Litmus Tests
Dean
Okay. Apparently people don't like the term "litmus test."
I get why that's upsetting. I thought I was simply being clear, but apparently just the very idea of a "litmus test" offends some people. I'm not sure it would offend them in all contexts, but it sure offends them in this one.
Okay. Sorry about that. Maybe that's an overstatement.
Before we get mad too mad, though, let's look at it by definition:
a crucial and revealing test in which there is one decisive factor.
Via American Heritage Dictionary.
Each of my five items offended some people, but this one really stuck in some craws:
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
Others quibbled with other parts, but this one especially tweaked people.
"Most other religions" apparently flew past some people. "No more than" also flew past some. But then there was the big word:
INHERENT:
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
If you declare that Islam is more inherently incompatible with modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most other religions, then you have essentially stated that Islam is by far worse than most other religions on this score.
"Your religion" isn't even relevant. You've declared something about it compared to MOST religions. You've also suggested, pretty strongly, that Muslims can't be real Muslims and still be good Americans.
In short, as I see it, you already drew a line in the sand. Long before I did. And in a much more draconian fashion.
You've also essentially spat in the face of people I know and care about, and many people who've served this country honorably and well.
I notice that my friend (I hope I can still call him friend) Kevin Dombrowski not long ago said that he thinks homosexuality is absolutely sinful, but that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces if they want to defend this country. Which presumes that they can be sinners in his eyes but still be good Americans.
Hello?
Have a close read of this thread. Notice how an evangelical Christian declares Islam false and wicked. Fine. Nothing new there. Then later on, a Muslim declares Christianity false. Then three Evangelicals play the role of martyr and claim they're being picked upon by the wicked Muslim.
Meanwhile, they're all acting like the argument is over who is theologically correct, when in fact that was never in question. The question, I remind you again, was over modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism.
Where did "theologically or scripturally correct" come into play there? Or are modernity, women's rights, and democratic pluralism something that Evangelical Christians hold as their most sacred values, something that they invented and no one else has any part of?
This is not about whose religion is true or false, people. It's about who you will accept as a decent and honorable fellow American worthy of respect.
I don't think I'm dancing around the subject or weasel-wording here. I do not think it is out of line to suggest that if you think Muslims are inherently the enemies of democracy, pluralism, or human rights, then you don't belong here.
Because you don't belong here if you really believe that, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise.
But please: "spiritually or scripturally correct" doesn't even enter into it.
Now, if you'd like me to open up a thread on why people think Islam is a false faith, or Christianity is a false faith, or why certain breeds of those faiths are good or bad, we can do that. I have lots of opinions on that. But it's a separate subject.
I for one am increasingly gravitating toward becoming a Christian again. Although it would never be as an Evangelical, for a wide variety of reasons. In any case, it's wrong to let the one debate fall into the other.
If you cannot admit that a practicing, believing Muslim can be a genuine American who respects democracy, pluralism, women's rights and minority rights, or cannot accept that it's not particularly worse than most other religions (I did not say "your religion"), then I'm not going to apologize for imposing that as a "litmus test."
And if the words "litmus test" give you the heebee-jeebees, you need to rethink.
Because what I basically said is that if you think Muslims are presumptively bad Americans who need to prove otherwise to you, I don't want you hanging around here.
To me this doesn't seem complicated. Maybe my phrasing was bad, and you can suggest better phrasing. I'm open to suggestions. But for the record, I'm sick of bending over to avoid offending anyone's delicate PC sensibilities. Including, apparently, the delicate PC sensibilities of Evangelical Christians.
(Who, by the way, are not inherently bad Americans, and have often been great Americans. I have a list handy if you'd like me to name some. If the subject is "what makes a good American" and not "what makes one righteous with God.")
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that nobody thought thats all you menat by your line in the sand. Realy, not poop if that's all you ment by that I can stand behind that.
But it sooo didn't read anything as mild as that.
I didn't really have a problem with your original post on this, and saw most of your serious critics as arguing over semantics more than substance. Albeit... some people just think like that, so I didn't think it was bad gamesmanship on their part either. Just trying to make sure they were heard and understood.
