rabbi Ron, as I think I once called him. But he's one of the most intelligent men whose presence ever has graced Dean's blogsite.
In short, your guy has made an understable but unfortunate judgement error. Buy him a case of Anchor Steam, tell him to down a few, sleep it off, and tone down this line-in-the-sand crap and other ultimata rained down on his friends for no especially good reason.
[]Dean Esmay compares Dean's World to National Review and Dean Esmay to Bill Buckley's throwing the anti-semites and McCarthyites out of the conservative movement in the 50s. Then Dean demands all commenters and posters affirm the following precepts or be labelled beyond the pale of respectability, to be cast into the outer darkness beyond Dean's World and beyond decent discourse, where there is no doubt wailing and gnashing of teeth:
[5 precepts omitted]
This raises three questions:
1. Are any/all of the above statements true?
2. Are any/all of the above statements so self-evidently true that all reasonable people will hold them?
3. Is questioning or holding differing opinions on any of the above statements analogous to being an anti-semite or McCarthyite?
I think the answer to first question is arguable, and the answers are self-evidently "no" to the latter two questions.
I used to comment a lot on Dean's World, back in the day. Then Dean's take on several issues got me wondering about the guy. I was far from alone on this one. Still, I liked Dean Esmay and used to drop by and put in a humorous comment from time to time. Of course, Dean's World is Dean's blog, and he can do what he wants. No problem. But I'm not one for swearing doctrinal oaths unless you have a pointy hat and an office in Rome, and were elected by a group of folks in red hats.
I hereby surrender my password and comment account, my keys to the Dean's World Secret Treehouse and Go-Go Club, my membership card (good for discounts at your favorite stores) in the Dean's World "100 Comment" Club, and my Dean's World decoder ring. I promise not to show anyone the secret handshake.
To all I've offended here (particularly Michael Demmons) I apologize and hope there are no hard feelings. I leave without regrets, or hard feelings either, to the host or anyone here.
She didn't say that Muslims INVENTED suicide bombers, mike. Just that the majority of them TODAY are Muslim.
Yes, but by pointing that out, the implication is that there is some connection between Islam and suicide bombers. I am simply pointing out that non-Islamic groups have used suicide bombing too, and in the case of the Tamil Tigers in a big way. It was the Tamil Tigers that developed the suicide bomb vest, and the Islamic groups copied the idea from the Tamil Tigers. You have not heard too much about the Tamil Tigers because most of their bombings have been in Sri Lanka with one or two in India, and they are not directed at US targets.
Before we all start drawing our own lines in the sand and pushing friendship-breaking ultimata in Dean's direction, let's all remember the following:
This here is in fact Dean's World. He created it. Maybe with Rosemary's help. Maybe with the help of a lot of other people to make it grow into a quality end product. But he conceptualized this from the first.
So like my Randian hero, Howard Roark, who torched the housing project in New York whose design the second-raters took from him and used under false pretenses, Dean has a perfectly moral right to destroy Dean's World. Because it's his property.
And I for one would consider that a Grade-A number-one shame. Not alone because I have been part of all this for so many years, sometimes by day, sometimes by night, sometimes by odd moments on the weekend. And losing Dean's World would to me be a loss I am sure I would regret for the remainder of my life. Which may not be long, because I'll be 73 soon.
So I don't want to join any chorus of people nagging away at this guy about how to run his blogsite.
Sure, I can think he's wrong in this ultimatum stuff. But I just spent a little while trying to put myself into his head. (Never easy or even possible to achieve.) And I think he's probably sick to death of a bunch of us attacking a large group of people simply on the basis of their religion. I guess I can get away with that as a apatheist who sees religion in general as do few others.
But suppose he's right? What if Islam could be stripped away from all the despots, murderers and bigots who seem to infect it in this era? Maybe, just maybe, there is some deeply hidden beauty to it all, as a philosophic concept and even as a system of belief.
Granted, it's hard to tell because we are open war with large numbers of people who claim to be faithful Moslems and who therefore think they have some divine monopoly over the term "al-Islam".
But it's interesting to think about the possibility that one day we really could have a collection of benign, peaceful and mutually cooperative cultures around the world -- probably and otherwise secularized one -- in which people could freely explore all the great ideas that have arisen through human history.
Muhamad the prophet made his great vision arise from within the depths of his own consciousness, and from it, created an empire, a religion, and even changed the culture of his own arab nation, but ultimately the cultures of all the peoples from the Atlantic coast to the gates of India, and still later, to the southwest Pacific ocean.
Would I like to be able to live in peace with all these mohamed folks, the same way as I think I do with the jesus folks, the mary folks, the moses folks, the icon folks, the joseph smith folks, the l ron hubbard folks and others too numerous to mention. Sure. Who in hell wants war if you can live without having to watch your back continually?
So, what I'm saying is this. Give Dean, Ali, Aziz, and all the mohamed folks a chance to make their case for an entirely different kind of Islam than the one we all are certain we have seen as representing the original vision of their prophet.
How does that sound, folks? Remember, there's two sides to every argument. May I always be right. But being an honest man, I know for a fact I'm frequently wrong. So let's have discourse rather than ultimata. Maybe we will all learn a little something about al-Islam that we didn't know before, and would have been useful for our lives to give some thought to.
Jay-zuss, Arnold! That's so nicely put that you're scaring the cr@p outta me. I mean, it's so out of character for you. Usually you're the first one swingin'.
I haven't been around long enough even to really know what's being talked about, though I've gathered a little here and there, and I also suspect an event or series of events maybe seemingly unrelated precipitated all of this.
