"Ideological Purity"
Dean
I recently lost my temper after two years of trying to be temperate (sometimes successfully, sometimes not at all) on the subject of religious hatred. But I hereby withdraw my previous demand for "ideological purity," which was snotty and sarcastic and not sincere. I used it because I knew that if I put down any editorial policy, I'd be accused of that anyway. So I snottily said, "yeah!!" Because I didn't think it necessary to say that we don't put up with religious bigots or racists. But apparently, we do need to say it.
But: this is the new editorial policy at Dean's World, stated concisely:
"This is an Islamophobe-free zone."
I will not engage in lengthy parsings and arguments over exactly what that means. If you cannot tell the difference between "I believe Islam is a false faith" and "I believe Islam is the cause of terrorism and repression in the Middle East and wherever else it goes," then you don't belong here.
If you think the problem in the Middle East is primarily a Muslim Problem rather than a problem with a region plagued with a legacy of fascism, communism, and brutal dictatorships stemming from the Cold War and colonial eras---along with the ethnic strife and of course the religious matters that usually add to such things--then you do not belong here.
Heck, if you think the Middle East is "The Islamic World," you probably don't belong here.
It is henceforth the editorial policy that if you cannot write with the following as your presumptions, you do not belong here:
1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent upon destruction of the Christian world.That is our stated editorial position. You--and this includes commenters--will work from respect for that, or you just need to leave.2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by "The Muslims" or anyone else.
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most ancient religions.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for intellectual discussion & analysis. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
If you have any further questions about the policy, direct them to me.
By the way, this also applies to people who hate Christians, or Jews, or other Major World Religions ("Major World Religions defined right here). Or even secular non-theists.
I am entirely certain that some will claim that this is still "ideological purity," which is why I caustically embraced the phrase in the first place. But I'm not putting up with having the front page or any more discussion threads derailed by Islamophobic garbage.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
I want unity and know so do all other religions. Attacking any religion is not right. I really, really appreciate all that I have learned here once again.
I don't comment here all that much, but I've been following this editorial policy thing over the last few days, and like a bunch of people, I'm in 90% agreement- full agreement on 1,2,4 and 5 and half agreement on 3.
If you changed #3 to "Muslims as believers are no more inherently incompatble with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, and democratic pluralism than any other believers" I'd be in total agreement. One need only look at Muslim communities in America or India that prove that this is the case.
The problem is the phrase "most other religions." If you're talking about major world religions, there are only maybe six(Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Hinduism) plus a few medium size religions that fall in the seams or edges between them (Druse, Sikhism, Shintoism,Baha'i etc.).
But there are certain theological and historical features in Islam that have contributed to current problems in the Middle East. You're correct in stating that cultural, social, and political factors are more responsible than any religious factors. But the religious factors
do exist.
Noel
I don't comment here all that much, but I've been following this editorial policy thing over the last few days, and like a bunch of people, I'm in 90% agreement- full agreement on 1,2,4 and 5 and half agreement on 3.
If you changed #3 to "Muslims as believers are no more inherently incompatble with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, and democratic pluralism than any other believers" I'd be in total agreement. One need only look at Muslim communities in America or India that prove that this is the case.
The problem is the phrase "most other religions." If you're talking about major world religions, there are only maybe six(Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Hinduism) plus a few medium size religions that fall in the seams or edges between them (Druse, Sikhism, Shintoism,Baha'i etc.).
But there are certain theological and historical features in Islam that have contributed to current problems in the Middle East. You're correct in stating that cultural, social, and political factors are more responsible than any religious factors. But the religious factors
do exist.
Noel
Yours,
Wince
--|PW|--
Even if I do agree with the 5 rules, even number 3 (Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than any other legal system..
...of course, Islam as a legal system compared to other legal systems is a different matter)..
I couldn't simultaneously call myself a liberal and one of the 'ideologically pure'.
Most publications have an editorial policy, laying out the basic rules, like:
1. don't support criminal activity or criminal organizations
2. don't denigrate the beliefs of others
This tends to discourage the support of violent or criminal hate groups like the KKK.
The BBC discourages the denigration of beliefs/religion with this statement:
The BBC respects the fundamental human right to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this includes an individual's freedom to worship, teach, practise and observe. At the same time, we recognise our duty to protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustified offence or likely harm. We aim to achieve this by ensuring our output is not used to denigrate the beliefs of others.
