Poll: is Steersman right?

[Kirbmarc]

Vote vote vote. Motivate your vote. Insult me or Steersman. It's all good.

[Steersman]

Vote vote vote. Motivate your vote. Insult me or Steersman. It's all good.

:-) Indeed. Even if I think your first two alternatives are a bit of false dichotomy, although they seem a reasonable first approximation.

But - somewhat apropos of which, and for a bit of an overview of the whole issue - other people voting or even just interested, and you for that matter, might want to take a gander at a relatively recent post over at The Federalist by Cathy Young: Neither Side’s Overreactions To Islam Are Helping Us. A salient quote or two:

.... The anti-Islam camp, mainly on the Right, insists Islam is uniquely, intrinsically violent and that distinctions between radical Islamism and Islam only obscure the problem. The anti-Islamophobia camp, mainly on the Left, insists that terrorism is a distortion of Islam, any religion can be perverted into violent extremism, and that blanket hostility to Islam will both victimize and radicalize ordinary Muslims.

Who’s right? Actually, “Islam is the problem” and “Islam is not the problem” are equally true and equally false statements—and equally unhelpful for addressing the issues. As long as the debate remains polarized between these two crude extremes, it can only impede the search for real solutions. ....

The good news is that the Islamic tradition is anything but monolithic, even in the treatment of issues like blasphemy and homosexuality. Historically, Islam incorporates a vast variety of sects, schools of theology, and cultures. Today, too, a great deal of diversity remains: ....

The bad news is that the past century has been marked by the ascendancy of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of political Islamism—fueled in recent decades by the oil-rich Saudi regime’s investment in international promotion of ultra-orthodox Wahhabi Islam around the world. ....

The anti-Islam polemicists see Islam as fundamentally unreformable, with violent fanaticism and supremacism encoded in its scriptures and embedded in its history. Some mainstream conservatives agree. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre last year, Vanderbilt University political science professor Carol Swain published a column arguing that Islam itself—not just “radical Islam”—is not a part of the brotherhood of respectable religions but “a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs” about liberty.

Is this simply grim realism? Serious scholars such as Princeton University’s Michael Cook have argued that Islam does have inherent traits, doctrinal and historical, that make it more predisposed to militarized fundamentalism than Christianity or Hinduism. Islamist radicalism cannot be disconnected from Islam itself.

But this does not mean Islam is impervious to reformation and enlightenment. Numerous Muslim scholars and thinkers, in the past and today, have advocated revising Islamic orthodoxy on everything from women’s rights to religious freedom, used Koranic text to argue against blasphemy laws, and challenged the traditional doctrine of the “abrogation” of the Koran’s earlier, more peaceful and tolerant verses by later militant ones. ....

I think I'll go with the anti-Islam polemicists, although I'll readily concede that some clearly go off the deep end and into peddling egregious and bogus propaganda - just shooting themselves in the feet, as Young more or less argued.

However, while I think that Young is one of a very small group of journalists who are capable of giving a balanced view on an issue, of looking at it from many sides, I think she also has a tendency to insist on staying on the fence: sometimes one side of the fence or the other has the high ground, and it's wise to consider that sometimes an insistence on "high-minded principles" is little different from being soft-headed, and that sometimes one simply has to make a choice from a very limited set of alternatives.

And in her case, while she has, maybe commendably, thrown a bone in the direction of "reformation and enlightenment", I also think that she, among many others, is reluctant to consider that "revising Islamic orthodoxy" is simply impossible as long as most Muslims, even reformers like Nawaz and Hamid, insist that the Quran was literally written by "Gawd Himself". That's the "logical dilemma at the core of Islam itself", the sine qua non of Islam, and, I think, the central justification for the argument that the only solution is deportation and banning. Q.E.D. ;-)

[Kirbmarc]

An excellent article, Steers. It's scary how much I agree with Cathy Young on a variety of issues. I find it extremely hard to disagree with her about anything she's written in this article.

Especially this:

The bad news is that the past century has been marked by the ascendancy of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of political Islamism—fueled in recent decades by the oil-rich Saudi regime’s investment in international promotion of ultra-orthodox Wahhabi Islam around the world.

This should be common knowledge to anyone these days. The Saudi regime is the ultimate source of the vast majority of Muslim supremacist ideas in the West. They're not our allies, they were never our allies and as long as they stay a Wahabi/Salafi theocracy they will never be our allies. Let's ditch them as fast as we can: they're a cancer.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Steersman will never understand that he is doing more harm than good. By making sweeping, generalized bumper-sticker slogans, he simply adds weight to the claims that everybody opposing islamization in the West is a radical willing to destroy all the freedoms any thinking person cherishes. His Twitter campaign has likely caused more than a few folk to side more up to Islam as it appears that he is a right-wing goon intent on turning a democracy into a fascist state.