That being said I see both sides of this argument philosophically, and the pragmatic sides of both arguments.
Personally I think Dean probably wins the philosophical point (not that I agree with everything he said), the opposition the pragmatic one (not that I agree with everything they said).
But every bloke and blokette has to make their own call.
As far as I'm concerned it's Dean's yard and how he wants people to play in it, that's all good and proper. If I play here I'll play by his rules, if those rules bother me (which they don't right now I'll just go elsewhere).
But Dean really didn't demand a litmus test to comment, he just outlawed a certain method of operation by which people can address a particular kinda subject matter. That is he just restricted the manner in which a particular subject can be addressed.
He might have stated his real reason for this, might not have stated his real reason for this, or might have partially stated his reasons for this. We'll never really know. His motives might be personal, civil, altruistic, pragmatic, shallow, or idealistic. We'll never really know that either. It doesn't matter.
But all he's really asked is that you don't do A about Z in a particular way.
That might be a big deal to some, and I got no problem with them feeling that way, but me personally, I don't care. Life is full of rules, and even for good reason sometimes, and I respect some of those rules, and I break others. For instance I break rules all the time investigating various things. I don't shoot off my mouth about it, and don't do it in front of people who I know it would offend. If a rule gets in my way, I break it. But I don't break it in front of people who think the rules are important because they think the rules are important.
What I'm saying is that I don't have to swallow what Dean says, just don't break this rule on his turf (or any of his other rules). I don't agree with the rule, hell I don't agree with a lot of laws even, but I follow them because that's the way it is. I don't stop obeying the law cause I disagree with it, unless I find it morally reprehensible, and I don't stop breaking the rules if they get in my way of doing what needs to be done. Just nobody has to see me do it or ever know it happened but me. And nobody ever will. Cause I don't rub shit in people's faces in their own home. If I really gotta do that I'll catch em in an alleyway alone somewhere and then really stink up the joint.
So I guess if you find what Dean is doing morally and philosophically reprehensible then this will bother you. Me, I don't have a particular problem with that cause to me this is more of a dangerous pragmatic play than a philosophical one. Dean could potentially lose a lot of customers and comrades over nothing more to me than a philosophical issue.
Then again if you think about this the right way it has probably caused a sort of internet controversy, even if it is a continued one, and has probably stirred up a sort of level of buzz or renewed interest in the site, for both good reasons and bad. That being the case, and it is even if it is unintended or subconscious, I say, "Kudos Fella." I don't think much of popular controversy generally, especially not internet controversy, but you've touched a number of knobs that will set some tongues wagging and will lead in all kinds of tangential footpaths, some of them probably even interesting. Maybe even a few that should be yakked about.
All that being said I'll keep commenting as long as Dean likes and as long as I wish and he doesn't wash me out. And at the same time I don't have to agree with anything Dean laid out, all I have to do while here is obey. If I wanna criticize Islam in a particular way, which I do from time to time (though I suspect I probably don't do what Dean is asking not be done), I'll just do that elsewhere. It's a big world with a lot of dives. You don't have to make everyplace the Top Hat and you don't have to make everyplace Joe's Stinkhole. Sometimes you wanna steak and a nice glass of wine, sometimes you want Taco Bell and a Mountain Dew. No man can be everything to everybody, that's just life.
And I don't hav'ta swallow what Dean is serving and he don't hav'ta buy what I'm selling. All we have to do is agree that when we're in the others guy's presence to behave in a way which is civil enough that both can stand it.
But that's just me and my opinion. In other words I don't think my particular opinion about every matter, or any matter, is so important that I get to dictate the terms of every discussion in any context or environment, specially one I don't own. I know I'm different that way and that a lot of modern people think their opinion is something so holy and gosh darned important that it just has to heard, all of the time. But as for me I think my opinion is just my opinion, and I think it probably smells about the same as everyone else's opinion. So I'm not insistent someone smell my breath every I open my yapper. There's a time and place for my opinion, and a time to keep my mouth shut and play by the rules.
So if some of you guys are leaving then I might see you at some other dive. That'll be fine with me.
But as for me all I think Dean is asking is that I flush the toilet when I use his bathroom cause he'd rather not smell what offends him and what he thinks might offend some of his other guests. That ain't much to ask I think.
I reckon I'll stick around awhile and if Dean doesn't want me spitting on his floor, then I'll do that elsewhere if I feel that is absolutely, positively something I gotta do. But just to be honest, I don't.
Do I think that Islam in general is incompatible with Western values? No.
Do I think that there are significant factions in Islam that are very anti-modern, anti-feminist, anti-science, and bent on reestablishing the Caliphate? Yes.
Do I think these factions are a clear and present danger, not only to the West, but to other Muslims? Yes.
Do I think that these factions exert a growing influence on Islam in general? Yes. A poll in the UK recently found that 40% of Muslims there want Sharia law.
I, also, have no dog in this hunt. I don't think I've ever chimed in on any discussion involving Islam or Muslims because I am woefully ignorant regarding that particular religion or any of its sects and/or offshoots. Heck, I'm a Christian, and while I have engaged in debate regarding my religion, I would have to say I'm woefully ignorant about much of it, as well.
Still, I've been reading all afternoon the comments of others regarding Dean's sand line, and I finally felt compelled to speak my mind.
Dean, your world sucked me in and has kept me intrigued and involved for quite a while. I'm not up to the intelligence level of most of your regular contributors, but I have chimed in a time or two, and I read nearly every comment on every post.
