Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Great Non-Debate — 051116

Use of the Hitchhicker’s Guide to the Galaxy as a form of debate on terrorism.

The other day, the Pueblo Chieftain did one of its weekly He Said/She Said things. Albeit along the lines of Pro vs. Con. The resolution under discussion was:

Are Muslim leaders derelict in not denouncing terrorism?

The pro side of the discussion was pretty much what was to be expected; the observation that there are darned fewer reports of Muslims protesting against the terrorists than there are dead bodies caused by said Islamic terrorists.

The con side is what caught my attention....

First off, I have NO IDEA who Wayne Madsen is. But, based on his mailing address, as cited in the article, he seems like one of the ethereal [inside the proverbial beltway] denizens.

Let’s take a closer look at what he said.....

In an era of increasing religious fundamentalism of all stripes, it is hypocritical to single out one faith for failing to curb a minority of adherents who preach religious war and hatred of others.

This is always an interesting opening for such matters. Immediately defecting the resolution away from the primary point. Typically, ambiguous. As if there were plenty of blame to go around in the first place.

Islam certainly has no monopoly in the United States on preaching volatile messages intended to whip up followers to commit acts of violence.

I don’t recall where the resolution mentioned anything about a monopoly. But, this is just another step in the game Madsen is playing with us here; setting us up for his counter-proposal.

It is a careful First Amendment balance to control what is preached from pulpits in mosques, churches, synagogues, and other places of worship across the country and not potentially infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Funny think that, about “control what is preached”. I had NO IDEA that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was about controlling speech. I thought it was there to protect freedom of speech.

Maybe, being a beltway insider, Madsen knows something we don’t? But, I suspect it’s more of the diversion tactics that he is employing to get away from addressing the resolution. He’s trying to describe ALL religions, other than his own—whatever that might be—as equally tainted. But it’s a funny thing that we don’t see many reports of christians strapping on explosive undergarments and going out to kill the heathen, of late.

While preaching violence and calling for terrorism are akin to yelling ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded movie theater, an act that is illegal, there is a slippery slope involved in controlling speech, particularly that which is of a religious nature.

Here’s an interesting twist. Preaching murder and mayhem is the same as creating a hoax?

Most time’s I’m aware of, if one were to cry “Fire!”, in a theater, one is either trying to alert everyone that they should flee the premises for their lives, or they are creating a cruel hoax that will likely get some people injured and could cost someone their life.

And this is supposed to be analogous with telling people to go out and kill? Where did this guy study rhetoric? Let alone English? Or perhaps he is an attorney, of the Clinton School of Redefining English?

While there is strong evidence that Wahhabism, one of the more extreme branches of Islam, has funded - through the largesse of Saudi benefactors - extremist tracts and textbooks found in mosques and religious schools in the United States, an overwhelming majority of mosques do not preach violent Jihad against the West.

What was your first clue? 9/11? Osama bin Laden’s “declaration of war”? The Palestinian Intifada? The French one? Beslan High School? The recent revelations of what our friends the Saudis are doing through their embassy and numerous mosques?

So what if a ‘overwhelming majority’ [Note: Is that based on mass-weight or numbers-of-items?] is not preaching violence, still and all, I don’t recall seeing one such tract in any christian church I’ve ever been in in over 30 years. But heck....that’s just me. I’ll bet there are some people that go to a christian church just to get the latest scoop on how to murder people by blowing themselves up and going to heaven to get 72 virgins.

Moreover, a vast number of Muslim leaders of all Islamic denominations and sects - Sunni, Sh’ia, Sufi, Qadiyani, Yazidi, Druze, Zaydi, Alawi and Dawoodi Bohra - have condemned violence in the name of any religion, including Islam.

I would like to see the raw data that supports this claim.

I’ve been observing what has been going on for some time now and I see more evidence that Madsen is either sadly mistaken, or worse, lying. All one need do is watch MEMRI or track on Little Green Footballs reports of the sermons from the pulpits in the Middle East to see this.

An overwhelming majority of Muslims practice jitihad [jihad] - personal introspection about their faith and how to translate their faith into daily actions.

Wowzers! Here is a freudian slip of the first order; “An overwhelming majority of Muslims practice jitihad [jihad]....”

