Controversy Alert!
Is Amy Alkon a racist meanie? There's been a bit of a brouhaha about my Barbies For Muslim Fundamentalists posting. Here's the whole story over at Eugene Volokh's place. And be sure to check out the comments section at Eric Muller's IsThatLegal?, where it appears everybody gets the spirit of my posting -- well, everybody but him.
Wow. These people really make me feel like a bimbo. Their blogs are so serious, I think I'd rather just log off and get some real work done. But before I go: Anyone know a good knock-knock joke?
Lena Cuisina at October 9, 2003 10:29 PM
You're so funny. All muslims are suicide bombers! I get it! Really original, too. Do you hang at Little Green Footballs much?
Grow the hell up.
Mithras at October 9, 2003 10:30 PM
Clearly, you don't get it at all. Thankfully, Eugene Volokh is pretty smart, and he got it. I'll quote Eugene for those who didn't luck out like he did in the gray matter department:
EUGENE VOLOKH: "I took (and continue to take) Alkon's post as chiefly a condemnation of the people mentioned in the first sentence of the text -- "Saudi Arabia's religious police [who] proclaimed Barbie dolls a 'Jewish' toy" -- and of those who agree with them. And those people who ban Barbie dolls partly on the grounds that they're "Jewish" are at least aiders of the anti-Semitic murder wing of Islamic Fundamentalism.
ÝÝÝÝÝNot all Muslims deserve condemnation (that's one reason my original post made clear that I have little trouble with the Muslim doll as such). Nor do I think that even all Muslim Fundamentalists deserve to be linked with suicide bombers, though I think it's legitimate to criticize their views about women. But it seems to me that Alkon is condemning 'Saudi Arabia's religious police' and those who would agree with them on this score. And they are much worth condemning."
AMY ALKON: EXACTLY!
Amy Alkon at October 10, 2003 1:18 AM
No one said, all Muslims, most Muslims or even some Muslims, are suicide bombers. In fact, I think it's a mistake to associate suicide bombing with a religion at all. Suicide bombings are brought out by fanatical hatred leading incredible stupidity, and that doesn't confine itself to any religion.
Or have we fogotten those loving Christian acts, like the Crusades, the Holocaust, the executions of Mary I and the Spanish Inquisition? To say nothing of that fine, upstanding Christian KKK.
Patrick at October 10, 2003 7:39 AM
Not all, or many, or most, Muslims are homicide bombers. But most, many, all homicide bombers are Muslim. At least lately.
The Barbie thing was totally about Saudi religious police, nothing more. Which leads to how Muslim women are treated in general. If it's okay with them, fine. We can't impose our way over there. But it doesn't seem to be okay. Muslim women respond well when the shackles are removed. And education and equal opportunity doesn't mean a subversion of their faith; it just means a modern interpretation of their faith.
We live in 2003, not 864.
Why can't we all just get along?
bob at October 10, 2003 8:47 AM
Clearly, not all Muslim women are packing suicide bombs. Here's one who just received the Nobel Prize for human rights work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/international/10CND-NOBEL.html
Lena Cuisina at October 10, 2003 10:57 AM
bob, do you see the KKK as Christian? Neo-nazis? How about Fred Phelps? Adolf Hitler? If not, why not? Each of these individuals and organizations claimed, at some point, to be Christian and that their despicable actions were in accordance with their Christian beliefs. So, are they?
The same argument holds true for Muslims and suicide bombers. The suicide bombers claim to be Muslim and that their actions are to serve Allah. Mainstream Muslims, even those who despise the western world, deplore the actions of 9/11 and denounce those who participated as non-Muslims, in spite of their professions.
Suicide bombing is owed to a charismatic leader and gullible followers. Nothing else.
Patrick at October 10, 2003 5:08 PM
Let's not let this get out of hand. I don't think Muslims have a monopoly on hatefulness. Fundamentalists of all stripes are dangerous because they seek to impose their beliefs on others. And doing it with a lynching or a gas chamber is as morally reprehensible as sticks of dynamite taped to your midsection.
But that doesn't mean the bombers nowadays aren't Muslim. I'm not saying they're mainstream Muslims or condeming Islam ... but I am calling it as I see it. I wish to Allah that the mainstream of all peoples would rise and eliminate the fringes but ... wait ... that's just what the fringe elements are guilty of. Oops.
Suicide bombings are also a result of poverty and desperation -- manipulated by a charsimatic leader who prefers his followers gullible.
I side with Amy who thinks that believing in God gets us in all this trouble in the first place. What a crock that God stuff is. Good for comfort and solace and inspiration, but hapless when it comes to my god is better than your god.
let's get along
Bob at October 10, 2003 6:23 PM
So, you do think of the suicide bombers as Muslim. Back to my original question then. Was Adolf Hitler a Christian? Is Fred Phelps? Is the KKK Christian? Are neo-Nazis? Was Mary I a Christian? Torquemada? How about the Crusaders? They say they are/were. But are/were they Christian?