Regarding your sand line...well, I can't disagree with what you said, because I like to think I hold no bigotry or prejudice against anyone based on race, color, or creed. I DO, however, hold contempt, dislike, or outright hate toward someone based on his or her actions, especially when they are consistent in displaying actions I find immoral or unethical. So I have nothing against anyone who holds Muhammad as a God, for other than my own beliefs, I have no proof that he is right and I am wrong.
C.S. Lewis, in his Narnia stories, once had Aslan the Lion make the assertion that any good done in the name of any god was done in Aslan's name; and any bad done, even in Aslan's name, was evil and not associated with him. So I don't care what god one professes to have faith in, or whether one professes faith in any god at all, I decide by actions whether someone is good or evil.
I would kill OBL without blinking an eye, eat a good steak dinner afterwards, and sleep like a baby that night, because his words and actions have consistently proven him to be an enemy. I don't care what religion he is, and I don't hold anyone else who says they are of the same religion accountable for his actions. He, and he alone, is responsible for what he says and does, and he is my enemy. As was Saddam, and I am glad to know he has swung high and finally for his crimes.
What I mean to say, I guess, is I'm just a little speck in the Dean's World universe, and whether I stay or not is probably not of any importance whatsoever to anyone but me, but I think I'll stick around. I believe I can answer affirmatively to your assertions, and even if I couldn't, I never participated in the debates or discussions on the matter anyway, and I don't expect to start doing so now.
So continue revolving your world, Dean, and I will continue to orbit, if it pleases you for me to do so.
I engage here at Dean's World because of the diversity of views and the level of discourse, which is for the most part higher than other sites that dwell on these issues.
Dean is certainly entitled to do as he wishes with Dean's World, but I think he doth protest too much when comparing himself and the DW community to Buckley and Birch, respectively.
I find the majority of the line-in-the-sand assertions largely irrelevant to the defense and expansion of liberal society against totalitarian ideology. To me, those that lock lips in an embrace of fatalism with the past or with enemy propoganda are wasting their time and energy.
Building the future is where it's at, and I'll respect (and support when possible) any Muslim that trades self-pity and self-righteousness for self-respect, reason, and individualism.
The issue is not that Dean is asking his posters (and possibly commenters) to BEHAVE in a certain manner, as you assert.
The issue is that Dean is demanding that people who post (and possibly comment) BELIEVE a particular unprovable thing or be cast out.
So if one continues to post or comment here, the assumption can be made that you BELIEVE the things Dean demands that you say you believe.
This is why many people are objecting on principle, and others are objecting to the idea that one has to believe the unprovable. Others simply disagree with Dean's assertions, but those are probably the ones he wants to get rid of in the first place.
If it were about agreeing to behave in a certain way, this would not have generated nearly the angst in his posters and commenters. Most of us already behave in a proper polite manner so would have no problem agreeing to remaining polite.
Arnold, to be fair: Dean started with the ultimata. That kinda puts the idea "in the air", so other people joined in. It's a rhetorical arms race. Dean showed a nuke, in a world where anyone can have a nuke simply by saying so. Naturally, more nukes were shown.
If you believe that Islam is inherently incompatible with all the values we hold dear, you have already drawn a line in the sand.
Sorry, but you have. And there's no getting around it. Indeed, you have already imposed an odious litmus test, and put yourself forever on a side I will not be part of promoting or even treating with respect. You have decided that people I know and care about cannot possibly be good Americans and cannot possibly be trusted.
That's what you've said if you believe this crap.
None of this has anything to do with the religion being spiritually correct. It has to do with your assertions about an entire class of human beings.
The issue is that Dean is demanding that people who post (and possibly comment) BELIEVE a particular unprovable thing or be cast out.
So if one continues to post or comment here, the assumption can be made that you BELIEVE the things Dean demands that you say you believe.
This is why many people are objecting on principle, and others are objecting to the idea that one has to believe the unprovable. Others simply disagree with Dean's assertions, but those are probably the ones he wants to get rid of in the first place.
No, I don't have to. Because Dean can't make me believe anything. Or not believe anything for that matter.
It's just not possible.
What he can do is insist I behave in a certain way for particular reasons. I can accept that or not, and I do cause it's his house, but neither my life nor my beliefs depend upon his conception of what my beliefs should be. Or can be. Or are.
Look, I understand this is part of modern life.
People think that what they think is the most important thing anyone else can ever think about. But it ain't. It's just a believe in our culture. Because so much of our culture is about yakking, and opinion, and words.
I accept a lot of things cause that's the way it is, but I don't have to believe those things, or accept them as mine, I only have to accept them as a way of doing business.
I got my opinion, you got yours, Dean has his, Martin his, that's all fine by me. But Dean will never make me think, or you think, or believe a certain way because he makes a regulation about it, and I personally don't get all worked up about it cause I know it can't be done. All he can really do is require behavior, because thoughts and beliefs are totally untestable until someone acts on them.
Let me put it to you this way, many times I run across people who other people say to me about, "I had no idea he was that way." Why, because people in our world often just automatically accept that a person means what they say and that what they say should somehow match their actions. It just ain't so so often.
I've seen good men who act as if they are murdering thugs to get at murdering thugs. I've seen murdering thugs who play at being choirboys for the public while for hobbies they're raping, robbing, and sodomizing with prejudice.
So there's one thing I know for sure, you can control a man's behavior - serial killers don't take to carving up little girls when they're standing beside a cop - but you can't control a man's thoughts. It doesn't worry me. Dean could say, "You must accept a tangerine marshmallow as the Doctor of Tomorrow." I'd find it amusing and kinda weird, but he couldn't make me accept it as a premise buried in my heart.