But it's like you're all freaking out because you insist that you want to hear each other speak, not only compatibly, but with the same voice. And I don't know how that's ever supposed to work. Dean's World has far too diverse a body of commenters and writers for that kind of uniformity. And isn't that a good thing?
Maybe this would be better if we exercised a little "we agree on the gist of it, even if we quibble on the semantics" judgment. Obviously, the more semantically oriented will find this to be crazy talk. So I guess I'm not helping.
When you said "Islam is not..."
That's not the same as saying, "Muslims are not..."
My first reading, as I mentioned before, what not nearly as broad as Martin's restatement. Or your restatement here.
CN
Aren't I paying for a service here? ;)
As in: “If you intend to argue X, Y, or Z, then take your arguments elsewhere. Those points have already been refuted here.”
If this is what you meant, Dean, this is not what you said.
I have no problem with this statement.
Now, I do believe that Al Qada is inherently an enemy of democracy, pluralism and human rights. I also believe that to be true of the Taliban and some other Islamist sects in Islam. So I am well aware that there are some groups who claim the mantle of Islam and call themselves Muslims who I absolutely believe to be enemies of democracy, pluralism and human rights, not to mention just plain decency.
But throughout history many groups have covered themselves in the mantle of one religion or another to pursue goals I consider evil. It would be disingenuous of me to say that Islam is the only religion to be hijacked in this way, or even the religion to be hijacked the most in this way.
I do believe that today, as I sit here and type this, what I see of the world seems to indicate that Islam is currently being hijacked more than "most" other religions in this manner, which I consider to be a tragedy for Islam, and a threat to world peace. But there is no reason to believe that to be permanent, and at certain times in the past you could easily have said the same thing about Christianity.
I still harbor some uncomfortableness about the "you don't belong here" part, but that I consider to be Dean's perogative as the owner of this site. Personally I take the same approach to this as the old Pastor who was asked why he didn't kick the sinners out of his church. "Because this is where the sinners should be, if we expect to teach them not to sin."
Don't take this the wrong way but I've thoroughly enjoyed this. It's raised a lot of interesting side discussions.
None of it has bothered me so I don't have an emotional reaction to any of it, but it has been fascinating.
I have been accused by more than one of the commenters on this subject of being pedantic or overly semantic.
I am only going to defend that once.
Words have meaning. Words are the most powerful force on earth. Putting your name to words either explicitly or implicitly reflects on your personal character and your personal ethics.
You may think that is pedantic or semantic. That's fine. I don't. I take what I say very seriously when there is an implied or explicit statement that it reflects what I actually believe.
This is why I was so adamant about the wording of #3. Not because I didn't "get" the "gist" of what Dean was trying to say. I posted at least twice saying that I'm pretty sure Martin got Dean's "gist" properly, but I don't put my personal character on the line for a "gist." When the stakes are "if you are seen here then you are assumed to believe a specific publicized thing" then if I am seen there I'd BETTER believe that thing, or else I'm misrepresenting my own beliefs. Or else I'm just a hypocrite or a liar.
You don't have to take things that seriously. It may reflect on my character in a way that you consider to be pedantic or semantic.
But that's how I see things like this. There is only one thing I truly "have" in this world, and that is my character. I don't really mind being thought to be "pedantic" when compared to being thought to be a liar or a hypocrite.
Understand?
I totally understand. It's one of the things that frustrates me because I just don't personally interpret things like that.
I'm much fuzzier about the inferences I draw from the kind of things you're citing than you, apparently. And when others try to make those same inferences bright and shining rather than fuzzy, my reaction is, "you're wrong to do that" rather than "I never should have allowed myself to be placed into this position."
It's a simple difference of emphasis.
Now, as Gerbera pointed out, your clarification of #3 here is NOT identical with the meaning in your original #3. Of course, I consider this progress considering your earlier "non-negotiable" stance; at least you now appear willing to consider and take into account that perhaps some people require oaths to be carefully and correctly phrased, with clear meaning, before signing onto them wholeheartedly with whatever sloppy/meaningless/misleading phrasing Dean Esmay happened to think up.