I'm assuming that condemning criminal activity/organizations and not denigrating any beliefs or religion is part of your editorial policy?
But then you rewrite your old #1-#5. Oops. I'm out.
Which is it?
You still don't seem to get that your points #1-#5 are not a fair test of "Islamophobia". You're still equating disagreement with some part of #1-#5 with "Islamophobia". And that's still as intellectually shabby, and downright insulting, as it ever was. Bye,
P.S. The fact that you used the phrase "ideological purity" has nothing to do with anything (no more so than the phrase "litmus test"), and "withdrawing" it means nothing. That was sooo not the problem with the post you wrote.
Does this mean Ron and Kevin are staying?
Dean has in many places clarified his stance:erasing the "without exception" clause and changing the knowledge requirement to a requirement for presumption (only, but at least for the purposes of discussion. And he has endorsed Martin's interpretation of #3 to boot.
Please get your name back and chill out.It would be a shame to lose you.
They also have another saying: And when he stops lurking, he'll show you why Anonymous doesn't forgive.
Let me try to avoid the "pedantic" parsing of your five "editorial" points for a moment and focus instead on what I see the bigger picture in all this to be.
Your stated goal has been to remove "Islamophobic content" from your blog, both in posts and comments. This is something you believe to be important because you feel that such comments are counterproductive to the critical goal of fighting terrorism because it drives a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims who have the same goals of peace, prosperity and freedom. You have compared this effort to William H. Buckley's famous purge of the John Birch Society from the conservative movement.
In order to clarify what you mean by "Islamophobe" you have created your five points as a way to help people evaluate their own Islamophobic tendencies. This is a sort of public service of Dean's World to make it easier to weed the Islamophobes out. Sort of a "You might be an Islamophobe if..." test. (With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.)
After much debate you have decided to call these "editorial policy" meaning that posters need to "keep them in mind" and post subjects and comments consistent with a belief in these five points even if the poster or commenter does not actually believe them.
Do I have that right?
But are we allowed to chew gum?
naftali, I understood that Dean thought he helped things by inserting the word "presume", yes. But the thing is, I don't know what "presume" is supposed to mean, let alone add, in that context. I believe at least one item of Dean's list, as he himself explained it, to be absolutely false. How, in practice, can I "presume" it to be true and what would that even mean? Should I pretend that I believe it even though I don't? What a dishonorable thing to ask of his readers (if that's what he's asking).
I didn't see Dean erase the "without exception" clause. That would render the whole exercise moot, I believe. So I'm supposed to "presume", whatever that means, the truth of #1-#5 (while being allowed to disagree personally somehow), and also, there are allowed to be exceptions? I think the whole policy just self-destructed. What is the point of this exercise other than to obfuscate things? If anything, this verifies my suspicions about a bait-and-switch.
I didn't see Dean endorse Martin's vacuous interpretation. That would just mean that Dean has contradicted himself, or at least been very fuzzy, about what #3 actually means. Part of my objection to #3 was precisely that its meaning was unclear and likely to be misunderstood. I think my claim has been borne out a thousandfold.
So, unless you're right that there are allowed to be "exceptions" and that there's some substantive difference between forcing blog commenters to believe something and to "presume" something (I don't think there is), I'm back where I started: I cannot in good conscience endorse #3 and therefore I am in violation of Dean's policy.
That's all well and good. I mean, I'm gone, remember? ;-) I think the only remaining problem is the fact that Dean continues to equate his (shabbily-constructed) #1-#5 items with "Islamophobia". He persists in seeing no problem with the (ridiculous) "Islamophobia" test he's cooked up. Therefore, even if the points you made re: "presuming" and exceptions are correct, Dean is still, in essence, asserting that I am an "Islamophobe" unless I agree with #1-#5. I take that as an insult, and am owed an apology. I'm sure Dean doesn't care, as is his right.
Bye!
Point 2 is demonstrably false Al-Quaeda is fighting the war you so blindly deny...yes Boweman and his cannibal crusaders fought it before they did...in response to...in response to the expansion of the muslims in the first place (denying a thing does nothing to foster understanding of it) .