He can say don't do this and I might think that's fair (I think what he's demanding is fair enough) or not, I might stay, or not, but he can't make me believe it and so I don't get bent outta shape about it. It's no skin off of my fangs.
Philosophically some might take it as a thought ultimatum but then again you gotta believe that others can command what you think, believe, or feel. They can make demands, but not commands.
So it doesn't bother me.
I really have only one obligation as far as this goes, obey what is asked, and Dean has really only one realistic way of measuring my obedience, how I act, not what I think.
He'll never know what I think just as I'll never know what he thinks, or why.
All we've really got is words in judging these matters (especially on the internet) and let me tell you one thing I can prove from daylight till Ragnorak, words aren't the truth.
Sure, sometimes they illuminate, but just as often they occlude and obscure. So words don't bother me and demands about words don't bother me.
The modern world often thinks the world revolves around language and their opinion of the world. I personally don't.
If anyone stays I think only one thing about them, they decided to stay. If anyone leaves I think they left. Either way I don't think Dean achieved anything like thought control, he just made a rule. Maybe it will improve things around here, maybe it won't. But it won't change me on the inside nor anyone else I'll bet.
I actually have no opinion at all on what this rule will mean, that'll be found out in the future. To Dean it's progress, to me it's just change.
But it's his right to make his rule, your right to accept that or reject it - but either stay or go you're under no obligation on God's green earth to believe it.
That's America, and that's being an American. Hell, that's just being alive.
So stay if he lets ya, or go if you want, but either way, you remain you. That much can't change unless you decide it will.
<blockquote>
But suppose he's right? <b>What if Islam could be stripped away from all the despots, murderers and bigots who seem to infect it in this era?</b> Maybe, just maybe, there is some deeply hidden beauty to it all, as a philosophic concept and even as a system of belief.
</blockquote>
That is the question of the day. I think Dean is right. I just think that it is the Muslims responsiblity to police up their own house. (There are those here that are trying and I applaud that.) I just don't think that it is Islamophobic to point that out or to call for it. I sometimes have a hard time with Robert Spencer, but Dean has now place himself in the opposite extremist position. Anytime you say "Most X's are Y" you are wrong.
Dean,
I have NEVER heard Robert Spencer proclaim that a "majority" of muslims are one way. You, on the other hand, have said many times in my short time here that a "majority of muslims" are another way. What I like about Spencer is he points out the ideology and religious indoctrination used by extremists that I have seen in a way closer light than you ever will. Does my experiences in Iraq drive some of my views... Yes, but at least I readily admit that and am open to your point of view. That is until you start swearing and insulting others like you have been. Robert Spencer is a perfect example. "Obsessed" with you? I have been reading his blog for years and he never mentioned you until you attacked him both personally and professionally. But I noticed that you never were willing to actually debate him on religious grounds. <b>It is sad because if someone could prove him false with a credible interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith, that would go a hell of a long way toward stopping the spread of extremism</b> and improve the image of all muslims worldwide. Instead, everyone just bashes the messanger because it is easier.
I listen to those who read/write arabic, have read the Quran and the Hadith, grew up/been to the Middle East (recognizing their biases good and bad), cross them with my own experiences plus reading the Quran... and make up my own mind. That kind of mindset and intellectual honesty is what I liked about "Your World". This "my way or the highway" mentality takes away a lot of that. I know I fall in wity those that have drawn you're wrath. I know you're glad to see me go and I am glad that I will have a lot more free time.
I had agreed to disagree with you on this, but you aren't a rational person when this is discussed. I'd much rather go elsewhere. Maybe, I'll start reading (but not commenting on) Eteraz.Org. I may not totally agree with him, but at least he is an adult.
<blockquote>
But suppose he's right? <b>What if Islam could be stripped away from all the despots, murderers and bigots who seem to infect it in this era?</b> Maybe, just maybe, there is some deeply hidden beauty to it all, as a philosophic concept and even as a system of belief.
</blockquote>
That is the question of the day. I think Dean is right. I just think that it is the Muslims responsiblity to police up their own house. (There are those here that are trying and I applaud that.) I just don't think that it is Islamophobic to point that out or to call for it. I sometimes have a hard time with Robert Spencer, but Dean has now place himself in the opposite extremist position. Anytime you say "Most X's are Y" you are wrong.
Dean,
I have NEVER heard Robert Spencer proclaim that a "majority" of muslims are one way. You, on the other hand, have said many times in my short time here that a "majority of muslims" are another way. What I like about Spencer is he points out the ideology and religious indoctrination used by extremists that I have seen in a way closer light than you ever will. Does my experiences in Iraq drive some of my views... Yes, but at least I readily admit that and am open to your point of view. That is until you start swearing and insulting others like you have been. Robert Spencer is a perfect example. "Obsessed" with you? I have been reading his blog for years and he never mentioned you until you attacked him both personally and professionally. But I noticed that you never were willing to actually debate him on religious grounds. <b>It is sad because if someone could prove him false with a credible interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith, that would go a hell of a long way toward stopping the spread of extremism</b> and improve the image of all muslims worldwide. Instead, everyone just bashes the messanger because it is easier.
I listen to those who read/write arabic, have read the Quran and the Hadith, grew up/been to the Middle East (recognizing their biases good and bad), cross them with my own experiences plus reading the Quran... and make up my own mind. That kind of mindset and intellectual honesty is what I liked about "Your World". This "my way or the highway" mentality takes away a lot of that. I know I fall in wity those that have drawn you're wrath. I know you're glad to see me go and I am glad that I will have a lot more free time.
