![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42A recent article by 'Miz Daisy Cutter' does not actually have much in the way of comments, but what she says strikes me as very odd (and, to be honest, uncharacteristic of her). She provides a video of a programme called 'On The Map' presented by Avi Lewis.
Daisy Cutter's blog entry
You Tube video
Above the embedded media she writes:
"...because you do not know what is not to have freedom. I haven't."
Below she writes:
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 1. Avi Lewis, 0"
In case anyone is confused by Daisy Cutter's quotation with its triple negative (I certainly had trouble understanding it from the quotation alone) it works as follows in context. She (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) knows what it is like not to have freedom and the interviewer (Avi Lewis) does not. It seems a bit odd that Daisy Cutter is praising Hirsi Ali for pretty much claiming that Lewis 'hates freedom'. (Surely Daisy Cutter would not buy into that kind of Fox News rhetoric?)
It wasn't obvious to me that Hirsi Ali won the debate (if indeed, there was a winner or loser). Where I was particularly horrified was where she was claiming that if Muslims really didn't like their situation in the US they would leave, as if the fact that Muslims had not gone as far as fleeing the country meant that they had no cause for complaint. I wonder whether that means that no atheists are really discriminated in the US either, since they too have not decided to leave the country.
Atheist Blog Original source of video
Daisy Cutter's blog entry
You Tube video
Above the embedded media she writes:
"...because you do not know what is not to have freedom. I haven't."
Below she writes:
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 1. Avi Lewis, 0"
In case anyone is confused by Daisy Cutter's quotation with its triple negative (I certainly had trouble understanding it from the quotation alone) it works as follows in context. She (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) knows what it is like not to have freedom and the interviewer (Avi Lewis) does not. It seems a bit odd that Daisy Cutter is praising Hirsi Ali for pretty much claiming that Lewis 'hates freedom'. (Surely Daisy Cutter would not buy into that kind of Fox News rhetoric?)
It wasn't obvious to me that Hirsi Ali won the debate (if indeed, there was a winner or loser). Where I was particularly horrified was where she was claiming that if Muslims really didn't like their situation in the US they would leave, as if the fact that Muslims had not gone as far as fleeing the country meant that they had no cause for complaint. I wonder whether that means that no atheists are really discriminated in the US either, since they too have not decided to leave the country.
Atheist Blog Original source of video
What is Hirsi Ali's example of why the situation with Judaism and Christianity is different? Because neither the Old or New Testaments are used as the basis for the law. Instead constitutions which encourage freedom are preferred. What she forgets (in the case of Christianity at least) is that Christian theology (even that accepted by more conservative groups) recognises the need to encourage love rather than blindly following strict rules. Naturally the conservative Christians are prepared to forget that when it comes to verses like Leviticus 18:22, but they do remember it more generally. In fact, they tend to find it important to make up BS reasons why homosexuality is wrong, rather than simply insisting that the Biblical verse is enough. (Perhaps a better example is their insistence that their opposition to abortion is based on Christianity when there is no actual mention of abortion within their scripture.)
The reason Islam is different from this is because the rules are considered much more fixed. Muslims are confounded by the idea that Christianity is meant to be promoting a higher level of morality, when they see no evidence of this within 'Christian countries'. Islam, on the other hand, has strict rules with the view that followers will not be perfect. Those who wish for Islam to be the basis of the law thus do not allow their rules to be tainted by external constitutions. However, the kinds of Muslims who promote Islam as the central point of the law generally either live in Muslim countries or, having been raised in a western country, have become disillusioned by the western systems and have decided that making Islam the central point of law will herald a 'golden age'. The Muslims who very definitely don't think that external constitutions are a bad thing are the Muslims who decide to move to western countries. They want acceptance and integration within western systems and see no conflict between the western constitution and their own faith.
I also wonder whether Hirsi Ali would accept the existence of Islamic Feminism as she seems to think the acceptance of violence against women in Islamic countries constitutes Islam as it ought to be understood rather than simply Islam as it has manifested itself politically.
More comments from me on Islamic Feminism here.
What does Hirsi Ali means when she claims that Islamophobia does not exist? She means that peaceful progressive Muslims like this guy don't exist. They mean you can't have a Muslim who is pro-choice, pro-democracy, supports gay rights and doesn't instantly take a stance biased against Israel. Yet, if this is true, why does a Muslim like Keith Ellison hold all these views? The only response I can imagine Hirsi Ali coming up with is that he is not a 'true' Muslim. Because naturally Islam isn't a tradition which can allow for change. Hirsi Ali is not being inconsistent in her views here either. She considers Judaism and Christianity to be 'obsolete'. Anyone who doesn't have a right-wing literalist legalistic stance on their religious text has pretty much rejected it according to Hirsi Ali. There are no liberal Christians, no reform Jews, and certainly no pro-choice, pro-democracy Muslims.
I really can't understand why Daisy Cutter doesn't recognise this all already. In a recent post in the 'atheism' blog (which both Daisy Cutter and I subscribe to) there was a recent reference to a conflict between the day the new Harry Potter is released and the Sabbath laws (as follows):
Actually, Israel is pretty good at killing other people. They usually have a 9:1 or 10:1 kill ratio against their opponents. That might be their troops firing on unarmed civilians and children who throw stones at their convoys.
