I hope we are not now supposed to accept that all religions are equally bad, as seems to be the implication. I at least cannot forget the history of jihad that has brought us to the situation we are now in. And that will repeat itself if we are not very vigilant. If we are to consider the Crusades, then we must also consider the bloody jihad conflicts leading up to the Crusades.
When the UN authorised the formation of the nation of Israel, it was not just in recognition of recent genocide in Europe, but also the past history of the Jewish people in the mideast and their oppression since the time of the Romans. Remember that Jewish tribes were numerous in the region, including the Arabian Peninsular, until Mohammed ordered that they all be eradicated from the whole of that land, which was achieved within a few years of the death of the prophet. It took a uniquely hateful creed to drive and motivate the Arab Muslims to wipe out all traces of others so piously over such a long period of history, albeit not continuously. The decline of Christians and Zoroastrians and other faiths as well as Jews was a merciless process which will only be complete after the destruction of Israel, and what is left of Lebanon.
According to Hugh Fitzgerald: When speaking of the Middle East, liberal elites in the West like to speak of “root causes.” There is nothing wrong with that, except that the root causes they seize upon are a product of Arab propaganda – a fact of which people like Clinton, Blair and Obama are probably not even aware.
Where this propaganda has achieved its greatest success is in the reversal of the “root cause” of the conflict: instead of an Israeli David beset by vast, oil-rich Arab potentates, the narrative is now of an Israeli Goliath oppressing a tiny, embattled, never before heard of “Palestinian people”.
What is needed is a public education campaign to reverse the Arab reversal and set things in their proper light. It was once readily apparent that the reason for the Arab-Israel conflict was Arab intransigence; the Moslem world’s backward belief that the entire Middle East somehow belongs to them and that non-Moslems have no right to be there, except as second-class citizens willing to submit to the Islamic boot.
Shmuel spelled out the real root cause in his monograph “No Solution to the Arab-Palestinian Problem” (Dawn Publishing Co., 1985):
The correct definition of the root of the conflict over the Land of Israel or, in current phraseology, the “heart of the problem” is the determination of the entire Arab nation, under the inspiration of Islam, to rule over the whole area from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean and from the southern border of Turkey to the southern border of the Sudan. This was why they launched a war against the embryonic state, dispatching a vanguard of forces to abort its birth. The Arab states were going to wreak death and destruction in Palestine as the Mongols had in the 13th century, as Azzam Pasha, the secretary of the Arab League, declared at the time.
The perfectly simple fact — though its ramifications are hard and bitter — is that the failure of the attempt to strangle the nascent state did not weaken by one iota the Arabs’ liquidationist design. That design is rooted in Arab history and woven into the very fabric of the Islamic faith. The contemporary Arab objective is not the result of twentieth-century covetousness alone. The Arabs feeling of lordship over all these vast domains derives from memories of the past or, more precisely, from an imaginary notion of past glory, and it is fed by a desire for vengeance against the Western world. In the Arabs’ view, they were humiliated for hundreds of years, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, by the Western Christian powers — even though they, as Muslims, are the bearers of a superior religion.
When the Muslims dominated immense stretches of the world, the Jews and the Christians under their rule had a debased and inferior status: they were second-class citizens. By the grace of the Muslim ruler they were granted the status of dhimmis, or a subject minority, of protege citizens whom the ruler protected at will — and they paid special taxes.
The myth of the Palestinian People has reversed the true understanding of the conflict, making the local Arabs the supposed underdogs against the mighty Jews. It is time to reverse the reversal. What, are we supposed to support 56 Muslim states in the region and tut at the existence of one Jewish state? When that one Jewish state gives full rights to it's Arab Muslim citizens while the Muslim states have driven out most of their Jews, or made life intolerable for them? When Israel is the most advanced and democratic nation in the region? Once again, it is important to point out that the jihad did not begin in September 2001, and it is not aimed solely, or even mostly, at Christians in North America and Europe. The jihad has nothing to do with the existence of the state of modern Israel, or the existence of the United States of America. Jihad is the 1,350 year war of conquest by Muslims against non-Muslims (and fellow Muslims), to impose sharia law on all persons in all places. Victories in those battles of conquest are marked by the desecration of the houses of worship of non-Muslims, and the murder, enslavement, and humiliation of conquered non-Muslims.
Rod Liddle's whole approach seemed to be based around the belief, that if you criticize religion your being arrogant. What's the big deal about religion that you cannot criticize it, even aggressively?