I had agreed to disagree with you on this, but you aren't a rational person when this is discussed. I'd much rather go elsewhere. Maybe, I'll start reading (but not commenting on) Eteraz.Org. I may not totally agree with him, but at least he is an adult.
3.1.2007 4:29pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
I actually don't think Dean wants an echo chamber. I think that some people might be interpreting his intentions properly, that of wanting to stop true islamophobia on his site.
I just don't think that dogma is the way to do it. If someone proves to be an islamophobe, ban them. If Dean wants to do it without seeming authoritarian and arbitrary, pull together a steering committee to review all ban requests.
But to ask people to state that they believe the unprovable to be able to post here is too much.
Suicide bomb vests were first developed and used by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Between 1980 and 2000 the Tamil Tigers carried out 168 suicide attacks on both military and civilian targets. The Tamil Tigers are predominately Hindu.
See if you can pick up Ron Coleman and some of the others. I've had frequent reason to argue with Rabbi Ron, as I think I once called him. But he's one of the most intelligent men whose presence ever has graced Dean's blogsite.
In short, your guy has made an understable but unfortunate judgement error. Buy him a case of Anchor Steam, tell him to down a few, sleep it off, and tone down this line-in-the-sand crap and other ultimata rained down on his friends for no especially good reason.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
And Dean hasn't disagreed with that.
Two statements are true:
1. The majority of terrorists today are Muslims.
2. The majority of Muslims today aren't terrorists.
2 does not invalidate, disprove or dispute 1.
Quotes from the post:
[5 precepts omitted]
I hereby surrender my password and comment account, my keys to the Dean's World Secret Treehouse and Go-Go Club, my membership card (good for discounts at your favorite stores) in the Dean's World "100 Comment" Club, and my Dean's World decoder ring. I promise not to show anyone the secret handshake.
To all I've offended here (particularly Michael Demmons) I apologize and hope there are no hard feelings. I leave without regrets, or hard feelings either, to the host or anyone here.
Good-bye.
The Tamil Tigers are predominately Hindu.
Did they carry out their attacks in the name of Allah? Why won't people read before commenting.
My point was made and correcting a comment I didn't make is a waste of time.
Arnold: Thank you.
Sean: I am what I am and what I'm not is a shy wallflower. :-)
Independent women... God I love them - or rather - the Wife who is one...
I think Shoemaker has it about right:
Embracing wholeheartedly the folks in (2), while smacking upside the head the folks in (1), is probably the way to go.
And, when these lines of distinction get blurred (as often demogogues try to do), the fine-thinking folks at DW will be the first to unblur them.
Barnes
Yes, but by pointing that out, the implication is that there is some connection between Islam and suicide bombers. I am simply pointing out that non-Islamic groups have used suicide bombing too, and in the case of the Tamil Tigers in a big way. It was the Tamil Tigers that developed the suicide bomb vest, and the Islamic groups copied the idea from the Tamil Tigers. You have not heard too much about the Tamil Tigers because most of their bombings have been in Sri Lanka with one or two in India, and they are not directed at US targets.
NO.
Yours,
Wince
This here is in fact Dean's World. He created it. Maybe with Rosemary's help. Maybe with the help of a lot of other people to make it grow into a quality end product. But he conceptualized this from the first.
So like my Randian hero, Howard Roark, who torched the housing project in New York whose design the second-raters took from him and used under false pretenses, Dean has a perfectly moral right to destroy Dean's World. Because it's his property.
And I for one would consider that a Grade-A number-one shame. Not alone because I have been part of all this for so many years, sometimes by day, sometimes by night, sometimes by odd moments on the weekend. And losing Dean's World would to me be a loss I am sure I would regret for the remainder of my life. Which may not be long, because I'll be 73 soon.
So I don't want to join any chorus of people nagging away at this guy about how to run his blogsite.
Sure, I can think he's wrong in this ultimatum stuff. But I just spent a little while trying to put myself into his head. (Never easy or even possible to achieve.) And I think he's probably sick to death of a bunch of us attacking a large group of people simply on the basis of their religion. I guess I can get away with that as a apatheist who sees religion in general as do few others.
But suppose he's right? What if Islam could be stripped away from all the despots, murderers and bigots who seem to infect it in this era? Maybe, just maybe, there is some deeply hidden beauty to it all, as a philosophic concept and even as a system of belief.
Granted, it's hard to tell because we are open war with large numbers of people who claim to be faithful Moslems and who therefore think they have some divine monopoly over the term "al-Islam".
But it's interesting to think about the possibility that one day we really could have a collection of benign, peaceful and mutually cooperative cultures around the world -- probably and otherwise secularized one -- in which people could freely explore all the great ideas that have arisen through human history.
Muhamad the prophet made his great vision arise from within the depths of his own consciousness, and from it, created an empire, a religion, and even changed the culture of his own arab nation, but ultimately the cultures of all the peoples from the Atlantic coast to the gates of India, and still later, to the southwest Pacific ocean.
Would I like to be able to live in peace with all these mohamed folks, the same way as I think I do with the jesus folks, the mary folks, the moses folks, the icon folks, the joseph smith folks, the l ron hubbard folks and others too numerous to mention. Sure. Who in hell wants war if you can live without having to watch your back continually?
So, what I'm saying is this. Give Dean, Ali, Aziz, and all the mohamed folks a chance to make their case for an entirely different kind of Islam than the one we all are certain we have seen as representing the original vision of their prophet.