But Steers knowledge of psychology and human nature is so scant, he'd rather pound his chest and posture, all the while paradoxically trotting out "four legs good, two legs bad" and "baby with the bathwater". He extols nuance while showing all the subtle charm of a cat in heat.

[Steersman]

Steersman will never understand that he is doing more harm than good.

In your opinion. Which isn't worth a tinker's "damn". You would have fit right in with Quisling, and Neville Chamberlain and his "peace in our time". Somewhat apropos of which:

You maybe think that Churchill and Sir William Stephenson (A Man Called Intrepid) and many others were "doing more harm than good" in raising the alarms about Nazi Germany and Hitler?

By making sweeping, generalized bumper-sticker slogans, he simply adds weight to the claims that everybody opposing islamization in the West is a radical willing to destroy all the freedoms any thinking person cherishes. His Twitter campaign has likely caused more than a few folk to side more up to Islam as it appears that he is a right-wing goon intent on turning a democracy into a fascist state.

Horse shit. For one thing that inference is simply that, and, absent any evidence - as is the case, qualifies as a sweeping generalization. And, for another, you maybe don't think that a democracy is entitled to ban an ideology that is "flatly incompatible with a democratic state"? Seems that many rather credible individuals think that that is the case with Islam - from Warraq to Flew to Popper to a few Pitters including gurugeorge.

And you might also note that Kirbmarc has been suggesting some sensible if maybe somewhat impractical carrot-and-stick policies that seem hardly little short of an outright ban on Islam. For instance (Post #50798):

There's a difference between "some incentives and a gentle coercion" and simply banning a religion and expelling everyone who practice it. As I have written many times some tighter rules on immigration (including a stop of immigration of people from certain countries), a list of imams and the expulsion of those who preach violent or subversive ideas (which basically include all Salafi preachers), no special privileges for muslims (no publicly funded prayers, no segregation by gender, absolutely NO religiously inspired arbitration tribunals, etc.) and no restriction on criticism and mockery of islam (neither through blasphemy laws nor through laws against "offense") are a start.

A more secular education, the promoting of secular muslim women's groups- muslim LGBT groups - ex Muslim groups, closing/defunding religious schools if their curricula are found to be preaching violent or subversive ideas, stricter rules for integration and naturalization are other features of the plan. Helping modernization and secularization should be the key focus of all political parties, from left to right, and of many governmental efforts.

Of course it's not just carrots, and you need some sticks, the first of which is immediate expulsion/incarceration for crimes (starting from street harassment and up) that are inspired by religion. The nutcase who stabbed a man in Australia had been signaled by many as a problem, since he yelled and harassed people in the street with a Koran. He should have been expelled/jailed at the first sign of trouble.

But I'll concede that that is at least a reasonable step in the right direction. Been thinking that "we" should create some sort of organization to lobby various goverments around the world, but mostly in the West, to implement some or all of those policies - with outright banning and deportation being the "nuclear option" should those others fail to do the trick. We could maybe start a GoFundMe to pay for setting up various satellites - headquarters, say, in Zurich with opening chapters in Vancouver, Toronto, and California. All we need is a catchy organization name - maybe International CRUSADERs Inc. (ICI): Christian Right (and friends) United (against) Salafists-Sunnis-Shias (and) Associated Demented Extremists and Radicals?

But Steers knowledge of psychology and human nature is so scant, he'd rather pound his chest and posture, all the while paradoxically trotting out "four legs good, two legs bad" and "baby with the bathwater". He extols nuance while showing all the subtle charm of a cat in heat.

You may wish to reflect, if you're capable of that, on the old joke about getting a mule's attention ...

[Kirbmarc]

But I'll concede that that is at least a reasonable step in the right direction. Been thinking that "we" should create some sort of organization to lobby various goverments around the world, but mostly in the West, to implement some or all of those policies - with outright banning and deportation being the "nuclear option" should those others fail to do the trick. We could maybe start a GoFundMe to pay for setting up various satellites - headquarters, say, in Zurich with opening chapters in Vancouver, Toronto, and California. All we need is a catchy organization name - maybe International CRUSADERs Inc. (ICI): Christian Right (and friends) United (against) Salafists-Sunnis-Shias (and) Associated Demented Extremists and Radicals?

...

OK, trolling's over. CRUSADERs? Seriously?

[Steersman]

But I'll concede that that is at least a reasonable step in the right direction. Been thinking that "we" should create some sort of organization to lobby various goverments around the world, but mostly in the West, to implement some or all of those policies - with outright banning and deportation being the "nuclear option" should those others fail to do the trick. We could maybe start a GoFundMe to pay for setting up various satellites - headquarters, say, in Zurich with opening chapters in Vancouver, Toronto, and California. All we need is a catchy organization name - maybe International CRUSADERs Inc. (ICI): Christian Right (and friends) United (against) Salafists-Sunnis-Shias (and) Associated Demented Extremists and Radicals?

