Angry Mob of the Day

News of Old Navy's pant-size inflation finally reaches Afghanistan.

From the NYT.

(Mirrored from 100MC.)

Détente

Kelsey responds to my response:

I, too, am an atheist, and I struggle with the illogical, irrational and illiberal tendencies of all religions and Islam is no exception. I think for me (and probably for a lot of lefties) I often get unduly defensive because I have seen so many attack Islam on the basis of it's inherent violence in an attempt to paint Muslims as somehow subhuman.

Again, eloquent and well put. If only we were all as thoughtful as Ms. Pince. I'm glad Kelsey reminded me that some who seemingly share my criticism of Islam are the real subhumans. No doubt.

On Denouncing Islam

Kelsey Pince, a friend and fellow blogger, responds to my previous post, eloquently (and patiently), via her iPhone:

The president and others speaking out understand that we're fighting the perception of being at war with Islam. The Quran burning would be seen as proof in many minds that we are, thus putting moderate Muslims in the unfortuate position of trying to defend a country that seems to hate all Muslims. Finally, having legitimate concerns about an occupied peoples reponse to this kind of provocation doesn't negate the idea that Islam is by nature peaceful.

Kelsey brings up a salient point: we are at war in two largely-Muslim countries. In this case, she's right, we have a complicated and fraught relationship with Islam. One that I didn't acknowledge in my short post.

Kelsey raises another, even more salient point: the physical text of the Koran is viewed, by Islam, as the literal Word of God:

Because it is the word of god, the only part of god believed to be sent to man, it's a closer comparison to Jesus himself than the bible. Burning the quran is roughly equal to someone burning Jesus.

According to the Christian holy book, "someone" crucified Jesus, that poor bastard. Some (many?) think that someone is the Jewish people. We rightly condemn these troglodytes for holding a grudge under the auspices of a ridiculous notion. In fact, we, the Urbane and Erudite, lampoon the nutty beliefs of Christians and Jews all the time. Think: anti-evolution (and science), anti-homosexuality, anti-sex, anti-abortion (and woman), transubstantiation, etc, etc, etc. Actually, these are mostly nutty Christian beliefs. All, except for transubstantiation, are shared by Islam.

And that's my point. There's a sensitivity and an over-accommodation by the left (and many on the right) toward the anti-liberal* religion of Islam that (again, rightly) is not offered to the anti-liberal religion of Christianity. Crazy is crazy. The only difference, if I call Islam crazy, I'm worse than those aforementioned troglodytes. I'm a monster.

I know that would-be Koran burner in Florida isn't worked up into a lather over the illiberality of Islam. He's a Christian pastor, for Christ's sake. But if I, an atheist, proposed to burn Korans for the cause of reason, would I receive thunderous applause? Disregarding the crudeness of the act -- I respect books too much to burn them -- is there not a unique acceptance of the wacky principles of this particular religion, even among the secular, that would result in a wave of disgust against me?

As for Kelsey's first point, we are not "at war with Islam," but we ought to be at war, intellectually, against the anti-liberal aspects of Islam (and those of Christianity, and every other anti-liberal philosophy). Any other response is cowardice, pure and simple. Political correctness demands that we treat all beliefs equally in public discourse. If so, why argue over our values in the first place?

*By anti-liberal, I mean in opposition to reason and individual rights.

Islam and Peace

Am I the only one confused by the current narrative coming mostly (though not exclusively) from the left on Islam? Islam is a religion of peace, in fact "[it] is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace." As long as you don't make a Muslim angry: "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." Both quotes were from President Obama.

A thought experiment: I announce that I'm planning on burning a pile of Tipitakas, to show how intolerant I am of Buddhism. Let's imagine the reaction. How likely would this be seen as the opening act of holy war? How would the worldwide Buddhist community react? Would my stunt garner reactions from General Petraeus and President Obama? Would it even be national news?

What does it mean to be a religion of peace?

Political Correctness, Google Style

I've just tried replicating the Google queries shown below, and they're accurate. Wow.

Click on the image to enlarge.

(HT kontraband)

Civilization Versus Barbarism

Kurt Westergaard, the 74-year-old Danish artist whose cartoon of Muhammad set off a cultural firestorm in 2005, was attacked by a Islamic terrorist on Friday. Thankfully, he survived the attack, which wasn't the first attempt at his life.

Here's the full story from the NYT.