The whole program came across as an attack on atheists for attacking religious dogmatism, with the claim that the atheists are being just as dogmatic. Well, if religion were not as destructive in the World today, as it so clearly is, then Liddle may have had a point. As it is, his claim "rings hollow". Is it so surprising that atheists are so strident, when religion is causing so much violence in the World? I don't think so.
One of the most annoying claims that Liddle made, is that atheism is synonymous with communism. But, I agree with Richard Dawkins, it is incidental to it.
Communism itself, I would say is a form of religion secular yes, atheistic no; there is a difference. It is a dogmatic belief system, which is detached from reality, as is the belief in a personal God. Both theistic religion and communism are dogmatic belief systems, without objectively identifiable evidence of their validity.
Atheism, is not a dogmatic belief system, it is simply the none acceptance of God, based on improbability.
Liddle then goes on to do the same annoying thing with Darwinism, implying that Darwinism and atheism are synonyms (they are not of course, Darwinism is not an atheist Bible). It is true that an acceptance of Darwinism may weaken an individuals religious convictions. But, the fact that it does is not the primary fundamental of Darwinism again, it is incidental. Rod Liddle does not seem to be able to tell the difference between fundamental primaries and incidental coincidences. Why did liddle fail to mention that many Christians do accept evolution? Would that have weakened his argument?
I found it all rather one sided, with Liddle being far too nice to religion. The time for being nice to religion is up. Look where being too nice and too politically correct, in the name of not upsetting religious sensibilities has got us. It is this wishy-washy attitude to religion, that has allowed religious extremism to fester and spread like an untreated cancer.
It is aggressive ridicule of religion (including through the power of humour) that is necessary, to deflate its "untouchable status".
There was also a comment made, not by Liddle himself (though he didn't dispute it), that without Darwinism there doesn't seem to be any grounds for atheism. This is absurd, it suggests all atheists are Darwinist's and without Darwin atheism is not possible. And why does Liddle use phrases like "part of the atheist project" when referring to Darwinism, is he suggesting that Darwinism is part of an atheist plot to overthrow religion? Some kind of mass atheist conspiracy? (perhaps the overthrow of the geocentric view of the universe is part of the same plot). Notice, that not even once does he call Darwinism a scientific theory.
Then Liddle goes on to say that Darwin took on the religious establishment. No he did not, that is exactly what Darwin did not do, again it is purely incidental that Darwin's scientific identifications, where in conflict with religion. From what Liddle says it gives the impression that Darwin's purpose in discovering his theory, was done for the primary purpose of attacking religion. But Darwin was extremely sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and the last thing he wanted to do, was "rock the boat". Virtually every point Liddle makes throughout the whole program is just plain wrong.
Rod Liddle's absolutely absurd claim that "Marxism was a utopia based on reason" Marxism was not a system of reasonableness and it was not born out of reasonable thinking; but its antithesis. There was no reason to be found, that is why it was so inhumane. He is doing the same thing that he has done, throughout the whole program, linking atheism with a dogmatic belief system and making a wild claim that they can be coupled together as synonyms.
The term "one state solution" is a kind of nom de guerre for the destruction of the Jewish state by other means.
It will lead to a duplication of the sectarian bloody violence between Christians and Moslems and between Shia and Sunni, that has rocked Lebanon for more than three decades. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the Palestinians need a state of their own and the Jews need a state of their own. If for some readers, the two-state solution seems bad, then it is the least bad solution. With a one-state encompassing Israel/Palestine Jews will very quickly become a minority. They will likely be treated the way minorities often get treated in the Arab and Muslim world - just take a look at the Copts in Egypt or the current inter-ethnic bloodshed in Syria or the exodus of Christians from Iraq, the oppression of the Bahais in Iran and the brutality meted against the Kurds in Turkey. Jews will inevitably emigrate from this new one-state utopia. The Arabs are using fancy sounding diplomatic jargon to try to accomplish what decades of war and terrorism could not accomplish.
Modern historians estimate that more than ½ million Ethnic-German died as a result of their forced expulsions from Central and Eastern Europe. Once over the border, the Sudeten Germans were crammed into filthy refugee camps, some of which had previously served as concentration camps for enemies of the Nazi state. It was a brutal and awful time for the Sudeten Germans. But there had been a war. Their ‘people’ lost. And that’s what happens in wars.
