Okay, I have to say that I agree with her to an extent here. Normally I don't agree with what she says about Islam, but I do agree with here. The only problem I have with her, and I realize that this isn't her job, but in terms of responsible journalism, it sort of is, is that she needs to contextualize Islam according to its reactionism.
I do agree on all-counts on the Qur'an bit. That is dead-on.
So, normally, that woman makes me pissed off, on the order of deporting her to Siberia just so I don't have to listen to her shit anymore. But after speaking with this at length with people on my f-list? I am forced to agree with her. Which is rare and strange and sad.
I dunno who the lady is, but her article is funny, if a tad depressing.
Kinda like reading the Koran (albeight translated) is sad. As written, it's an amazingly forward-thinking document (considering the time period in which it was written) which still has a lot of good recommendations for life now.
Sadly, the way it's interpreted in modern times, I can only thing that if Muhammad were to look at what his people are doing he would be very, very upset. :/ Poor guy...
Meh. Anne Coulter. You know how there are people you fundamentally disagree with without hope of reconciliation? And how there are people you wish you could staple-gun their mouths shut or break all their fingers so they couldn't continue to spread their idiocy on the unsuspecting masses? You know how if you make a thin slice in a hot dog and put cheese inside and then microwave it the result is bubbly, cheesy, and delicious?
Anyway, she got some of the details wrong, too. It wasn't even the Danish cartoons that caused the biggest uproar. It was the 3 "extra" cartoons circulated by the muslim delegation to the middle east for the purpose of discussing the cartoons. We have Danish imam Abu Laban to thank for that one. The images he helped circulate were far more offensive. We're asking ourselves "Can't they handle Western satire?" when the provocation for the sudden recent violence was anything but satirical.
Although, that brings me back to my initial point: secularism. We cannot conceive of a society where religion is such an intense and integral part, since our own constitutional aim is to separate the sucker from government as far as possible. We have, as one recent Danish reporter said, a "clash of civilizations." She sees it as a question of how much society has to "change to to welcome immigrants from different cultures and religions and how much must newcomers have to change in order to become members of that society." Muslim refusal to assimilate or compromise with western culture is problematic in that Western society is fundamentally secular with long established (and defended) beliefs about the freedom of individual (inalienable, thank you Jefferson and Locke) rights, brought on by years of philosophy from Plato to Hume. They are core ideas that define our very existence. But the story reads both ways. It's impossible and frankly stupid to think the West can charge in, guns blazing, and change thousands of years of a way of being of another culture just because our way is, well, our way and look how far it's gotten us. (All the way to The Roman Empire: Take Two! Okay, I exaggerate. But it has gotten us Bush: Take Two! and that is bad enough.)
Anyway, Islam is a religion of peace. So's Christianity. But apparently the Bible is a "living" document too, because I don't remember the part where Jesus said to bomb abortion clinics in his name. Then there are those guys that come to campus and scream at passing students that they are going to hell, all the fornicating evil students, the sluts, the whoremongers, everyone is going to hell. 'Cause that's how Jesus spread the gospel. Is that... is that hypocrisy I smell? Hm, it smells sort of sweet. That's right--sweet, sweet hypocrisy.
Plenty of very prominent muslim officials have condemned the violence because they--guess what--say it defaces the meaning of Islam. The "true" meaning. Funny enough, you often can't judge the truth of a religion by the people who practice it. Huh.
Wow, I am descending further and further into SNARK so I will stop there.
Really, I'm only commenting since it seemed like a challenge, and I don't want you to be let down. If this is not suitable "hell," then I can only offer you a cookie.
I was thinking she was making good points until the last line when she just had to get in a jab at liberals. I mean, it's not like a conservative would ever try to censor anything or try to prevent others from criticizing anything, would they? Like most of these propagandists, the layers of hypocrisy are so embedded as to be inseparable from their being.
Though, I have more of a huge disdain against townhall.com which I mentioned before was a propaganda page. At least this way, I can focus my disdain into a finely tuned point. Far too many articles mention one point and then substitute facts about an issue with invented assertions, case in point: Star Parker, the conservative Michael Moore? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/sp20050208.shtml (I read this along with several articles from several others news sites and she made it clear she had no grasp of the issue).
In particular, there's a guy, Mike S. Adams, who's a favorite of my best friend at work. If I ever see Adams in person, I will shove up a lit cigar up his butt, chain him to the back of my car, and drive around like that for a week. His smugness (without actually ever saying anything of substance) pisses me off. He writes from the point of view that people already know and believe whatever propaganda-ish stuff he's thinking, and then spends the majority of the article stroking his own ego. Hack.
But as I'm not part of the extreme Christian-right and actually enjoy movies that aren't G-rated or about Jesus from "liberal Hollywood," I am obviously not the target audience. If only I could find a liberal page worthy of me to spend time reviewing, I'm sure I could find enough stuff to tear it down with too. Sadly, I have little patience for Michael Moore so Moveon.org is hardly an option.
Oddly enough, reading all the words blindly filled with venom at places like this just make me want to run the Republican party more (so long as I could get past not being a religious social conservative). Though I'm pretty sure my views would alienate too many voters no matter which party I might run under. I might get Libertarian voters though their party sounds like little more than barely-controlled anarchy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 12:55 am (UTC)Oh, wait, she is a bitch here too, I just agree with her. :P
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 12:58 am (UTC)OH NO YOU DINT!!!