Here was my response:
Ok, I wasn't terribly happy with the other thread where people decided to call a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, progressive Muslim politician a 'religious nutball'. [The aforementioned Keith Ellison] Even so, I was prepared to give you guys some credit. So...
Before reading the comments here my gf made a bet with me that within the first three comments there would be someone making cheap shots about 'Israelis killing Palestinians' (i.e. religion being okay with murder but not with minor issues). I thought 'surely that's not the first thing people will start commenting on'.
Anyway, thanks to you guys I've lost the bet. (Within the first TWO comments for goodness sake!) Well done....
Perhaps people could have talked about work laws, business practices, about why there's such a ridiculous craze for Harry Potter, or perhaps even expressing relief that they aren't upset with the book because of 'witchcraft' like so many absurd Christians in the US. What have Palestinians got to do with this, really?
In reply to this Daisy Cutter has this to say:
No matter what it is about Israel you're discussing, someone eventually has to start snarking about the usual bullshit.
Yet somehow this same writer doesn't believe that Islamophobia exists. She is now (on the same day) praising a woman who claims that there can be no irrational prejudice against a group of people on the basis of their religion. How come? How does this even begin to make sense?
The reason Islam is different from this is because the rules are considered much more fixed. Muslims are confounded by the idea that Christianity is meant to be promoting a higher level of morality, when they see no evidence of this within 'Christian countries'. Islam, on the other hand, has strict rules with the view that followers will not be perfect. Those who wish for Islam to be the basis of the law thus do not allow their rules to be tainted by external constitutions. However, the kinds of Muslims who promote Islam as the central point of the law generally either live in Muslim countries or, having been raised in a western country, have become disillusioned by the western systems and have decided that making Islam the central point of law will herald a 'golden age'. The Muslims who very definitely don't think that external constitutions are a bad thing are the Muslims who decide to move to western countries. They want acceptance and integration within western systems and see no conflict between the western constitution and their own faith.
I also wonder whether Hirsi Ali would accept the existence of Islamic Feminism as she seems to think the acceptance of violence against women in Islamic countries constitutes Islam as it ought to be understood rather than simply Islam as it has manifested itself politically.
More comments from me on Islamic Feminism here.
What does Hirsi Ali means when she claims that Islamophobia does not exist? She means that peaceful progressive Muslims like this guy don't exist. They mean you can't have a Muslim who is pro-choice, pro-democracy, supports gay rights and doesn't instantly take a stance biased against Israel. Yet, if this is true, why does a Muslim like Keith Ellison hold all these views? The only response I can imagine Hirsi Ali coming up with is that he is not a 'true' Muslim. Because naturally Islam isn't a tradition which can allow for change. Hirsi Ali is not being inconsistent in her views here either. She considers Judaism and Christianity to be 'obsolete'. Anyone who doesn't have a right-wing literalist legalistic stance on their religious text has pretty much rejected it according to Hirsi Ali. There are no liberal Christians, no reform Jews, and certainly no pro-choice, pro-democracy Muslims.
I really can't understand why Daisy Cutter doesn't recognise this all already. In a recent post in the 'atheism' blog (which both Daisy Cutter and I subscribe to) there was a recent reference to a conflict between the day the new Harry Potter is released and the Sabbath laws (as follows):
In Israel, bookstores are being threatened with fines if they sell Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when it comes out, since that will be on the Sabbath.
Eli Yishai, a minister in Ehud Olmert's coalition government, and a member of the ultra-orthodox Shas party, is crying foul over Israel's participation in the Harry Potter phenomenon. The Industry, Trade and Labor Minister said this week that he will send inspectors to see which stores are taking part in the launch.I then had a bet with my girlfriend over this. She was convinced that someone would come out with some irrelevant BS about violence against Palestinians within the first three comments, and so I figured I'd take the bet. This was the second comment:
"It is forbidden, according to Jewish values and Jewish culture, that a thing like this should take place at 2 a.m. on Saturday. Let them do it another day," he told Israel Radio. He said he intends to impose fines on distributors of the book who violate the Hours of Work and Rest Law.
Actually, Israel is pretty good at killing other people. They usually have a 9:1 or 10:1 kill ratio against their opponents. That might be their troops firing on unarmed civilians and children who throw stones at their convoys.
Here was my response:
Ok, I wasn't terribly happy with the other thread where people decided to call a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, progressive Muslim politician a 'religious nutball'. [The aforementioned Keith Ellison] Even so, I was prepared to give you guys some credit. So...
Before reading the comments here my gf made a bet with me that within the first three comments there would be someone making cheap shots about 'Israelis killing Palestinians' (i.e. religion being okay with murder but not with minor issues). I thought 'surely that's not the first thing people will start commenting on'.
Anyway, thanks to you guys I've lost the bet. (Within the first TWO comments for goodness sake!) Well done....
Perhaps people could have talked about work laws, business practices, about why there's such a ridiculous craze for Harry Potter, or perhaps even expressing relief that they aren't upset with the book because of 'witchcraft' like so many absurd Christians in the US. What have Palestinians got to do with this, really?
In reply to this Daisy Cutter has this to say:
No matter what it is about Israel you're discussing, someone eventually has to start snarking about the usual bullshit.
Yet somehow this same writer doesn't believe that Islamophobia exists. She is now (on the same day) praising a woman who claims that there can be no irrational prejudice against a group of people on the basis of their religion. How come? How does this even begin to make sense?