Imagine if Germans were like Arabs. Instead of the German population striving to settle the Sudeten German refugees into their cities and assimilate them into their society, they would have kept them deliberately impoverished in refugee camps. They would point across the Czech border, and tell their wretched ‘refugees’ that Slavs they had ‘stolen’ their lands and must be blamed for their misery. The children of Sudeten Germans would grow up in overcrowded shanties, filled with hate and dreaming of blowing up Slavs in a Prague cafe.
Germans everywhere would demand the ‘right’ for all descendants of Sudeten Germans to ‘return’ to the Czech lands, to ensure the demographic dominance of ethnic Germans.
But European culture isn’t Arabic culture. Europeans look to the future. They thrive and prosper. Today, you can drive from the Czech Republic into Germany without even realising you’ve done so.
At the end of World War II 3 million Sudeten Germans were expelled from the former Czechoslovakia, where their communities had lived since the 13th century. Their homes, lands and businesses were taken from them and they were allowed to take only the belongings they could carry on their backs before being marched, at gun-point, across the German border. History happens. Borders change. Some people lose. Some people win. It was the way for thousands of years and in some cases, it still is.
And the irony is that throughout history Arab and Muslim peoples have been no strangers to changing the borders and demographics of the lands they’ve conquered.
There is absolutely no point whatsoever in engaging in a debate about the rights or wrongs or historical detail of the Israel/Palestine situation. The facts are that Israel exists. The clock can’t be turned back. Neither Arabs nor Muslims have a very good track record of coexisting with Jews. The only way forward is to recognise these facts and try to make the best of the situation.
Here's a quote from Abdallah Zekri , President of L'Observatoire de l'islamophobie "The vast majority of Muslims respect the law of 2011, but some, such as 'converts' who know nothing about Islam or the Quran, who want to be more Muslim than the Muslims will want to break the law, burning cars , breaking windows. Doing so, they are very damaging to Muslims."
Even though male British terror suspects have concealed their identities under the Burka thus far, personally I would still feel uneasy about banning facial veiling in the street. However, one bad incident could harden many peoples opinion on that. So far as requiring facial exposure in schools, shops, banks medical premises etc. Yes, absolutely establishments and employers alike should be able to set that as a rule. In court, no compromise. One rule for all.
"Those calling for a veil ban in Britain have clearly ignored such depressingly routine cases." What an impertinent assertion. On the contrary, with any such legislation it's entirely expected that routine enforcement cases arise. And whether that's depressing entirely depends on where your sympathies lay.
And the charge that the legislation ""somehow legitimised physical attacks on them"? Could it be that repeated riots by young Muslims, attacking police cars and police stations and burning and destroying millions of euros worth of property, and the threats of terrorist consequences, from multiple fundamentalist sources might have played a part in "somehow legitimising" attacks on the continuing veil wearers?
Now what is this nonsense about an offensive myth? Here is something which isn't a myth. Having struggled heroically for centuries to achieve emancipation and equality many western females (and males) are offended at the site of symbols of a grossly patriarchal, misogynistic, regressive segregationist ideology 'recently' evident in society.
Facial masking is not an Islamic code. Veiling has little to do with religion and everything to do with the politics of culture. And whether we like it or not, accept the fact that culture is alien to Western Europe, and (dangerously) it is centuries out of phase in a backward direction. We no longer execute homosexuals, or apostates. Don't flog or kill adulterers. Don't require four male witnesses to prove rape. We even allow the performance of music.
And if there are any Muslims out there who are not actively seeking to undermine and overthrow Europe's secular democracies and replace them with Islamic states then either they are not understanding the core instructions of their own scripture, or they are "unpure", Muslims who are compromising with unbelievers, in order to enjoy the benefits of a wealthier more libertarian culture, or they are simply caught between two divergent worlds and in denial about Islamism's patriarchy, expansionist credo and controlling political nature.
France's ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear in public places is not specific to Muslim face masks, but all face masks for males or females. Like their law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, it applies to everyone of any religious persuasion.
Freedom cannot be absolute. Democracy does not and cannot insist on complete freedom (anarchy). France's government (any government) must reconcile competing views and interests in order to find the position most acceptable to the largest number. And particularly to preserve the values shared by the majority of citizens, which form the backbone of their national identity. The overwhelming democratic will of the people of France is that they wish to protect the secular nature of their government, their education system and their nation. And they are going to do so actively and timeously. Understandable and legitimate.