The problem with the old #3 was that it was trivially true: Islam is not "inherently" [whatever], because no religion is "inherently" [whatever], since "inherently" (as asserted by Martin triumphantly quoting the dictionary) connotes among other things permanence. This strict construction of "inherence" created such a high bar that nothing could possibly pass. (Seriously, if/since Islam doesn't qualify, can anyone here name an example of ANY religion which is "inherently" incompatible with e.g. women's rights?? I dare you!)
As it happens though, I still disagree with your rephrasing of #3, which doesn't rely so much on "inherence"/permanence, as it now seems to be:
[if you deny #3] you have essentially stated that Islam is by far worse than most other religions on this score [i.e. modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism]
Um, Dean: I do believe that Islam is indeed worse than most other religions when it comes to modernity, women's rights, and democratic pluralism. In fact, I think this is pretty fricking obvious to anyone looking at it objectively.
But at the very least, I think it is something about which reasonable people can disagree. Except, of course, on this blog. Bye,
It's all well and good for you to insist that nothing can be inherently incompatible with...
What you don't seem to get yet -- after I've explained it repeatedly -- is that some people insist just as strongly that Islam is inherently incompatible with...
They're not listening to you when you say that's impossible. They insist it's both possible and true. Therefore, the set that you insist is empty is, by example, not empty.
And that's the set Dean targeted. The fact that you think it's empty runs contrary to examples Dean has seen.
I've said repeatedly that I do not think that Islam - or any other religion! - or any other human institution for that matter!! - is "inherently" incompatible with e.g. womens' rights, or most anything else one would bring up in this context. I've said repeatedly that #3 (original, as you explained it) is true, but the reason is, it's trivially true.
(As Dean has explained it above, I believe it to be false.)
That's why I will not agree to it; it's a stupid, vacuous statement that (1) if interpreted strictly, as you have has no meaning, but (2) which is quite likely to be interpreted differently in a more relaxed way (as Dean has above), in which case I'd have signed onto something which many people would take to mean something I do not believe.
At the very least, all of this requires careful clarification and discussion, which Dean made clear he is not interested in and initially rejected altogether.
And then say:
The meaning is precisely: "If you're one of the people who thinks that thing (which Anonymous says isn't even possible) is both possible and true, leave."
That was clear as a bell to me when Dean wrote it. It is clear the way he explains it. You're saying X is and must always be false, so it's a nonsense statement. Other people without your logical sense say X is true. Dean says that if you don't agree that X is false, leave.
Now you may say there's a difference between "meaningless" and "false". I prefer to work on the basis that all meaningless statements are classed as false. But we don't have to settle "meaningless" vs. "false" for Dean's purposes. All that matters is that "true" is unacceptable to Dean, and "not true" is acceptable.
I don't think all Islam is inherently much worse than any other religion, but over all I believe it is interpreted in a stricter sense, although we see it in Christianity too. Not only by more Islam leaders but by many of the followers too. Now I don't know that is a large number (far worse) or small number (more). Therefore I can accept the "more" in your original quote, but not the "far worse" in your disingenuous rephrasing of it. It certainly seems to me to be higher than we see in Christianity.
So no, I don't agree with number 3 at all. If you want to ban me for my opinion then so be it.
Bullshit.
You may see it that way but I'm always open to change. The only one drawing a line in the sand on this subject is you.
No I haven't. I simply don't buy all of your argument. That certainly could change with good points from you, but not with your present attitude. As "some" Christians think Islam is inherently bad, you use the same argument against anyone who approaches your line, whether they are bigots and deserve it, or have an honest disagreement.
That's not what I thought you said.
I can stand behind this new statement 100%. In fact, if you had originally posted exactly that then I doubt this controversy would have ever arose.
If you're going to draw a line in the sand, Dean, then you should be absolutely clear. But I'm glad you clarified, it means I can keep posting. :)
Jesse: BG Doug is right. This endless parsing in the name of intellectual rigor is silly. I've made it as clear what I meant and what I think as I know how at this point. Furthermore, it's pretty clear from this endless parsing that if I'd just said, "Islamophobes, please go find somewhere else to play," we'd have been treated to more endless debates about that term and what it means--and more cheap shots at Muslims along the way.
It's pretty clear that most of the ones I'm talking about finally got the message. If a few others get mad and leave them I'm sorry, but I still feel like we just took a long-needed shower.
