HAPPY EASTER from The GTL™ to my brothers and sisters who hold the day near and dear.
Okay, my dear friends — that said, I have a bone to pick with more than a few of my fellow Christians, but that later… as always…
First, I guess I sort of took the “liberty” to re-word the title of the New York Times‘ Op-Ed by Mr. Paul Berman. If you happened to click on the link, you noticed the name of the article was actually “Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die“. Before I weigh in anymore, however; some “snips” for the enjoyment of those who just can’t bring themselves to read a NYT article in its entirety:
THE big surprise, viewed from my own narrow perspective five years later, has taken place in the mysterious zones of extremist ideology. In the months and weeks before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote quite a lot about ideology in the Middle East, and especially about the revolutionary political doctrine known as radical Islamism.
I tried to show that radical Islamism is a modern philosophy, not just a heap of medieval prejudices. In its sundry versions, it draws on local and religious roots, just as it claims to do. But it also draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe. I wanted my readers to understand that with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined, radical Islamism wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, than naïve observers might suppose. …”
(Snip!)
“… Extremist movements have been growing bigger and wilder for more than three decades now, during that period, America has tried pretty much everything from a policy point of view. Our presidents have been satanic (Richard Nixon), angelic (Jimmy Carter), a sleepy idiot savant (Ronald Reagan), a cagey realist (George H. W. Bush), wonderfully charming (Bill Clinton) and famously otherwise (George W. Bush). And each president’s Middle Eastern policy has conformed to his character. …”
(Snip!)
“… And each new calamity for Iraq has, like manure, lent new fertility to the various extremist organizations. The entire sequence of events may suggest that America is uniquely destined to do the wrong thing. All too likely! But it may also suggest that America is not the fulcrum of the universe, and extremist ideologies have prospered because of their own ability to adapt and survive — their strength, in a word.
I notice a little gloomily that I may have underestimated the extremist ideologies in still another respect. Five years ago, anyone who took an interest in Middle Eastern affairs would easily have recalled that, over the course of a century, the intellectuals of the region have gone through any number of phases — liberal, Marxist, secularist, pious, traditionalist, nationalist, anti-imperialist and so forth, just like intellectuals everywhere else in the world.
Western intellectuals without any sort of Middle Eastern background would naturally have manifested an ardent solidarity with their Middle Eastern and Muslim counterparts who stand in the liberal vein — the Muslim free spirits of our own time, who argue in favor of human rights, rational thought (as opposed to dogma), tolerance and an open society.
But that was then. In today’s Middle East, the various radical Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to those preposterous accusations, in a sanitized version suitable for Western consumption. …”
Did Mr. Berman say it all in his Op-Ed, or what? How about — “or what”. He did come close, however, and “kudos” to him for it…
The part Mr. Berman left out in his article is the fact that religious extremism selects no particular religion; it flourishes in way, too many of them, in fact, including my own. While there is definitely a “radical religious left” (Fred Phelps and his anti-war loonies in Topeka, KS, for example) and a “radical religious right” (American Taliban, Timothy McVeigh, for the counter-example) infesting the fringes of the Muslim and Christian societies, it is interesting to note the fact that the majority, if not all of the bloodiest wars in this Earth’s history has been started by these creeps. “New to the scene”? Are you NUTS? “Limited to Islam”? Are you NUTS?
I’ve made this point before, I’ll make it again; please let it OFFEND you if it OFFENDS you, by the way — this is Jesus’ Day and I’ve yet to pluck “the log” out of mine own eye and I’ve already been Forgiven for it — Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama Bin Ladin, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein, Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore, and the rest of them would get along JUST FINE if they simply limited their talk to the “evils” of pornography, drugs, kids with no radical extremist morals being “liberalized” by society, and the need for a “godly” (small “G” on purpose) MAN (left out woman on purpose) to lead the rest of us back to “god” via ANY bloody, violent means POSSIBLE.