A true phobia is physiologically impairing, not just a religious disagreement. Eg. Agoraphobia = Paralyzing panic attacks, Glossophobia = paralyzed with fear/memory loss/ throat muscles close up when speaking in public/front of a crowd/stage fright. Arachnophobia = paralysis/cold sweats merely at the sight of a picture of a spider, Acrophobia = Fear of heights = Muscles physically seize up, involuntary trembling etc, when approaching a high bridge/ledge. Physical symptoms often accompanying social anxiety disorder include excessive blushing, sweating (hyperhidrosis), trembling, palpitations, nausea, and stammering often accompanied with rapid speech. "Impairment in social or occupational activities" is what separates a phobia from a normal concern/ argument/fear.
People who throw around "phobia" labels without even attempting to back up a true phobia with evidence are to be taken no more seriously than a teenager screaming "are you brain damaged" when losing an argument. It's exactly the same process of projecting a fake medical diagnosis to try and hide the two common logical fallacies of "Hasty Generalization" and "Poisoning the Well" behind to try and discredit the person speaking their concerns. It could be equally dishonestly argued that many people falsely throwing around "Islamophobia" are themselves suffering from "Allodoxaphobia" (an irrational fear of someone else expressing an opposing opinion/disagreeing) surrounding Islam.
And further, it could equally be argued that certain Islamic theocrats suffer from Chorophobia (Sharia-outlawed fear of dancing), Cyberphobia (Sharia-outlawed fear of Internet cafes), Dishabiliophobia (fear of undressing in front of someone), Geniophobia (fear of seeing chins (in Burka required areas)), Genuphobia (fear of seeing knees), Gymnophobia (fear of nudity), Heresyphobia (fear of challenges to official doctrine), Heterophobia (fear of mixing with the opposite sex (in Sharia sex-segregated areas)), Kolpophobia (fear of seeing female genitalia), Omphalophobia (fear of seeing belly-buttons), Potophobia (fear of alcohol), Peccatophobia (fear of sinning), and Xenophobia (we are better than the Dhimmi). And that would be equally ridiculous to reel off that lot every time Sharia Law debates come up, wouldn't it?
In order to be taken seriously, the burden of proof for genuine "Islamophobia" lies on actually proving someone holds a clinical irrational fear/anxiety disorder to the point of being impaired of functioning in the presence of Muslims, and not just a normal human rights vs religion disagreement that's often "conveniently" taken out of context for the purpose of feeding the "grievance industry" and milk political capital out of it. For that reason, "Islamophobia" is neither a serious medical nor objectively measurable "phobia", just another repackaged political attack label that's only slightly higher class than "retard" Youtube-level teenage "debate" and heading the same way "anti-Semitism" is - overused to the point where it becomes devalued.
Back in 1977, President Jimmy Carter was in Poland for a state visit. Seeking a translator for his time there, the State department hired Steven Seymour, who was a freelance linguist who was known for his expertise with translating written Polish. That expertise in dealing with Polish on paper, didn't translate into expertise inspeaking Polish. During Carter's opening speech, Seymour translated the the English, "I have come to learn your opinions and understand your desires for the future." into the Polish, "I desire the Poles carnally."
While that one mistake would have been bad enough, Seymour's didn't end there. Carter started talking about how happy he was to be in Poland, which was translated as he was happy to grasp Poland's private parts. Further on in Carter's speech, he talked about his departure from the U.S. which was translated, "when I left the United States never to return...". Lastly, Carter went on to praise the Polish constitution of 1791 as one of three great documents in the struggle for human rights. What Seymour told the Poles in attendance was that their constitution was to be ridiculed.
Reasonably enough, the Polish people were left in that strange mix of anger and confusion that comes from when the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world tells you that he wants to fondle you and your constitution is awful. However, the Poles weren't just angry because of just the translation. When Seymour did his awful translation job, he added a insult to injury by using Russian syntax and Polish idioms that had been out of style for 100 years. Also, keep in mind, this was the middle of the Cold War. Using any thing Russian is not the best move to make when you are translating to a people who were firmly behind the iron curtain and were being oppressed by the Russians. Not to mention that the Poles have a long history of not liking the Russians generally.