Sandy: It's on your conscience. I'd miss you. A few of the others too. Most of them, though, not so much. In any case, I gotta tell ya, the whole "I haven't made my mind up yet" stance? If you're just by nature unwilling to take definitive stances on anything, that's one thing I suppose. However, there's a certain moral vacuity that goes with that too. It's like sitting there saying, "Well, I really haven't made my mind up yet whether David Duke is a racist jackhole." There are things you do if that's really your position. Demanding that I change your mind for you isn't one of them.
And where did I ask let alone demand that you change my mind? Maybe this?
I simply don't buy all of your argument. That certainly could change with good points from you, but not with your present attitude.
That is simply saying that I will listen to your position, even when I already have a position. I could have left out the; "but not with your present attitude" and admit I was still a little ruffled, even after waiting a few hours to post.
I'm a constant reader, very infrequent commenter. Here's my take, if worth anything.
Let me say off the bat that I agree with your 5 assertions. I ask that you indulge me in answering each of the 5, so that I can make my point:
1) I don't believe Islam equates to Satan, but can't prove it one way or the other. Either way, I agree with your assertion.
2) To my knowledge, Muslims as a group have not been waging a millenium + long war against anyone. Complete agreement.
3) No question, the theoretical body of knowledge known as Islam / the Muslim faith are no less compatible with the concepts of freedom, equality and democracy than any other religion. So, I agree with your assertion if we're talking about the THEORETICAL precepts of Islam. I'll come back to this in a second.
4) I confess ignorance on the words and their meanings, but agree that if they are offensive, they should be omitted from discourse. Again, in agreement.
5) I'm South African, not American, but I agree with your assertion. There should be no burden on any individual to prove something that is not expected of others, irrespective of group membership.
So, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe I pass the litmus test.
However, the problem for me lies in this:
When talking about the THEORETICAL precepts of Islam, I believe I pass the test. But does the test extend to the PRACTICAL application of Islam by certain groups within the religion?
For example, do I believe that Islam as it is PRACTICED in Syria, Iran, Darfur or Palestine is compatible with your #3 statement? No.
Do I believe that any other religion in our 21st century reality is as likely to produce suicide bombers? No.
Do I believe that any other faith is as likely to have a negative, violent impact on my life as does Islam? No.
These statements have nothing to do with the body of knowledge - but with the incorrect practical application of this knowledge by some members (the minority) of the Islamic faith.
The difficulty for me lies in the distinction between the theoretical and the practical, because I (and I believe most people) use ONE term to denote both the religion and its followers (christian / christians, muslim / muslims, etc.). It is not often that a distinction is drawn, because a faith and the way it is practiced is seen as one, rightly or wrongly.
To illustrate the difficulty:
Do I believe that Islam as a faith promotes hijackings of planes? No. When I get on a plane with a young Muslim man, am I more suspicious of his activities than the other passengers? Right or wrong, I'd have to answer yes. Does that make me an Islamophobe?
So, my question is this:
Are we talking about Islam as a theoretical body of knowledge? If yes, I believe I pass the test, and I would love to stick around.
However, if we're talking about a concept of Islam that includes ALL of its gatekeepers, including the ones that promote terrorism, then I'm afraid I fail the test.
I look forward to your response, as I would love to continue interaction under the first scenario, but would feel it no less than appropriate if I withdraw under the second.
Kindest regards
Charl Lombard
Made me laugh.
But before you get the wrong idea. I'm not laughing at ya, I'm laughing at the idea.
I'm sorry you "don't understand" why I shan't endorse #3, but I doubt if I'll be losing sleep over it, because if you really wanted to understand, you could read and apprehend what I wrote above, which boils down to:
-As Dean originally wrote #3, I found it either meaningless/vacuous, or (if not), potentially wrong, thus could not endorse it w/o clarification
-As you explained #3 to me in that other thread, of course, I found it trivially true, thus meaningless. I would not assent for the simple reason that it was meaningless, and potentially misleading.
-And I was right! Because as Dean has just gotten through clarifying #3 above - which is different from how you choose to explain it by the way - I DISAGREE with it.
Let me say that again: As Dean has just clarified #3, I DISAGREE with #3.