...

OK, trolling's over. CRUSADERs? Seriously?

You might note that there's frequently some justifiable substance to what is frequently dismissed as trolling:

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation. ....At times, the word can be abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions they disagree with. ...

Kind of like with words such as "misogynist". Or "islamophobe":

But while I'll concede that the acronym was chosen, in part, to be provocative, and was maybe somewhat forced - maybe others can think of a better one along the same line, I still think that, considering the history of Islam and the West, there's more than a little justification for it. You might consider this recent post in The Telegraph:

Austrian cardinal tipped to be the next pope warns of an 'Islamic conquest of Europe'

Barney Henderson
14 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 12:25AM
An Austrian cardinal who is one of the frontrunners to be the next pope has warned of an "Islamic conquest of Europe".

According to reports of his speech to mark the 333rd anniversary of the Battle of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said: "Will there be an Islamic conquest of Europe? Many Muslims want that and say: Europe is at its end."

“God have mercy on Europe and on thy people, who are in danger of forfeiting our Christian heritage,” the cardinal reportedly prayed.

He claimed that this was already being felt "not only economically, but above all, in human and religious matters". ....

While it is maybe - at a stretch - somewhat moot which is the lesser of the two weevils - Islam or Christianity, I don't think it takes much knowledge of history to realize that the Catholic Church was a bulwark against the historical depredations of Islam - and through the mechanism of the Crusades. Somewhat apropos of which, I also note another Telegraph article on another loss for Merkel (so sad ...) over what is largley Muslim immigration:

Angela Merkel on Monday signalled for the first time that she was prepared to change her controversial refugee policy in the wake of heavy losses to the resurgent far-Right in regional elections.

“If I knew what change in refugee policy the people in Germany want, I would be prepared to consider it,” Mrs Merkel said.

Though she does seem rather clueless in that it should be clear that the "refugee policy the people in Germany want" is "No Muslims".

[TiBo]

Sure you read this one before:

"I'm convinced if my generation was faced with a zombie apocalypse, there would be zombie rights activists."

That's -exactly- how I see Islam, moosles, and softheaded western couch farters who will never understand why civilisation is something you have to defend against an ongoing stream of barbarians.

[Steersman]

Sure you read this one before:

"I'm convinced if my generation was faced with a zombie apocalypse, there would be zombie rights activists."

That's -exactly- how I see Islam, moosles, and softheaded western couch farters who will never understand why civilisation is something you have to defend against an ongoing stream of barbarians.

Exactly right. Price of freedom and all that. But somewhat apropos of barbarians of one sort or another, at least in a general sense, something I ran across in a May article in The Atlantic:

In our time, the United States suffers every day of the week because there are now so many marginalized people among us who don't understand the rules, who don't think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them, who have no notion of self-control.

Which is pretty much along the same line as this quote of Eleanor Roosevelt - which might also have some relevance to other Pit discussions on raising children:

Eleanor Roosevelt:
...our children must learn...to face full responsibility for their actions, to make their own choices and cope with the results...the whole democratic system...depends upon it. For our system is founded on self-government, which is untenable if the individuals who make up the system are unable to govern themselves.

Not likely to get much "self-government" out of Muslims when they have largely abandoned the responsibility for that to their psychotic pedophile Prophet (Place Bacon Upon Him). But something a little more specific to the issue of Muslims and defending civilization, a portion of a review of Easy Meat - Inside Britain's Grooming Gang Scandal:

Those who think that political correctness is only a harmless absurdity perpetrated by intellectuals will soon be laughing on the other side of their face when they read this book. — Theodore Dalrymple, author of Threats of Pain and Ruin and Out Into the Beautiful World.

How does a nation commit suicide? Peter McLoughlin's Easy Meat is a harrowing step-by-step chronicle of how Britain is doing just that, by sacrificing its girls to the idols of multiculturalism and political correctness. McLoughlin lays out in heart-wrenching detail how British officials abandoned thousands of unfortunate girls to the depredations of Muslim rape gangs who were inspired and motivated by Islamic teachings on the treatment of infidel women, and did nothing to save them for fear of being called "racist" and "Islamophobic." Young girls and women are the future of any nation; what Britain has done to its own has condemned it to a future of chaos, civil war, and slavery. Peter McLoughlin has done an invaluable service in laying out exactly how it all happened. May this important book serve as a cautionary tale for nations that are still free. — Robert Spencer, author of the bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. ...

" idols of multiculturalism and political correctness", indeed. The barbarians are not just at the gates, but many of them have taken up residence inside them, and are actively supporting fifth columns. Time to read the Riot Act. And to #BanIslam.