Now Seymour was rightly fired after this debacle, but the Carter administration wasn't out of the woods yet. Looking for another translator, they hired Jerzy Krycki, a former employee of the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw. Krycki was assigned to translate for Carter at a state dinner. However, there was a slight problem. While Krycki was fluent in Polish, his English wasn't the greatest. So when Carter got up to give the toast, he was greeted with only silence from Krycki. Carter, thinking simply that Krycki had missed his que, spoke the second line of the toast and waited. Greeted by even more silence, Carter knew something was wrong. It turned out Krycki heard the president just fine, he just couldn't understand the president well enough to translate for him. Since he didn't want to repeat Seymour's mistake of mistranslation, Krycki just chose to remain silent. Fortunately, the Polish leader's translator stepped up and translated for the president.
Fortunately for Carter, no other major mess ups happened during his trip abroad. As for both of the translators, they seemed to recover professionally after the incident, with Seymour continuing his work as a translator for poetry and Krycki working for a news agency. I guess the most important lesson to take away from this is you need to know what others are saying when they speak for you. Otherwise, you might end up propositioning and then insulting an entire nation.
Sources:
1. http://www.foxtranslate.com/translation/interpreter-mistake-offends-poland
2. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1880208_1880218_1880227,00.html
3. http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/17003
4. http://news.google.com/newspapers?
5. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/steven-seymour
Christopher Hitchens has always shown an amazing courage: the courage to be different, to question cherished icons and beliefs, to define his life as he chose to thinking freely. The best thing about Hitchens was that it was impossible to agree with everything he wrote so he forced you to think. The left or right argument is a bit basic he was more concerned with supporting what helped those at risk and criticising that causing most damage. Also smart enough to change his mind.
An intellectual and moral giant. Because of my admiration for his insight, learning, erudition and courage I thought it impossible that I should be able to think any higher of Hitchens, yet the man's dignity in dealing with his illness has proven inspirational. For many on the far-Left Hitchens was an apostate for supporting the war in Iraq, they say he moved to the right, but he always believed in revolutionary change and in confronting fascism. I would say it was the Left that changed, not Hitchens. For them white liberal guilt meant strict isolationism and embracing the status quo.
The most admirable thing about Christopher is that he has been consistent in his opposition to totalitarianism. He is not a literary giant like Orwell certainly. Not even as great as his friends and contemporaries Rushdie, Amis and McEwan. Hitchens knows this. But when he speaks, people pay attention even when he is rumbling and slurring.
I will never forget two friends of mine, who haven't read three books between them in their lives, looking captivated by Hitchens on TV and then asking me "who's that English guy? "He speaks beautifully". Hitch certainly deserved Orwell's legacy. Hitch's conversion from a complacent leftist to an ardent anti-fascist did not begin on September 11, 2001 or in March, 2003. It began when he visited Iraqi Kurdistan for the National Geographic magazine in 1991. There, he learned about the Kurdish people, befriended them and became the greatest champion of their struggle.
The first crack between him and the old comrades (Chomsky, Ali, Said) appeared during the Balkan Wars, and it grew through the 1990s. When the old Left began agitating for the removal of sanctions and the no-fly zones imposed on Saddam's regime, Hitchens called for the removal of the man and his regime.
I read -or tried to read- "the Struggle of Kurds" article in the National Geographic in mid-90s when I was still learning English, so the name of the author didn't make it to my permanent memory. I re-discovered him in 2002 when I was searching in utter despair for a single principled soul within the international left movement, which used to champion Kurdish people's right for self-determination in 1980s but turned coats and began demanding the reinstatement of Saddam's sovereignty over Kurdistan in the 90s.
"As I age, I wonder about the people in this time who might one day be preserved in statue on university campuses a hundred years from now. We live in a cynical and highly documented world: we must remember many so-called 'great men' lived in, shall we say, less demanding times: Isaac Newton was an alchemist, and George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were - for all their achievements - rank hypocrites on the question of equality of men amongst the slaves. If we were truly pedantic, we could say Nelson Mandela or Albert Einstein were poor husbands, neglecting their loves ones in pursuit of their careers. No!
Let's please have statues on university campuses in the decades to come of the people in this article; most notably Christopher Hitchens. Regardless of whether you agreed with everything he said or did, let's preserve their best work and make it so cherished, because the world needs people of thought, spirit and intellectual rigor, even if we do live in an age where every wart and wild claim in a debate is preserved forever. No one is perfect, but many people are inspiring. Christopher Hitchens is one of them.