Yet you're still here saying "Golly I don't understand why won't you just sign onto #3??" Because, you see, Martin I disagree with #3 as the guy who wrote #3 has just gotten through explaining it. Capisce? Isn't that a pretty good reason for me not to sign onto it now that you think about it?
And this illustrates precisely the problem with the original phrasing of #3: it was phrased with potentially-misleading weasel words, words designed to give its author an infinite "out", so I couldn't tell whether it was truly meaningless (your interpretation), or whether it was meant to connote something I disagree with (the way Dean has rephrased it above). That is precisely why I refused to sign onto it from the very beginning, and it proves that I was right to do so, for I would have been signing onto a statement which (it is now clear), even if I may have agreed with the truth of your interpretation, the host - thus many misled readers - would have rephrased/paraphrased, at his leisure, to mean something I actually disagree with.
I believe Islam is quite bad on womens' rights, ok? I just do. I could certainly be wrong, and reasonable people can disagree if they do so rationally (I have to exclude your host now of course), but that's what I believe. So, trying to get me to sign onto a statement that Islam isn't "inherently" bad on womens' rights, and telling me I should just go along with it because of the high bar that the word "inherently" sets (which, if I took seriously, renders the statement empty), is a puerile word-game and I shall not play along. It's really an attempt to shove words down my throat, which shows a lack of integrity and (I suspect) self-confidence on the part of the person engaging in such a juvenile game. And someone with such a lack of integrity, I can only presume, would then proceed to misrepresent what he has just bullied his readers into signing onto:
"All Dean's World readers agree that Islam isn't worse than most religions on womens' rights"
Which is not. true. of. me.
Therefore I cannot endorse #3. I don't want to go on the record saying that Islam is A-OK on womens' rights (if that's what #3 meant) and I don't want to go on record endorsing a misleadingly vague statement that can and will be spun as me saying that Islam is A-OK on womens' rights. The way Dean originally wrote #3, I smelled a rat and understood that the phrasing left things open to precisely this misunderstanding. Then you came along and said "hey chill out, it just means such and such", which would be swell, but by your explanation #3 was trivially true, and the misunderstanding was still a danger.
But as Dean has just explained it, your explanation doesn't even apply in the first place; I actually am in disagreement with #3 as he explains it. So, I reject it. Is that so hard to "understand"?
Dean:
Bye. ;-)
I've been a reader and occasional commenter here at Dean' World for at least 4½ years now and sadly I'm saying goodbye as well. I have no issue with any one of the five items in the litmus test, and the litmus test itself doesn't even bother me - it's your blog after all - what I can't take anymore is your behaviour in all this. It's typical of you. You can go months acting like a perfectly reasonable person then out of the blue you'll make a provocative statement, feign surprise at the tempest that erupts, ride your hobby horse into battle and once the blush is off the rose you start moderate your position. I just can't stand it anymore. I used to like coming to Dean's World and engaging in intelligent debate with people that I might, or might not, agree with, but the last few months visiting Dean's World has become to feel like an obligation, not a treat, and it's simply not worth my limited time anymore. I wish you luck,
Robert Modean
Taliban and Al Qaeda are not sects of Islam - that should be cleared up. Neither is Hamas or Hezbollah.
Taliban started out as a militia. Al Qaeda is much the same and considered an organization (not a religion).
Now if we are going to be talking about sects of Islam, I consider those to be Sunni, Shia, Sufi (and someone else needs to clear this up).
Then we have schools of thought Sunni: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali. Shia: Jaffari
etc... I'm Muslim and can't even tell you where Salafi and Wahabi falls in and am not even going to attempt this, but please people instead of making broad statements that Taliban and Al Qaeda are some sort of representation of Islam and Muslims - please ask questions or confirm what you are thinking. This is almost like me saying that the Chicago Gangs such as The Disciples and The Latin Kings are Christian - I SAID ALMOST.
[Dean] Because what I basically said is that if you think Muslims are presumptively bad Americans who need to prove otherwise to you, I don't want you hanging around here.
That is not what you "basically said" Dean, and for you to pretend as much now is a highly disingenuous bait-and-switch. And you damn well know it. Few would have had any problem in the first place if this is all you had "basically said", and it's a damn insult to say otherwise.