For the sake of championing civilization, I publish the cartoon below.

Oh My God

Buried on page 43 of the A section of today's NYT is this eye-popping story:

In North Carolina, Lawsuit Is Threatened Over Councilman’s Lack of Belief in God

City Councilman Cecil Bothwell of Ashville believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government, but he does not believe in God. His political opponents say that is a sin that makes him unworthy of office, and they have the North Carolina Constitution on their side.

Detractors of Mr. Bothwell, who was elected in November, are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in last week, even though the state’s antiquated requirement that officeholders believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the United States Constitution.

“The question of whether or not God exists is not particularly interesting to me,” said Mr. Bothwell, 59, “and it’s certainly not relevant to public office.”

As the story notes, the law is unenforceable, due to the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. But the lawsuit could lead to a protracted legal battle and all the fees involved. This would be a de facto penalty against Bothwell, simply because of an arcane, backward, and thoroughly un-American requirement.

Mr. Bothwell cannot be forced out of office over his atheist views because the North Carolina provision is unenforceable, according to the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Six other states have similar provisions barring atheist officeholders.

In 1961, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that federal law prohibits states from requiring any kind of religious test for officeholders when it ruled in favor of a Maryland atheist seeking to be a notary public.

But the federal protections do not necessarily spare atheist public officials from spending years defending themselves in court. An avowed atheist, Herb Silverman, won an eight-year court battle in 1997 when South Carolina’s highest court granted him the right to be appointed a notary despite the state’s law.

Mr. Bothwell said a legal challenge to his appointment would be “fun,” but he believes that his opponents’ efforts have more to do with politics than religion.

“It’s local political opponents seeking to change the outcome of an election they lost,” he said.

It makes no difference if this suit is politically motivated or not. It's shameful, no disgusting, that a public figure is being legally threatened for being an atheist. It's worse that the North Carolina Constitution is on the side of thugs making the threats.

Pernicious Behavior

Moral suasion is a powerful social tool to alter behavior, and a justified one in certain circumstances. Citizens of Abilene, Kansas took up the cause against what many thought was a pernicious new intruder to their town. What evil entity were these people combating? An "adult superstore." From Time:

But Abilene — terminus of the great longhorn cattle drives, boyhood home of Dwight D. Eisenhower — fought back. Some folks anyway. Citizens launched Operation Daniel, named for the biblical prophet who was thrown into a lion's den but somehow tamed the beasts. As lonely truckers pulled into the parking lot, protesters met them waving signs that threatened, "Think Again or We Report." They vowed to send the tag numbers of porn-purchasing drivers to corporate employers. Wal-Mart soon put out the word to its drivers to steer clear.

They used intimidation to prevent private individuals from purchasing legal products like sex toys, adult videos, and "sheer little costumes." If you want to see pure, naked hatred for humanity, look to people who think "there is a link between pornography and fantasy-driven criminal behavior."

The article focuses on a legal battle over commercial speech, which the store ended up winning (for now). But what jumped out at me was the mentality that thinks porn (read: sexuality) leads to "the rape of a child." Perhaps I have been naive, but how is it possible that people really believe this? Frightening.

Unbelievable

Good advice, from Benedict in Africa:

But the Vatican's refusal to let Catholics use condoms remains controversial on a continent where AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since the early 1980s.

While medical workers advocate the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of AIDS, the Church insists on fidelity within heterosexual marriage, chastity and abstinence.

"The problem cannot be overcome by distributing condoms. It only increases the problem," the pontiff said on Tuesday.

Future Good News

The X axis is age, beginning with age 18 on the far left. Yellow is the percentage of respondents who replied "none" for religion. (Click on image to enlarge.)

[HT Sullivan]

Good News

From the Washington Post:

The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped dramatically over the past two decades, and those who do are increasingly identifying themselves without traditional denomination labels, according to a major study of U.S. religion being released today.
....

The only group that grew in every U.S. state since the 2001 survey was people saying they had "no" religion; the survey says this group is now 15 percent of the population. Silk said this group is likely responsible for the shrinking percentage of Christians in the United States.

Northern New England has surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country; 34 percent of Vermont residents say they have "no religion." The report said that the country has a "growing non-religious or irreligious minority." Twenty-seven percent of those interviewed said they did not expect to have a religious funeral or service when they died, and 30 percent of people who had married said their service was not religious. Those questions weren't asked in previous surveys.