Yes! You nailed this in the heart! You know you did. I know you did. There are vast bleating flocks of people here in America for whom the switch from Christianity to Allah would only mean a change in wardrobe. Screw it; i'm linking this. BEAUTIFUL!
I've been saying for ages that there is very little difference between the MidWest and the Middle East, but having grown up in a flat state, it took leaving home and moving to the other side of the pond to gain sufficient perspective to see that.
Ah, leave Coxy alone. He just feels he needs to live up to byline photo. Unfortunately, the day that photo was taken he'd just had an embarrassing mishap with a cactus.
I don't mention Islam once in that article, Rimshot. I talk about Islamism, the political manifestation of Islam, which I think corresponds quite neatly to the unholy alliance between hardline Republicans and conservative evangelical Christians that stitched up two election victories for President Monkeyboy.
And, just as the shared interests of Karl Rove and Ralph Reed share many characteristics with fascism, I think Islam as it's often voiced in the political arena (eg implementation of sharia) does the same.
These movements should, of course, be distinguished from Christianity and Islam per se, which are so broad (I was going to put 'broad churches' there - oops) that they defy any glib characterisation.
Tim: You're absolutely right. The word Islam does not appear in the article.
Islamist and Muslim do (last I checked, Muslim was not a political party), as well as comments pointing to the religious tenets of Islam as opposed to any political agendas put forth by any Muslim extremist groups.
It's a fine line you've tread. I suppose it's not for me to say whether you've succeeded or not in staying behind the religious bigotry mark or not. But I'm sure the hate-mongers and extremists on both sides might be comforted by your words.
Interesting that you seem concerned about my sideswipes at Islam when the main target of my piece is clearly fundamentalist Christianity, Rimshot. Am I not permitted to criticise or mock the religious tenets of Islam? Or, indeed, Christianity? Do point me to the relevant paragraph in the rulebook.
You're well within your rights (as I am well within mine, as I'm certain you'll agree).
I take no exception to your views or opinions what-so-ever. I do question the timeliness of your jabs. Was 9/11 so long ago? Should we not be looking to be tolerant and accepting (as I'm so often told) rather than poking the proverbial hornet's nest with a stick?
I do find it a bit off-putting that in a matter of hours you've defended your viewpoint by claiming "I talk about Islamism," but follow that up by admitting "my sideswipes at Islam". It just seems a bit inconsistent to me. But that's just my opinion. One I'm certain you'll agree that I'm entitled to.
I'm terribly sorry if my comment(s) have caused you any distress or perturbed you in any way. I'm not actively trying to cause a ruckus. I just don't have the same cavalier attitude about religous beliefs and I'm a bit defensive when a Brit in Bangkok (or wherever) takes pot shots at my adopted homeland with such gross generalizations that have been perpetuated by the liberal media.
Your posts are, I've found, a most enjoyable and entertaining read, regardless of my personal views and/or beliefs and I look forward to continuing to enjoy them for a long time to come. It would be a bland world, indeed, if we only dealt with, read, hung out and surrounded ourselves only with that/those that were like us in our views and beliefs. Don't you agree?
There's another fine line, Rimshot: between tolerance (allowing people to talk bollocks) and cowardice (not alerting them to the fact that they're talking bollocks). The Enlightenment, the philosophical movement upon which your great nation was founded, and didn't do mine any harm, had the former as a central tenet, but we all seem to be sliding towards the latter.
And this isn't just about Islam(ism). People and groups are claiming the right not to be offended, which is a form of cowardice on their part - the cowardice that denies others the right to challenge your views, so you can avoid contemplating them yourself.
Nests must be poked. Civilisation grows stale if they aren't.
(And of course you can come here and disagree, and no I'm not offended, and yes, that's what blogging's all about and all is well in this, the best of all worlds.)
14 comments:
Tim:
To this 2000-year old Japanese blogger, "toe-curling" evokes fond memories of those wonderfully explicit ukiyoe prints from the Edo masters.
You should feel honored.
And no, for the most part, though not always, they were not funny either.
Namaste, and mbsin.
Yes! You nailed this in the heart! You know you did. I know you did. There are vast bleating flocks of people here in America for whom the switch from Christianity to Allah would only mean a change in wardrobe.