It's almost as if this exchange has occurred--
Dean: "To participate on DW, you must agree that rabbits are magical space-aliens from the Andromeda system, whose gaze cures cancer."
Some of us: "Um, I'm not so sure about that... can we at least clarify?"
Dean: "No! No exception or weasel-wording! Non-negotiable!"
Some: "Ok then, well, no."
Dean: "OMG! Bunny-haters! So you guys are saying you don't think fuzzy widdle bunnies are cute? Good riddance! Because all I basically said was that fuzzy widdle bunnies are cute!"
Whatever Dean. Talk about weasel-words. You might be fooling yourself with this type of disingenuous claptrap but don't expect to fool everyone else with it.
To say "Islam is more inherently incompatible... than most other religions" does not entail thinking that it's "by far worse" than them.
It could be slightly more incompatible, and thus only slightly worse, just as the most obvious example.
(The distinction between Islam and what-individual-Muslims-do-and-believe is another huge problem, but one too difficult to address in this comment.
Suffice it to say that one can speak of Islam-as-such as distinct from what individual Muslims do and believe, in the same way one can talk about Christianity-as-such as distinct from what people who self-identify as Christians actually practice.
[IE, one can note that Christianity according to the biblical sources and e.g. the Catholic Catechism doesn't prohibit masturbation, though many Christians would at various points assure you that not doing so is in fact required. I would say that the disconnect between the two is meaningful, and while both are "Christianity", we can talk about the version supported by the primary texts vs. the one supported by folk beliefs.
We can even claim, rationally, that the former is "Christianity-as-such", though that can be debated.]
One can, in fact, be a Bad Muslim or a Bad Christian. Though whether someone else thinks being a Bad one or a Good one is preferable is another matter entirely.)
Can I point out that there are 3 possible answers here:
(a) Yes, I agree
(b) No, I disagree
(c) I don't know
By requiring answer (a), Dean has not only excluded answer (b), but answer (c).
The fact that there are people who feel Islam is inherently compatible with modernity et al. disproves your assertion that the statement is meaningless. You just can't seem to get that those people are the targets of Dean's statement, and therefore the statement is meaningful.
You're so bound and determined to disagree that you blind yourself to this simple fact.
I'm really thankful for this whole discussion and hope everyone can just stop and think before any feelings get hurt. Arnold said in another thread that he felt like this was a fight that went from the first floor to the second and I agree with him.
Dean, I really understand what you are doing and I hope all comes out the way you so desire it to. If not, at least a balance of understanding where others are coming from will suffice.
Martin, you have done an outstanding job of explaining things. I have been around a long time like Arnold. I'm sorry to see Robert Modean go because he has been here four and a half years like he said above. That's how long Arnold has been here. I'm not sure when you came Martin but it has been a real pleasure over the past two days this was all discussed.
All the above is IMO &FWIW ;-)
You're arguing that the set X is empty by definition.
Despite your argument, other people argue that the set X contains one element, Islam. Call that set of people Y.
Dean's requirement is that anyone who states that the set X contains Islam -- anyone in set Y -- is not welcome.
You are not in set Y, because you argue that X is empty. That necessarily means that you agree that the set X does not contain Islam.
Dean is not arguing that any other religion is in X.
Dean is not arguing that X is non-empty.
Dean is not arguing that set X' -- the set of religions that have problems with modernity, et al., but which can potentially be reformed -- does not include Islam.
Dean is not arguing that Islam has no more problems with modernity, et al., than any other religion; rather, he argues that whatever problems it has are correctable.
Here's what you're missing, and why you're kinda behind in the argument: That's <i>your</i> reading of Dean's #3.
As I said to you long ago, according to <i>your</i> reading, #3 is trivially true. (Please look up "trivially true" on Mathworld or somewhere.) And its opposite as well (that's where the meaninglessness comes in). What I said to you long ago, that I still couldn't sign onto it according to your reading, was NOT because I "disagreed" with it, but because of the potential confusion that would result.