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 01:02 am (UTC)What? She's fucking funny, if a trifle extreme. You should try Mike Adams, if you're not already familiar with his stuff. He's even worse.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 01:18 am (UTC)Okay, I have to say that I agree with her to an extent here. Normally I don't agree with what she says about Islam, but I do agree with here. The only problem I have with her, and I realize that this isn't her job, but in terms of responsible journalism, it sort of is, is that she needs to contextualize Islam according to its reactionism.
I do agree on all-counts on the Qur'an bit. That is dead-on.
*goes into Witness Protection*
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 01:04 am (UTC)But true.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 01:21 am (UTC)*scrubs brain* That actually hurt to type.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 01:57 am (UTC)Kinda like reading the Koran (albeight translated) is sad. As written, it's an amazingly forward-thinking document (considering the time period in which it was written) which still has a lot of good recommendations for life now.
Sadly, the way it's interpreted in modern times, I can only thing that if Muhammad were to look at what his people are doing he would be very, very upset. :/ Poor guy...
argh.
Date: 2006-02-10 03:33 am (UTC)I agree with the direction I think she's going in the article; namely, the muslim hypocrisy: they print anti-semitic, anti-christian cartoons en masse and daily. (With nary an embassy-bombing from us.) I think, however, that she puts it in terms far too glib and simplistic. She is also not taking into account secularism and great gravy, you will hear me harp on this. I've been forced to read and digest several big-word-books by french fellows on this subject; this does not necessarily make me any sort of expert, but it allows me to spot bullshit. Muslim society does not allow for individualism the way our society has been trained to ever since René Descartes said, "Hey! What's essentially human is what the individual ego defines! I think, therefore I am... the shit."
Anyway, she got some of the details wrong, too. It wasn't even the Danish cartoons that caused the biggest uproar. It was the 3 "extra" cartoons circulated by the muslim delegation to the middle east for the purpose of discussing the cartoons. We have Danish imam Abu Laban to thank for that one. The images he helped circulate were far more offensive. We're asking ourselves "Can't they handle Western satire?" when the provocation for the sudden recent violence was anything but satirical.
Although, that brings me back to my initial point: secularism. We cannot conceive of a society where religion is such an intense and integral part, since our own constitutional aim is to separate the sucker from government as far as possible. We have, as one recent Danish reporter said, a "clash of civilizations." She sees it as a question of how much society has to "change to to welcome immigrants from different cultures and religions and how much must newcomers have to change in order to become members of that society." Muslim refusal to assimilate or compromise with western culture is problematic in that Western society is fundamentally secular with long established (and defended) beliefs about the freedom of individual (inalienable, thank you Jefferson and Locke) rights, brought on by years of philosophy from Plato to Hume. They are core ideas that define our very existence. But the story reads both ways. It's impossible and frankly stupid to think the West can charge in, guns blazing, and change thousands of years of a way of being of another culture just because our way is, well, our way and look how far it's gotten us. (All the way to The Roman Empire: Take Two! Okay, I exaggerate. But it has gotten us Bush: Take Two! and that is bad enough.)
Anyway, Islam is a religion of peace. So's Christianity. But apparently the Bible is a "living" document too, because I don't remember the part where Jesus said to bomb abortion clinics in his name. Then there are those guys that come to campus and scream at passing students that they are going to hell, all the fornicating evil students, the sluts, the whoremongers, everyone is going to hell. 'Cause that's how Jesus spread the gospel. Is that... is that hypocrisy I smell? Hm, it smells sort of sweet. That's right--sweet, sweet hypocrisy.
Plenty of very prominent muslim officials have condemned the violence because they--guess what--say it defaces the meaning of Islam. The "true" meaning. Funny enough, you often can't judge the truth of a religion by the people who practice it. Huh.
Wow, I am descending further and further into SNARK so I will stop there.
...Anne Coulter sucks donkey balls.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 06:51 am (UTC)...
Hours later, I come back, and now I see why, though I still have no clue who she is.
Republicans Hate Gay People
Date: 2006-02-14 04:42 am (UTC)If this is not suitable "hell," then I can only offer you a cookie.
I was thinking she was making good points until the last line when she just had to get in a jab at liberals. I mean, it's not like a conservative would ever try to censor anything or try to prevent others from criticizing anything, would they? Like most of these propagandists, the layers of hypocrisy are so embedded as to be inseparable from their being.
Though, I have more of a huge disdain against townhall.com which I mentioned before was a propaganda page. At least this way, I can focus my disdain into a finely tuned point.
Far too many articles mention one point and then substitute facts about an issue with invented assertions, case in point: Star Parker, the conservative Michael Moore? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/sp20050208.shtml (I read this along with several articles from several others news sites and she made it clear she had no grasp of the issue).
In particular, there's a guy, Mike S. Adams, who's a favorite of my best friend at work. If I ever see Adams in person, I will shove up a lit cigar up his butt, chain him to the back of my car, and drive around like that for a week. His smugness (without actually ever saying anything of substance) pisses me off. He writes from the point of view that people already know and believe whatever propaganda-ish stuff he's thinking, and then spends the majority of the article stroking his own ego. Hack.
But as I'm not part of the extreme Christian-right and actually enjoy movies that aren't G-rated or about Jesus from "liberal Hollywood," I am obviously not the target audience.
If only I could find a liberal page worthy of me to spend time reviewing, I'm sure I could find enough stuff to tear it down with too. Sadly, I have little patience for Michael Moore so Moveon.org is hardly an option.
Oddly enough, reading all the words blindly filled with venom at places like this just make me want to run the Republican party more (so long as I could get past not being a religious social conservative). Though I'm pretty sure my views would alienate too many voters no matter which party I might run under. I might get Libertarian voters though their party sounds like little more than barely-controlled anarchy.