How does that sound, folks? Remember, there's two sides to every argument. May I always be right. But being an honest man, I know for a fact I'm frequently wrong. So let's have discourse rather than ultimata. Maybe we will all learn a little something about al-Islam that we didn't know before, and would have been useful for our lives to give some thought to.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I haven't been around long enough even to really know what's being talked about, though I've gathered a little here and there, and I also suspect an event or series of events maybe seemingly unrelated precipitated all of this.
That being said I see both sides of this argument philosophically, and the pragmatic sides of both arguments.
Personally I think Dean probably wins the philosophical point (not that I agree with everything he said), the opposition the pragmatic one (not that I agree with everything they said).
But every bloke and blokette has to make their own call.
As far as I'm concerned it's Dean's yard and how he wants people to play in it, that's all good and proper. If I play here I'll play by his rules, if those rules bother me (which they don't right now I'll just go elsewhere).
But Dean really didn't demand a litmus test to comment, he just outlawed a certain method of operation by which people can address a particular kinda subject matter. That is he just restricted the manner in which a particular subject can be addressed.
He might have stated his real reason for this, might not have stated his real reason for this, or might have partially stated his reasons for this. We'll never really know. His motives might be personal, civil, altruistic, pragmatic, shallow, or idealistic. We'll never really know that either. It doesn't matter.
But all he's really asked is that you don't do A about Z in a particular way.
That might be a big deal to some, and I got no problem with them feeling that way, but me personally, I don't care. Life is full of rules, and even for good reason sometimes, and I respect some of those rules, and I break others. For instance I break rules all the time investigating various things. I don't shoot off my mouth about it, and don't do it in front of people who I know it would offend. If a rule gets in my way, I break it. But I don't break it in front of people who think the rules are important because they think the rules are important.
What I'm saying is that I don't have to swallow what Dean says, just don't break this rule on his turf (or any of his other rules). I don't agree with the rule, hell I don't agree with a lot of laws even, but I follow them because that's the way it is. I don't stop obeying the law cause I disagree with it, unless I find it morally reprehensible, and I don't stop breaking the rules if they get in my way of doing what needs to be done. Just nobody has to see me do it or ever know it happened but me. And nobody ever will. Cause I don't rub shit in people's faces in their own home. If I really gotta do that I'll catch em in an alleyway alone somewhere and then really stink up the joint.
So I guess if you find what Dean is doing morally and philosophically reprehensible then this will bother you. Me, I don't have a particular problem with that cause to me this is more of a dangerous pragmatic play than a philosophical one. Dean could potentially lose a lot of customers and comrades over nothing more to me than a philosophical issue.
Then again if you think about this the right way it has probably caused a sort of internet controversy, even if it is a continued one, and has probably stirred up a sort of level of buzz or renewed interest in the site, for both good reasons and bad. That being the case, and it is even if it is unintended or subconscious, I say, "Kudos Fella." I don't think much of popular controversy generally, especially not internet controversy, but you've touched a number of knobs that will set some tongues wagging and will lead in all kinds of tangential footpaths, some of them probably even interesting. Maybe even a few that should be yakked about.
All that being said I'll keep commenting as long as Dean likes and as long as I wish and he doesn't wash me out. And at the same time I don't have to agree with anything Dean laid out, all I have to do while here is obey. If I wanna criticize Islam in a particular way, which I do from time to time (though I suspect I probably don't do what Dean is asking not be done), I'll just do that elsewhere. It's a big world with a lot of dives. You don't have to make everyplace the Top Hat and you don't have to make everyplace Joe's Stinkhole. Sometimes you wanna steak and a nice glass of wine, sometimes you want Taco Bell and a Mountain Dew. No man can be everything to everybody, that's just life.
And I don't hav'ta swallow what Dean is serving and he don't hav'ta buy what I'm selling. All we have to do is agree that when we're in the others guy's presence to behave in a way which is civil enough that both can stand it.
But that's just me and my opinion. In other words I don't think my particular opinion about every matter, or any matter, is so important that I get to dictate the terms of every discussion in any context or environment, specially one I don't own. I know I'm different that way and that a lot of modern people think their opinion is something so holy and gosh darned important that it just has to heard, all of the time. But as for me I think my opinion is just my opinion, and I think it probably smells about the same as everyone else's opinion. So I'm not insistent someone smell my breath every I open my yapper. There's a time and place for my opinion, and a time to keep my mouth shut and play by the rules.
So if some of you guys are leaving then I might see you at some other dive. That'll be fine with me.
But as for me all I think Dean is asking is that I flush the toilet when I use his bathroom cause he'd rather not smell what offends him and what he thinks might offend some of his other guests. That ain't much to ask I think.
I reckon I'll stick around awhile and if Dean doesn't want me spitting on his floor, then I'll do that elsewhere if I feel that is absolutely, positively something I gotta do. But just to be honest, I don't.
Dean's ultimatum smacks to much of thought control.
Imagine a world without phobia's or phobes.
The very nature of the blank combox is the blessing of the internet.
Don't restrict it.
Because there aren't a thousand other places you can go to spout paranoid, morally indefensible drivel about the evils of Islam.
You can run on your own conscience.
Do I think that there are significant factions in Islam that are very anti-modern, anti-feminist, anti-science, and bent on reestablishing the Caliphate? Yes.
Do I think these factions are a clear and present danger, not only to the West, but to other Muslims? Yes.
Do I think that these factions exert a growing influence on Islam in general? Yes. A poll in the UK recently found that 40% of Muslims there want Sharia law.
So, Dean, where does that put me? In or out?
Still, I've been reading all afternoon the comments of others regarding Dean's sand line, and I finally felt compelled to speak my mind.