I’ve heard many describe ‘jihad’ as an ‘inner’ and/or ‘personal’ struggle. But they frequently fail to mention the warfare aspect of it as well.

Jihad, or holy war, is a last resort in Islam. For the radicals, however, it is the only choice. In an era of tabloid television, a small minority of radical Islamists receives all the attention; however, the majority of Muslims are unfairly tainted by the Jihadist extremism of a minority.

At least Madsen doesn’t overlook the warfare aspect of jihad.

Here, he is addressing two issues in this one paragraph. First off, he addresses jihad as “holy war”. Which is one of the many definitions of jihad. So, as I pointed out, immediately above, sometimes jihad is inner personal struggle. However, it is also, putting on your explosive undergarments and blowing yourself and as many infidels as you get close to to the next life....wherever that may be.

In the second part, Madsen whines that it is unfair to paint the majority of Muslims with the jihadi brush.

But wait! Isn’t that what this resolution is all about? That the majority of Muslims, and most especially their ‘leaders’ are not doing enough to STOP THIS MADNESS? And, considering what information is available at some of the web-sites I mentioned above, it looks more like the majority of the more vocal and powerful Muslim religious leaders, e.g., those in the mosques of the Middle East, are actually stoking the fires of hatred.

[Note: I think this is one of the most important aspects of the web. You get information that the So-Called Major Media (SCMM) doesn’t seem capable, or willing, to provide. Factual information at that. As one old colonel told this then young captain, “There are two ways to exercise power. The first, and most powerful, is to make decisions for people that they would be better off making for themselves. The second is to withhold information from people that they would better off with when making decisions for themselves.

Guess which is in play here? Three guesses. First two don’t count.]

I find it interesting that Madsen has been trying to shift the discussion from the original resolution onto his own counter-plan. And using this sort of series of steps. More on that later.....

Nevertheless, the notion of cracking down on hotheads who preach violence could easily be extended to other faiths, as well as Islam.

Now we get to the other shoe. The one that Madsen alerted us to early on in this discussion.

Christian televangelist Pat Robertson has called for the democratically elected president of Venezuela, a fellow Christian, to be assassinated. Jerry Falwell blamed the 911 terrorist attacks on gays and pro-choice supporters. Falwell also called the Prophet Mohammed a ‘‘terrorist.’’ Billy Graham’s heir, Franklin, called Islam an ‘‘evil and wicked religion.’’ Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, not one to talk, referred to Mohammed as a ‘‘sex deviant.’’

By the numbers....

Pat Roberston vs. Presidenté Chavez, of Venezuela.

This is one of my favorites. Why? Well for a number of reasons that I’ve already addressed. You can review the observations here, here and here. It’s become something of an interesting canard that Madsen is falling back on with this. And, unfortunately for Madsen, this canard shoots back.

Falwell vs. the homosexuals and [the REAL] baby-killers. Madsen obviously is not a student of history, especially of the biblical form. And, in light of this, I have concerns about Madsen’s own religious belief system. Considering the lack of ‘grasp’ for the religious beliefs of some christians, Jews and Muslims, as he has manifested here, I wonder if has even a clue about those religious beliefs. In their concept of the Universe

As for Mr. Swaggart vs. Mohammed, I wonder if Madsen is aware that Mohammed was married to a girl 9-years old. Her name was A’isha. Here is a web-site from the Muslims that, in its own convoluted way, addresses the matter. From my perception, it looks like a convoluted form of apologist activity, trying to explain why the Bible supported slavery.

Now, some will say that sexual morals at that time and place were different. I agree. THEY WERE DIFFERENT. And, not in a good way. Certainly not from our modern understanding.

Just by way of example. We ‘outgrew’ slavery. It was a painful growing process. On the other hand, whereas most of the Arab countries officially outlawed slavery, one gets the distinct impression that it is still going on there. The reports come up, every now and then, about what is going on in Darfur. And I do recall one report of an Arabian household in Florida that had what amounted to slaves in their live-in ‘help’.

In sum, what Madsen is pushing here is that we should use the First Amendment of the Constitution to control what is said in the pulpits of these christians. But I see no mention of what is said in the functional counterparts in Islam.