Screw it; i'm linking this.
BEAUTIFUL!
Thank you both.
Naughty pictures and ad hoc heart surgery.
Well I never.
I've been saying for ages that there is very little difference between the MidWest and the Middle East, but having grown up in a flat state, it took leaving home and moving to the other side of the pond to gain sufficient perspective to see that.
It was all too true. No wonder people didn't like it - it hit too close to home.
I just threw up in my mouth.
Tim, the grammar and punctuation were good.
Hi Tim - just wondering...is david cox always such a douche? I'm not a regular guardian reader...I just lurk and laugh...
Ah, leave Coxy alone. He just feels he needs to live up to byline photo. Unfortunately, the day that photo was taken he'd just had an embarrassing mishap with a cactus.
Tim, just curious...how do you justify NOT differentiating between Islam and Islamofascism?
I don't mention Islam once in that article, Rimshot. I talk about Islamism, the political manifestation of Islam, which I think corresponds quite neatly to the unholy alliance between hardline Republicans and conservative evangelical Christians that stitched up two election victories for President Monkeyboy.
And, just as the shared interests of Karl Rove and Ralph Reed share many characteristics with fascism, I think Islam as it's often voiced in the political arena (eg implementation of sharia) does the same.
These movements should, of course, be distinguished from Christianity and Islam per se, which are so broad (I was going to put 'broad churches' there - oops) that they defy any glib characterisation.
Tim: You're absolutely right. The word Islam does not appear in the article.
Islamist and Muslim do (last I checked, Muslim was not a political party), as well as comments pointing to the religious tenets of Islam as opposed to any political agendas put forth by any Muslim extremist groups.
It's a fine line you've tread. I suppose it's not for me to say whether you've succeeded or not in staying behind the religious bigotry mark or not. But I'm sure the hate-mongers and extremists on both sides might be comforted by your words.
Interesting that you seem concerned about my sideswipes at Islam when the main target of my piece is clearly fundamentalist Christianity, Rimshot. Am I not permitted to criticise or mock the religious tenets of Islam? Or, indeed, Christianity? Do point me to the relevant paragraph in the rulebook.
No rule book, Tim.
You're well within your rights (as I am well within mine, as I'm certain you'll agree).
I take no exception to your views or opinions what-so-ever. I do question the timeliness of your jabs. Was 9/11 so long ago? Should we not be looking to be tolerant and accepting (as I'm so often told) rather than poking the proverbial hornet's nest with a stick?
I do find it a bit off-putting that in a matter of hours you've defended your viewpoint by claiming "I talk about Islamism," but follow that up by admitting "my sideswipes at Islam". It just seems a bit inconsistent to me. But that's just my opinion. One I'm certain you'll agree that I'm entitled to.
I'm terribly sorry if my comment(s) have caused you any distress or perturbed you in any way. I'm not actively trying to cause a ruckus. I just don't have the same cavalier attitude about religous beliefs and I'm a bit defensive when a Brit in Bangkok (or wherever) takes pot shots at my adopted homeland with such gross generalizations that have been perpetuated by the liberal media.
Your posts are, I've found, a most enjoyable and entertaining read, regardless of my personal views and/or beliefs and I look forward to continuing to enjoy them for a long time to come. It would be a bland world, indeed, if we only dealt with, read, hung out and surrounded ourselves only with that/those that were like us in our views and beliefs. Don't you agree?
There's another fine line, Rimshot: between tolerance (allowing people to talk bollocks) and cowardice (not alerting them to the fact that they're talking bollocks). The Enlightenment, the philosophical movement upon which your great nation was founded, and didn't do mine any harm, had the former as a central tenet, but we all seem to be sliding towards the latter.
And this isn't just about Islam(ism). People and groups are claiming the right not to be offended, which is a form of cowardice on their part - the cowardice that denies others the right to challenge your views, so you can avoid contemplating them yourself.
Nests must be poked. Civilisation grows stale if they aren't.
(And of course you can come here and disagree, and no I'm not offended, and yes, that's what blogging's all about and all is well in this, the best of all worlds.)
Post a Comment