Dean, your world sucked me in and has kept me intrigued and involved for quite a while. I'm not up to the intelligence level of most of your regular contributors, but I have chimed in a time or two, and I read nearly every comment on every post.
Regarding your sand line...well, I can't disagree with what you said, because I like to think I hold no bigotry or prejudice against anyone based on race, color, or creed. I DO, however, hold contempt, dislike, or outright hate toward someone based on his or her actions, especially when they are consistent in displaying actions I find immoral or unethical. So I have nothing against anyone who holds Muhammad as a God, for other than my own beliefs, I have no proof that he is right and I am wrong.
C.S. Lewis, in his Narnia stories, once had Aslan the Lion make the assertion that any good done in the name of any god was done in Aslan's name; and any bad done, even in Aslan's name, was evil and not associated with him. So I don't care what god one professes to have faith in, or whether one professes faith in any god at all, I decide by actions whether someone is good or evil.
I would kill OBL without blinking an eye, eat a good steak dinner afterwards, and sleep like a baby that night, because his words and actions have consistently proven him to be an enemy. I don't care what religion he is, and I don't hold anyone else who says they are of the same religion accountable for his actions. He, and he alone, is responsible for what he says and does, and he is my enemy. As was Saddam, and I am glad to know he has swung high and finally for his crimes.
What I mean to say, I guess, is I'm just a little speck in the Dean's World universe, and whether I stay or not is probably not of any importance whatsoever to anyone but me, but I think I'll stick around. I believe I can answer affirmatively to your assertions, and even if I couldn't, I never participated in the debates or discussions on the matter anyway, and I don't expect to start doing so now.
So continue revolving your world, Dean, and I will continue to orbit, if it pleases you for me to do so.
Dean is certainly entitled to do as he wishes with Dean's World, but I think he doth protest too much when comparing himself and the DW community to Buckley and Birch, respectively.
I find the majority of the line-in-the-sand assertions largely irrelevant to the defense and expansion of liberal society against totalitarian ideology. To me, those that lock lips in an embrace of fatalism with the past or with enemy propoganda are wasting their time and energy.
Building the future is where it's at, and I'll respect (and support when possible) any Muslim that trades self-pity and self-righteousness for self-respect, reason, and individualism.
The issue is not that Dean is asking his posters (and possibly commenters) to BEHAVE in a certain manner, as you assert.
The issue is that Dean is demanding that people who post (and possibly comment) BELIEVE a particular unprovable thing or be cast out.
So if one continues to post or comment here, the assumption can be made that you BELIEVE the things Dean demands that you say you believe.
This is why many people are objecting on principle, and others are objecting to the idea that one has to believe the unprovable. Others simply disagree with Dean's assertions, but those are probably the ones he wants to get rid of in the first place.
If it were about agreeing to behave in a certain way, this would not have generated nearly the angst in his posters and commenters. Most of us already behave in a proper polite manner so would have no problem agreeing to remaining polite.
You have to start with it as your presumption before you start writing on the subject. That should be your behavior.
If you believe that Islam is inherently incompatible with all the values we hold dear, you have already drawn a line in the sand.
Sorry, but you have. And there's no getting around it. Indeed, you have already imposed an odious litmus test, and put yourself forever on a side I will not be part of promoting or even treating with respect. You have decided that people I know and care about cannot possibly be good Americans and cannot possibly be trusted.
That's what you've said if you believe this crap.
None of this has anything to do with the religion being spiritually correct. It has to do with your assertions about an entire class of human beings.
No, I don't have to. Because Dean can't make me believe anything. Or not believe anything for that matter.
It's just not possible.
What he can do is insist I behave in a certain way for particular reasons. I can accept that or not, and I do cause it's his house, but neither my life nor my beliefs depend upon his conception of what my beliefs should be. Or can be. Or are.
Look, I understand this is part of modern life.
People think that what they think is the most important thing anyone else can ever think about. But it ain't. It's just a believe in our culture. Because so much of our culture is about yakking, and opinion, and words.
I accept a lot of things cause that's the way it is, but I don't have to believe those things, or accept them as mine, I only have to accept them as a way of doing business.
I got my opinion, you got yours, Dean has his, Martin his, that's all fine by me. But Dean will never make me think, or you think, or believe a certain way because he makes a regulation about it, and I personally don't get all worked up about it cause I know it can't be done. All he can really do is require behavior, because thoughts and beliefs are totally untestable until someone acts on them.
Let me put it to you this way, many times I run across people who other people say to me about, "I had no idea he was that way." Why, because people in our world often just automatically accept that a person means what they say and that what they say should somehow match their actions. It just ain't so so often.
I've seen good men who act as if they are murdering thugs to get at murdering thugs. I've seen murdering thugs who play at being choirboys for the public while for hobbies they're raping, robbing, and sodomizing with prejudice.
So there's one thing I know for sure, you can control a man's behavior - serial killers don't take to carving up little girls when they're standing beside a cop - but you can't control a man's thoughts. It doesn't worry me. Dean could say, "You must accept a tangerine marshmallow as the Doctor of Tomorrow." I'd find it amusing and kinda weird, but he couldn't make me accept it as a premise buried in my heart.
He can say don't do this and I might think that's fair (I think what he's demanding is fair enough) or not, I might stay, or not, but he can't make me believe it and so I don't get bent outta shape about it. It's no skin off of my fangs.
Philosophically some might take it as a thought ultimatum but then again you gotta believe that others can command what you think, believe, or feel. They can make demands, but not commands.
So it doesn't bother me.