Similarly, some Jewish commentators and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have called on the United States to bomb Islam’s holiest city, Mecca. Jewish Defense League Chairman Irv Rubin was charged with trying to bomb a Southern California mosque and the congressional office of an Arab-American Republican congressman.

Now we get into an interesting half-truth.

Congressman Tancredo did not call for the outright bombing of any place on earth. But that is the impression that Madsen would leave you with. Rather, the congressman proposed that if the radical Muslims used a nuclear device in the United States we should hold Mecca to the same fate.

During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, we used the same sort of policy; “You nuke US, we’ll nuke you right back.”

It worked with them.

So Madsen doesn’t believe in what works? I’d like to see what he proposes as an alternative. I hope I won’t laugh out loud when I see it. If he has nothing to offer, I suspect I’ll probably chuckle. I’ve seen that sort of behavior before. Whine and moan, but offer nothing constructive. It’s all too typical.

I won’t address the issues of sibling rivalries between the Jews and the Arabs.

With so much religious vitriol running as narrow streams within the three Abrahamic traditional religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), it is hypocritical to lay blame for preaching terrorism merely on Islam.

Considering that I suspect Madsen has no religion, other than himself, I find it hard to understand what ground he stands on when it comes to holding up other religions to rebuke.

He has made no claim to any religious belief. Only to blast any religious belief that holds to only one God and that god not being Man himself. And, face it, if you don’t worship some ‘higher being’ who, or what, do you worship? Other than yourself and your own ideals?

And if one worships themselves and their own ideals of how this creation should function, isn’t that placing oneself above everyone else?

From a christian perspective, this is anathema. I suspect it is the same for the Jews and the Muslims as well.

However, I do have one observation on this comment of his that I think is on target; that being his thought that “it is hypocritical to lay blame for preaching terrorism merely on Islam.”

The point here being that I do not recall hearing many reports of christians or jews blowing themselves and as many others as they can up. Not to forget beheading school girls. Nor calling for the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Middle East.

If there is to be a debate and interfaith dialogue on religion and terrorism, it must address the terrorism called for against women’s health clinics by people like Christian fundamentalist Randall Terry.

There was a debate. Or that was what the Pueblo Chieftain intended. Unfortunately, Madsen did not participate in it. Instead, he attempted to deflect the resolution to another topic; as if he were running his own private Hitchhikers Guide to the Jihad. In high school speech tournaments, this approach can be humorous. In the midst of a war, it is both disingenuous and dangerous.

It should cast light on the taking over of Christian congregations by the extremely dangerous dominionist and reconstructionist movements that have been likened to the Taliban. And it should be directed against the Jewish Defense League and its incendiary speech and activities concerning Arab-Americans and Palestinians.

Unfortunately for Madsen, it didn’t. Rather, it cast light on the nature of obfuscation that can be practiced inside the beltway. I do NOT see reports of Jews blowing up men, women and children in Gaza these days. Nor of Americans blowing up Jordanian civilians in hotels. I see reports of jihadis doing such things.

And finally, it should speak to the Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood and associated Jihadist infiltration of Islamic mosques and schools in America and elsewhere.

Sheesh! It’s about time.....

But, unfortunately again, Madsen doesn’t instruct the jihadis. Not to mention rebuking them. Instead, Madsen falls into the same mold that this resolution is all about....how the Muslim leadership are not denouncing the terrorism that their brethren are practicing.

One can only wonder ‘why’?

A holy man from the East once addressed extremism and hatred. He said, ‘‘Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world; through nonviolence it comes to an end.’’

Those were the words of the Buddha. They are words that the religious leaders of the Abrahamic tradition religions should heed and embrace.

Again. It is another unfortunate fact, and indicator of Madsen’s ignorance, that Muslims really don’t care very much about the Buddha. Let alone LISTEN TO and ABIDE BY what the Buddha said. Indeed, if one of the terrorists were to meet the Buddha on the road he WOULD kill him.

Based on the Madsen article, which provides no substantive evidence supporting the con side of the resolution, I’d award this debate to the pro side.

Additionally....

...to the Pueblo Chieftain....

....is THIS the best you could come up with for the Con-side of the resolution? This does not bode well for the argument that the Muslim leaders are doing enough to stop terrorism from inside their group.

Less...