Patrick at October 11, 2003 3:39 AM
patrick, if hitler, phelps, and the kkk are motivated by and attribute their motivation to a preponderance of christian values (ie simply wanting to take over the world versus wanting to take over the world in the name of god) then yes i think of them as christian. certainly the crusaders, when the "islamic infidels" were the victims.whatever religion motivates the insanity in whatever era.
the question you're asking is if muslim and/or christian values -- actual values, true values, some middle of the road interpretation of scripture -- supports these acts of horror. clearly not. or at least that's not the way the majority of, in this case muslims, interpret it. i'm sure millions of muslims would like israel to change/disappear in a puff of smoke, but they vent their concerns in a non-lethal way. so i'm not condeming islam or muslims in general, and i wish the fundamentalists would cool down because they cause havoc for everyone. i guess i would have said the same about richard the lionhearted (if i have my history right, maybe not).
i think the problem is believing in mystical magical mumbo jumbo that chooses one peoples over another, says there is a plan and a messiah, and gets people to give control over their lives to some big person in the sky whose current self-annointed representative on earth is a lying manipulative scumbag working and using religious for his or her own meglomaniacal purposes.
okay?
bob at October 11, 2003 8:16 AM
I'm with Bob. Very well stated.
Amy Alkon at October 11, 2003 8:35 AM
I note the selective quoting of Volokh. To fill in anyone who didn't go ahead and click through:
In any case, though, I much respect Eric Muller, so I thought I'd quote his view on this, as well as responding with my own.
A respect that you haven't tended to reciprocate, one notes. And while his original post explicitly made clear he had no problem with the doll as such, one notes that your post made no such claim or any such moderation.
You ought to just 'fess up and admit you made a comment that, whatever the intention, could be interpreted badly by reasonable people. It was meant to be short and striking, but was too short to eliminate multiple meanings. When I've done that on my blog, I normally edit the entry or leave an update, and apologize for any offense caused even if not intended. Maybe what you said was clear to you, but it certainly held within it room for ambiguity.
"What a racist" is less the appropriate comment than, "How rude."
A. Rickey at October 11, 2003 11:44 AM
Aren't there enough painfully earnest, politically way over-correct, desperately serious people in the world that I don't need to join them? This reminds me of a billboard in Paris. It was for Galleries Lafayette, I think -- a woman very acrobatically extending one leg up a light pole or something to tie her high heeled shoe. She had a pug dog on a leash in one hand and the shoe-tying action caused her to sort of hang him in the air by his leash. Was there PETA action against this, or indignant people rising up in the newspaper to decry this "horror"? No, people took it as a joke and, as far as I could see, laughed at it. And one funny person magic-markered the word "Salope" coming out of a talk-bubble from the dog's mouth (which means "bitch"). Okay, France isn't the be-all and end-all in every way, but at least they aren't so goddamn earnest. Amy's rude? Well, yeah. In fact, I'd add "cranky, hostile, intolerant, and kind of a bitch" to "rude" if I were you. Gasp. Yes, she even makes fun of herself. Well, I never! PS I do accept donations of attractive, silver-lame trimmed muzzles from anti-admirers. Send them to the address on the contact me page.
Amy Alkon at October 12, 2003 6:17 PM
Ooh, and here's a fabulous suggestion! If you really find me to be somebody you'd rather not be sharing this continent with, do consider contributing a few dollars to the "send the rude bitch to France" fund. There's a Paypal and Amazon donations button on the blog somewhere. We accept all denominations. (It's an attempt at tolerance -- gotta start somewhere!)
Amy Alkon at October 12, 2003 6:20 PM
And here's a more serious take on "politeness" in the media:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/10/no_mans.html
via mattwelch.com/warblog
Amy Alkon at October 13, 2003 12:36 AM
Bob writes: patrick, if hitler, phelps, and the kkk are motivated by and attribute their motivation to a preponderance of christian values (ie simply wanting to take over the world versus wanting to take over the world in the name of god) then yes i think of them as christian. certainly the crusaders, when the "islamic infidels" were the victims.whatever religion motivates the insanity in whatever era.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Most of the Christians with whom I talk about this are quite willing concede that suicide bombers are Muslim, in spite of the protests of mainstream adherants of Islam. But ask these same people about Hitler or Torquemada, and the replies come back, "But they weren't really Christian."
They allow themselves the right to deny the Christianity of those who insist that they are. But they don't allow the same right to Muslims. At the very least, you're consistent.
Patrick at October 13, 2003 6:32 AM
Patrick -- What a great observation!
"Most of the Christians with whom I talk about this are quite willing concede that suicide bombers are Muslim, in spite of the protests of mainstream adherants of Islam. But ask these same people about Hitler or Torquemada, and the replies come back, "But they weren't really Christian."
In some ways, it's difficult to make generalizations about religion or even about particular denominations because there's so much diversity within these categories that we're throwing around so casually. Who or what is really "Christian" or "religious"? The answer to that seems to depend pretty much on which self-appointed authority you're asking.