There’s not a nickle’s bit of difference between ANY of these FOOLS. On the Christian side of the problem, you show a picture of a “black Jesus” to the wrong congregation and they’re ready to grab those heavy old brass crosses and bash the depiction to pieces… or worse. On the other hand, show an image of Mohammad to the wrong group of Muslims and you’ve got problems, too. Just ask the Danes. The fact of the matter is ANY of the above groups have those lurking amongst them who are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and kill innocent folks just to make their disgusting, horribly mislead points — points, again, with an eerily-common theme.
If it were up to me, and thank God (capital “G” on purpose) it’s not — I’d round all of these folks up into an expanded, non-denominational “Gitmo” together and make force them to listen to The Beatles’ (and Jesus’ message too, by the way), “All You Need Is Love” over and over again until THEY assimilated. It’s impossible, after all, to drive crazy people crazy when they’re already there.
As we head to the polls this year, my friends, let us heed perhaps, the greatest point Mr. Berman made in his article. If you missed it, scroll through it again. Hint — consider the “presidential personalities” of the front-runners and how they may greatly impact our foreign policies going forward. Temperment. It’s not just a word; it’s the answer.
Again — Happy Easter, my Christian brothers and sisters.
***
H/T again to MemeOrandum for this find…
See also: Booman Tribune; Hullabaloo; Angry Bear; Drudge Retort
Loading ...
5:54 pm on March 23rd, 2008 1
You and numerous other bloggers quote way too much of the pieces under discussion. In this case about 75% of Berman’s column is reprinted (“quoted” hardly seems the right word in this case) in your post. That is more than fair use. I think you owe Berman and the NY Times a royalty.
1:04 am on March 25th, 2008 2
I realize what I am about to say will be dismissed out of hand, but somehow it needs to be said. While there are many examples of religious extremism amongst those who call themselves Christians, the overwhelming majority if Christian leaders openly condemn the sort of extremism that calls to violence. The same simply cannot be said about the overwhelming majority of Muslims. And to compare the two as you have makes no sense. While showing a black Jesus to a few Christian congregations could come close to provoking violent reactions (I’ve not seen any such reaction actually happen.), they simply do not compare to the almost continent-wide eruptions by apparent rank and file Muslims over the cartoon characterizations of Muhammad. Simply put, there is a difference which you chose not to see or acknowledge. The trouble with liberals, even gun toting liberals, is their failure to make distinctions, to acknowledge differences, indeed, their failure to be discriminating, properly defined.
8:16 pm on March 27th, 2008 3
Mr Brewster, You are spot on!
Muslim extremism is several orders of magnitude worse than the Christian based sort. They are set apart from the rest of world religions in violence and violations of human rights. They may even be worse than the atheists (chuckle).
11:50 pm on March 27th, 2008 4
Thanks, Steve. There are those who will point to the crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, some Christian justification of slavery, and similar events to demonstrate that Christians can be barbaric. Indeed, those were not bright spots in Western civilization. However, the first two were before the Reformation, and the others represent a condemned minority within the then contemporary Christian world. Just as some of the fringe groups are condemned by the majority of Christiandom today.
In our quest for “equal treatment” of all peoples, it seems we are no longer allowed to make judgements about the magnitude and proportionality of events and stated world views. It has always seemed to me that no matter how tolerant and accepting we strive to be, we simply cannot be expected to tolerate and accept a view and actions that will destroy us.
8:33 pm on March 29th, 2008 5
Steve, to rain on your happy
christian parade, all religions are by
definition intollerant, christianity
certainly no exception. I love that
the good thing you say about
christians is that they are less
murderous that muslims.
One other thing religions have in common –
they are all bullshit.
Have a great day.
mark
2:12 am on March 30th, 2008 6
Mark, what a crock. I know of no significant Christian group that isating calling for violence, bombings, suicide or otherwise, or who is advocating death of those who don’t “believe” in just he right way or in the right doctrine.
Sorry you don’t see it, but there is a difference.
Dick