Point 4 is Orwellian newspeak. Using Mideveal anachronistic obscure terms is perfectly legitimate, indeed necessary when dealing with Mideveal anachronistic obscure branches of Islam.
The kowtowing to Muslim wants regards things like sharia and womens rights in the face of violence IS dhimmitude.
IT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS! ...at least in it's modern context.
What is going on in Europe with areas of Sharia law being enforced to the exclusion of the laws of the nations IS DHIMMITUDE. Denying people the ability to describe their greviances in words that have any meaning is Newspeak.
1 and 3 I am in complete agreement on.
3 in particular is WHY I supported the invasion of Iraq, I don't think anyone is condemned by their faith and I fervently believe that the Islamic world is capable of throwing off the shackles that despots, colonial administrators and the foetid evils of leftism left on their long suffering lands, ...this is not only possible it is absolutely necessary.
By doing this you only harden the opinion of those who are (with some justification) deeply suspicious of those of us who defend muslims. Closing off dialog especially in the insidious way you have (taking the words that mean anything off the table) does nothing except to reduce mutual understanding.
#5 I agree in principle with, (the # of cresents in Arlington, out of ALL proportion to their numbers in society should ram this home)
...but...
...while we are not fighting a religious war the jihadists are. No one can be blamed for casting an askance eye at people who represent a religion which we are reminded of daily has a VERY vocal element that wants to kill us.
This does not mean we don't offer our hand in friendship.
This does not mean that we don't befriend people and get to know them to the point that extra caution is not necessary.
This means that trepidation around muslims is NOT irrational.It is sad it hurts and it must be DAMMNED galling but it's human nature, it is a survival instinct.
Muslims SHOULD have no more reason to prove that they are good loyal Americans than anyone else...sadly the reality of the jihadists who have so thoroughly bloodlibled them means they do need to set peoples minds at ease. This sucks but it's the way it is.
The impulse to cover up muslim acts of terror, like the recent shooting, again only reinforces the notion that our enemies have as their useful idiots a see-no-evil PC myrmidon squad.
Actions like yours only drive away the people who you and Ali might win over.
I likely agree with you on a great many things and in a less totalitarian enviroment we could quite possibly be friends....but it is an all or nothing thing now and I'm 2 and 9/10 out of 5 which I'm afraid seems to mean I'm not welcome here.
I'll still stop by and I'd like to continue to comment, so, I won't delete my account. I'll leave that decision to you.
This whole thing is surely a tempest in a teapot. It's not like were locked in, but it is an interesting window into the mindset of those who claim that they are...
"Defending the Liberal Tradition"
...I don't think that means what you think it does.....
1] There is no 1400-year war on Muslims
2] Jews can live
etc.?
It is kind of interesting if you think of your blog as an extension of your mind. And this was sort of a battle between your mind and your extended mind.
The cogdis you must have suffered!
In any case--she can keep demanding that I parse everything exactly the way she wants to her heart's content. I've said what I think. I've clarified as best I can. It is not my job to make her happy. If she has questions, she can ask them. Otherwise, she should stop saying goodbye and just go. Or admit that she's playing head games and start asking real questions instead of issuing indictments.
Brickmuppet: Your read on #2 is as fatuous as it is shallow. Al Qaeda is not 1,400 years old.
Your attack on #4 is even worse. You obviously didn't even read it. So why should I respond, except with contempt?
As for the idea that I'm driving away people, the arrogance of that assertion is astounding. I've been patiently arguing about this with people for two years now, only to have the Dean's World comments section, and occasionally the front page, only polluted with more and more vile poison. And I just got madder about it. Enough is enough.
It is not my job to educate you. It's your job to educate you.
No, let's get it straight: I've decided that certain attitudes about Islam are hateful, irrational garbage, and will no longer put up with it.
You don't like it? There's the door, my good man.
I've lambasted and excoriated Christophobes and Anti-Semites more times than I can count. I can't imagine you've been hanging out here as long as you have been and you never noticed.
Indeed, given that I know you've been hanging around here all that time, I'm actually offended by the question.
I haven't NEEDED to make my feelings plain about anti-Jewish or anti-Christian sentiment. I've made it plain more times than I can count. Yes, some Christians get mad when I get snotty at them, especially certain brands of radical Christian. But you have only to ask what I really think, or look at all the times I've defended Christians, to know the truth.