And here is why there is potential confusion: Because not everyone interprets #3 as strictly and narrowly as you, so as to make it trivially true! <b>Dean Esmay, for example, doesn't interpret it that way.</b>
After all, Dean Esmay rephrased what he <i>believes #3 to mean</i> in the post above. Here is how he characterized it:
"[if you deny #3] you have essentially stated that Islam is by far worse than most other religions on this score [i.e. modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism] "
And <b>according to Dean's own characterization of #3</b>, I disagree with #3. Let me say that again: I disagree with #3. You keep trying to convince me that I should just sign onto #3 because you've come up with a strict reading that makes it trivially true. But Dean clarified his meaning, and I DISAGREE WITH THAT MEANING.
Explain why you're still trying to convince me to give A-OK to #3 then?
I know this is tricky to understand, because I've had to fend off <i>two conflicting readings</i> of a single statement in these discussions. And I agree that both readings are possible (that's why I didn't waste time analyzing/declaring which reading I believed to be "corerect"); this is <i>part and parcel</i> of why I was reluctant to accept #3 in the first place, and believe that Dean's requirement to do so was intellectually shabby.
Let me call the two readings Martin-3 and Dean-3. Here is my position, then:
1. Martin-3 is trivially true and devoid of content. (Its converse would also be trivially true.) I can't endorse it, not because I believe it false, but primarily because I fear misunderstanding - that my endorsement of Martin-3 will be <i>easily mistaken</i> for an endorsement of a looser #3; Dean-3 for example. Indeed, I suspect (because I no longer have confidence in the integrity of the host) that there is a conscious <i>bait-and-switch</i> going on. Did you read my "fuzzy bunnies" analogy above? If not please do so.
2. Dean-3 is, I believe, false. I believe it's obviously false. So, I can't endorse it. And the fact that Dean-3 is a possible interpretation of #3 is precisely why I refused to endorse it even in the face of people, like you, who assured me that "all" it means is Martin-3.
Ok, can you stop trying to convince me to endorse #3 then Martin? Please? I don't endorse it. I shan't endorse it. I have reasons. I know you want me to endorse it (for some reason). But it's not going to happen. You gave it the old college try, at least :) Bye,
Dean is not arguing that Islam has no more problems with modernity, et al., than any other religion
Actually, he is! Let me quote him again:
"[if you deny #3] you have essentially stated that Islam is by far worse than most other religions on this score [i.e. modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism] "
Once again, part of the gulf between us is that I take his words seriously, and you insist on fudging them so as to get quick agreement with them.
Please take your condescension and stuff it.
Actually, Dean endorsed my interpretation of #3. On the front page. Then, since some people (yourself included) have difficulty with the plain English meaning of his statement, he paraphrased to get the point across.
And they you're wrong. "Islam is not inherently incompatible..." is trivially true. "Some people believe Islam is inherently incompatible, and should leave" is the point.
Yet another word you have difficulty comprehending...
No, I insist on reading them precisely as he meant them, by his own statement, and precisely according to their definitions.
Like I said elsewhere, this just means he's contradicted himself. Now, your point here is that I'm supposed to endorse a statement whose meaning keeps shifting, just because you can cook up one meaning that is trivially true, right?
How lame.
And they you're wrong. "Islam is not inherently incompatible..." is trivially true. "Some people believe Islam is inherently incompatible, and should leave" is the point.
Statement #3 is not a statement that says "Some people believe X and should leave." See how you keep ignoring what Dean actually said and shifting it around at will, to try to get agreement? Silly game. I ain't playing
Actually, you're still ignoring what Dean said, and shifting it around so that you can argue with it, since you're so determined to disagree with Dean even though you actually agree with him. Statement #3 does not stand on it's own, it's a member of a list. (That's why there's a '3' in front of it.) It cannot be understood in isolation, but only as part of the list; and the list begins with this introductory phrase:
And the list is followed shortly by two consequences:
Therefore, every statement in the list includes by context the introduction and the consequences. A full, in-context reading of #3 would then be:
That is the full construction of #3. The full construction of #'s 1, 2, 4, and 5 would be equally lengthy if Dean were forced to be explicit to avoid your pedantry. Instead, he used standard English construction to say:
You continue to agree with #3, while steadfastly denying that you don't. You continue to insist that it doesn't mean what it means. At this point, I would have to say that you are indeed playing a game, because no one could possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
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.