I really have only one obligation as far as this goes, obey what is asked, and Dean has really only one realistic way of measuring my obedience, how I act, not what I think.
He'll never know what I think just as I'll never know what he thinks, or why.
All we've really got is words in judging these matters (especially on the internet) and let me tell you one thing I can prove from daylight till Ragnorak, words aren't the truth.
Sure, sometimes they illuminate, but just as often they occlude and obscure. So words don't bother me and demands about words don't bother me.
The modern world often thinks the world revolves around language and their opinion of the world. I personally don't.
If anyone stays I think only one thing about them, they decided to stay. If anyone leaves I think they left. Either way I don't think Dean achieved anything like thought control, he just made a rule. Maybe it will improve things around here, maybe it won't. But it won't change me on the inside nor anyone else I'll bet.
I actually have no opinion at all on what this rule will mean, that'll be found out in the future. To Dean it's progress, to me it's just change.
But it's his right to make his rule, your right to accept that or reject it - but either stay or go you're under no obligation on God's green earth to believe it.
That's America, and that's being an American. Hell, that's just being alive.
So stay if he lets ya, or go if you want, but either way, you remain you. That much can't change unless you decide it will.
Can't grammatically tell the difference between believe and belief?
Still, I guess that's my fault for using em. It's just words I guess.
If I had a blog, I'd ban myself from it out of general principle.
But suppose he's right? <b>What if Islam could be stripped away from all the despots, murderers and bigots who seem to infect it in this era?</b> Maybe, just maybe, there is some deeply hidden beauty to it all, as a philosophic concept and even as a system of belief.
</blockquote>
That is the question of the day. I think Dean is right. I just think that it is the Muslims responsiblity to police up their own house. (There are those here that are trying and I applaud that.) I just don't think that it is Islamophobic to point that out or to call for it. I sometimes have a hard time with Robert Spencer, but Dean has now place himself in the opposite extremist position. Anytime you say "Most X's are Y" you are wrong.
Dean,
I have NEVER heard Robert Spencer proclaim that a "majority" of muslims are one way. You, on the other hand, have said many times in my short time here that a "majority of muslims" are another way. What I like about Spencer is he points out the ideology and religious indoctrination used by extremists that I have seen in a way closer light than you ever will. Does my experiences in Iraq drive some of my views... Yes, but at least I readily admit that and am open to your point of view. That is until you start swearing and insulting others like you have been. Robert Spencer is a perfect example. "Obsessed" with you? I have been reading his blog for years and he never mentioned you until you attacked him both personally and professionally. But I noticed that you never were willing to actually debate him on religious grounds. <b>It is sad because if someone could prove him false with a credible interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith, that would go a hell of a long way toward stopping the spread of extremism</b> and improve the image of all muslims worldwide. Instead, everyone just bashes the messanger because it is easier.
I listen to those who read/write arabic, have read the Quran and the Hadith, grew up/been to the Middle East (recognizing their biases good and bad), cross them with my own experiences plus reading the Quran... and make up my own mind. That kind of mindset and intellectual honesty is what I liked about "Your World". This "my way or the highway" mentality takes away a lot of that. I know I fall in wity those that have drawn you're wrath. I know you're glad to see me go and I am glad that I will have a lot more free time.
I had agreed to disagree with you on this, but you aren't a rational person when this is discussed. I'd much rather go elsewhere. Maybe, I'll start reading (but not commenting on) Eteraz.Org. I may not totally agree with him, but at least he is an adult.
But suppose he's right? <b>What if Islam could be stripped away from all the despots, murderers and bigots who seem to infect it in this era?</b> Maybe, just maybe, there is some deeply hidden beauty to it all, as a philosophic concept and even as a system of belief.
</blockquote>
That is the question of the day. I think Dean is right. I just think that it is the Muslims responsiblity to police up their own house. (There are those here that are trying and I applaud that.) I just don't think that it is Islamophobic to point that out or to call for it. I sometimes have a hard time with Robert Spencer, but Dean has now place himself in the opposite extremist position. Anytime you say "Most X's are Y" you are wrong.
Dean,
I have NEVER heard Robert Spencer proclaim that a "majority" of muslims are one way. You, on the other hand, have said many times in my short time here that a "majority of muslims" are another way. What I like about Spencer is he points out the ideology and religious indoctrination used by extremists that I have seen in a way closer light than you ever will. Does my experiences in Iraq drive some of my views... Yes, but at least I readily admit that and am open to your point of view. That is until you start swearing and insulting others like you have been. Robert Spencer is a perfect example. "Obsessed" with you? I have been reading his blog for years and he never mentioned you until you attacked him both personally and professionally. But I noticed that you never were willing to actually debate him on religious grounds. <b>It is sad because if someone could prove him false with a credible interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith, that would go a hell of a long way toward stopping the spread of extremism</b> and improve the image of all muslims worldwide. Instead, everyone just bashes the messanger because it is easier.
I listen to those who read/write arabic, have read the Quran and the Hadith, grew up/been to the Middle East (recognizing their biases good and bad), cross them with my own experiences plus reading the Quran... and make up my own mind. That kind of mindset and intellectual honesty is what I liked about "Your World". This "my way or the highway" mentality takes away a lot of that. I know I fall in wity those that have drawn you're wrath. I know you're glad to see me go and I am glad that I will have a lot more free time.
I had agreed to disagree with you on this, but you aren't a rational person when this is discussed. I'd much rather go elsewhere. Maybe, I'll start reading (but not commenting on) Eteraz.Org. I may not totally agree with him, but at least he is an adult.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.