Indeed, Mark, you damn well know the truth. I haven't needed to set policy on this because I'm not beset with hordes of anti-Semites who want to troll my comments on a regular basis.
It makes such people good computer programmers, and good managers of computer programmers. Makes them hard to deal with in other circumstances though. ;-)
Anyway:
This is something you believe to be important because you feel that such comments are counterproductive to the critical goal of fighting terrorism because it drives a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims who have the same goals of peace, prosperity and freedom. You have compared this effort to William H. Buckley's famous purge of the John Birch Society from the conservative movement.
Sort of.
I was mostly inspired by Buckley's brave choice, when National Review was a small obscure publication that was regularly losing money, to go ahead and piss off potential customers and friends and contributors by drawing a line in the sand. Even though it might cost Buckley & Co readers and supporters and money.
The early history of National Review is fascinating stuff by the way. They were a very small and lonely group of writers and editors in that day--much smaller and less profitable than Softdisk was when you and I worked there, for example. The decision to tell the Birchers to get lost was a big one, and a risky one.
Their decision to cast out the Ayn Rand zealots some years later was somewhat less risky, but no less principled.
I'm taking no such big risk here. This isn't my livelihood. But it will piss some people off and lose me some readers. Too damned bad.
Also, while I certainly find Islamophobia counterproductive in all the ways you state, I also find it morally odious. And a betrayal of the War On Terror, AND those who are busy fighting it--most of whom are fighting side by side with Muslims every damned day.
Further, I find it incumbent upon people to ask me what it is exactly that I've seen here in the comments, and on other blogs, and occasionally on the front page and in email, that made me finally decide that I could no longer have my name over this evil garbage. They rarely ask, they merely take me to task.
But yeah, otherwise, you're on the money so far.
After much debate you have decided to call these "editorial policy" meaning that posters need to "keep them in mind" and post subjects and comments consistent with a belief in these five points even if the poster or commenter does not actually believe them.
Well that's the difficulty isn't it?
I'm not going to have front page contributors who write from an Islamophobic agenda. Ron Coleman and Kevin Dombrowski clearly have, and do, hold such attitudes. It doesn't make them not-my-friends, but they can't be front page contributors. Ditto my wife--who is, by the way, an Islamophobe. (And, surprise! We aren't even talking about divorce. Wow.)
As for commenters: I've made it pretty clear that it's mostly a matter of conscience at this point.
But hey, you know what? Here's an interesting thought experiment:
Pretend that there is something called Islamophobia, and that it actually truly exists. Sort of like trying to imagine unicorns or something--sure, they don't actually exist, but let's pretend. For the sake of the argument. And they're unicorns who talk and have things like families and friends.
What would an obsessive unicorn-hater look like?
Maybe that helps.
Still: I haven't even thrown "anonymous" out yet, although I could. On the other hand, I've made it crystal clear that I wish she'd go the fuck away.
To be fair, you did decide the above, but then you went past that, and decided other things are also off limits.
You've already backtracked from the original #3, and admitted that people who post about Islam here have to work on certain ASSUMPTIONS, regardless of whether they are true or not. I think this is analogous to choosing not to think something. What's so weird about it is you're so against this kind of thinking, or non-thinking, regarding AIDS especially, and many other subjects.
As far as the door goes, I'm not leaving of my own free will. Regarding Islam, my comments will stay within your guidelines just 'cause I mostly agree with you. But I like this site too much not to call shenanigans when you (and by that I mean your online personality) go nutty from cogdis.
And I'm just being Simon Cowell style honest when I tell you you've got a Jekyll and Hyde thing going. You're one guy when you post about most subjects and another (not as bright) guy when you post about Islam. It isn't that I disagree with you about Islam, it's everything- from your style to your retreat into irrationality to your grammar.
(Oh yes, someone will pull out something intemperate I said on one occasion or another to some ranting Christian radical to prove that I hate Christians and have a double-standard. Without bothering to give full context that led to those remarks, or to ask whether I really believed them or was being hyperbolic to make a point.)
Whatever. I'm done with this. Many have seen exactly the same thing I have. You might ask them their opinion.