Bob -- You suggested that religion motivates "insanity" (ie, various forms of violence). Not to split hairs, but I think that religion (or ideology) justifies rather than motivates violence. The motivation (or cause) of violence is psychopathology. Now, I'm don't think that makes the perpetrators "victims" who shouldn't be punished. I just think that blaming religious beliefs misses the point in many ways. After all, applications of "rational" philosophies such as utilitarianism can be used to justify the subjugation or death of entire populations.
Lena Cuisina at October 13, 2003 7:55 PM
Lena writes: Bob -- You suggested that religion motivates "insanity" (ie, various forms of violence). Not to split hairs, but I think that religion (or ideology) justifies rather than motivates violence.
I understand and agree with you, Lena. There is a lot of plain ugly facts about the Bible(I hope you saw the list I posted at your request) not the least of which is the wholesale slaughter of adult women and male children perpetrated by Moses, while the female children were to be kept alive for the "use" of the soldiers.
To any sane, compassionate person, this is disgusting, ugly, and just plain evil. But since we're talking about a principle prophet in Judeo-Christian beliefs, Moses becomes a great man and his actions were in obedience to God.
Actually, there are a lot of things unpalatable in Christian beliefs. In human justice, the suffering of the innocent for the guilty is repulsive to us. But somehow, the painful execution of a blameless man for the sins of others is a beautiful thing, and we should be praising God for it every day of our lives.
It's amazing how the most repulsive things we can imagine become so fantastic when they are done in a religious context.
Patrick at October 13, 2003 8:14 PM
It's a very convenient belief system, Lena, in that regard. If someone does something you don't like, you simply assert that they weren't Christians, and didn't have Jesus.
In the minds of some, it's simply impossible to be liberal and Christian.
Patrick at October 14, 2003 5:39 AM
Okay, for the third consecutive post in a row (going for the record, folks), A. Rickey, it's apparent (after backtracking and reading your other entries on the blog) that you want an apology from Amy. In fact, you're stopping just short of demanding one.
Resign yourself to the fact that you're not getting one. I can't speak for Amy, but it seems that she doesn't think she did anything wrong and that the umbrage that you and others are experiencing comes from an interpretation of the remarks that was never intended by the author.
That said, forced apologies are sheer idiocy. We're not children, made to stand in front of the class and say, "I'm sowwy I called Suzie a doo-doo head."
You could hold a gun to a person's head and compel them to say "Sorry," but you can never make them mean it. If she doesn't feel she did anything wrong, then she doesn't, and you'll only induce a head-banging sense of frustration trying to make someone feel otherwise.
I think of the time when Richard Armey was forced to apologize for introducing Barney Frank and "Barney Faggot." I sat there and wondered why this was done. An apology under duress is meaningless. He was made to say, "Sorry," but does this change his way of thinking about homosexuals? Quite possibly, the event made him even more resentful of homosexuals, defeating the purpose.
You'll feel much better if you drop it, once you realize that the only actions and feelings under your control are your own. And when it comes to the actions of others, the only control you have is your own REaction.
Patrick at October 14, 2003 9:37 AM
Patrick: "[...] when Richard Armey was forced to apologize for introducing Barney Frank and "Barney Faggot." I sat there and wondered why this was done. An apology under duress is meaningless. He was made to say, "Sorry," but does this change his way of thinking about homosexuals?"
I have my doubts about Barney Frank, after hearing him speak on health care at a conference a couple of years ago. But still, I can't imagine introducing him or any other fucking U.S. congressman as a faggot. That apology was important even if forced. The objective is not to change Dick Armey's mind (which is a lost cause anyway) but to deter similarly unacceptable behavior in the future.
But onto the literary: Patrick, I love you for using the word "umbrage." It's so Jane Austen.
Lena De La Cuisina at October 14, 2003 9:09 PM
Why thank you, Lena! Since I majored in Theatre in college, my choice of words is often archaic. I should not have taken those Shakespeare courses.
Patrick at October 14, 2003 9:31 PM
Lena writes: "But still, I can't imagine introducing him or any other fucking U.S. congressman as a faggot. That apology was important even if forced. The objective is not to change Dick Armey's mind (which is a lost cause anyway) but to deter similarly unacceptable behavior in the future."
I suppose, but compelling someone to apologize, whether they can do so with sincerity or not, seems to be a "false deterrent."
Don't call Barney Frank "Barney Faggot" or we'll make you apologize publically. So what?
To truly demonstrate the unacceptability of such remarks, politicians like him need to be hit where it hurts: at the ballot box. If his comments were truly unacceptable, then they should be used against him by his political opponentsm and he should be voted out of office. Anything short of a definitive hindrance to his political career would communicate that his comments WERE in fact acceptable.
Patrick at October 15, 2003 7:23 PM
Hi Patrick --
Just got back from a few days in Manhattan sans internet access of my own. Anyway, I agree with you that public apologies aren't enough for politicians with diarrhea-mouth. Large fines would shut them up.
Lena
Lena at October 18, 2003 11:24 AM
go here for some funny stuff about Muslims
http://www.jackshiles.com/Muslim_Humor/muslim_humor.html
encantoman at August 7, 2004 5:57 PM