Another annoying trait of people like that is that they tend to deal with the issues directly instead of making the debate personal by pointing out their opponents sometimes obvious own annoying personality traits. ;-)
Still, you're done with this, as you've said at least as much as Anonymous has said he/she is leaving. So I'm done with it too. I am assuming that so far I haven't crossed your line in the sand however you've decided to draw it. Unless I just did, anyway.
Maybe I should just start watching TV and contribute to the posts about Idol or 24... Nah...
As long as sauce for the gander is still on the plate, alright....
I think if you keep up with that excellent blog of yours, and don't give in to the temptation to give up in frustration, this'll happen to you sooner or later. It's the difference between traditional media and, well, just putting yourself out there.
Mark: Fine by me.
Radical Islam was influenced by that sort of "western imperialism" too. Funny thing.
I do not have a PhD in comparative religion, nor have I done any equivalent studies. Therefore I cannot agree with #3 because I just plain DO NOT KNOW. This is not something to be casually studied. I don't have the language talent to learn latin, ancient greek, classical arabic, modern arabic, ancient hebrew, modern hebrew etc. Thats not even getting in to the major east asian and indian religions.
I am completely willing to not say anything opposing those rules here, but I would prefer not to make a statement that I believe things that I don't know enough to say I believe or not.
Preserve the commons.
Way to go, Dean.
I hate those bastards in Iran too -- which is why I like you, and your attempt to be fair to Islam.
But I ask you -- can you site a 20 year (one generation) "peace" where no group of Muslims were killed by a non-Muslim group, nor did a Muslim group kill a non-Muslim group, because of their religion? If not, than how does one tell the "truth" of #2 (1400 year war). (I suspect there are some few generations of peace; but not well known.)
There has been a 2000 year disagreement between Christians believing in Jesus Christ (a circumsized Jew) as the son of God, and Jews not believing. At times this has been almost a (usually one-sided) war -- certainly many pogroms because of Jewish faith.
But it has not always been a "war". I think describing Islam's relationship to modern Europe as "war" up until WW I (Ottoman/Muslim Empire defeat) is not inaccurate.
Comparing the Jesus "render under Ceasar what is Ceasar's" with respect to money and taxes, and basically against tax revolt, with my limited understanding of Islamic no-separation of state &church in Sharia makes me doubt that #3 is actually true. I think there are aspects of every religion that make it more, or less, compatible with democracy, with women's rights, with gay rights, with universal human rights; with dictatorship or democracy.
I think assuming there is no difference is the same kind of "Political Correctness" anti-truth that those who believe blacks do NOT have lower scores on "fair" IQ tests.
Races are different; religions are different; sexes are different -- and even sexual orientation groups are different. But in virtually all group comparisions, some non-average members of the group are far "better" than the average members of the "most compared with" group.
I fear Iran getting a nuke.
I fear Muslim fanatics getting a nuke from Iran (and also, though less so, from Pakistan).
I fear Tel Aviv going mushroom.
Because of Islam. (and nationalism, and power hungry leaders, and bad economics, etc etc -- but importantly because of Islam)
-- If this happens, would you admit you were wrong?
-- If it doesn't happen, I wouldn't admit I am wrong to fear it. There IS an asymetry to fears and probabilities and results.
-- If Israel nukes Tehran, I wouldn't admit I was wrong to fear Tehran's suppot for nukeing Tel Aviv , because of their words. The Tel Aviv words against Iran seem much more reasonable and rational than the (Muslim inspired? Muslim targeted?) anti-Jew words of hate coming from Tehran. With Shia Tehran seeming to struggle, through anti-Jew radicalism, against Sunni dominance in Muslim culture.
If Catholics were competing with Protestants for "purity" or Christian leadership based on Jew-hate, I wouldn't claim there is no inherent difference between Christians and others with respect to Jewish minority rights.
(Sorry I haven't been much lately -- too busy. This really is important though. What if the actual truth really IS Islamophobic? Like I consider the actual truth about AIDS and promiscuity being homophobic; and black IQ score differences being racist.)
At the Uof Wisconsin, Prof. Kaplan made some remarks that described some negative characteristics of immigrants, relative to native-born Americans. He illustrated his talk with some notes about the Hmong. This was considered offensive to some.
But what if the description IS accurate, yet also DOES offend people?
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.