La Shawn is convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder
Despite what they may say, Muslims are and have always been on a mission to conquer and kill infidels. They’ve been doing it for centuries and will continue until we’re all dead, or they’re all dead, or the world ends, whichever comes first. We need to get over ourselves and focus on stopping the spread of Islamofacism. Period. Save civility and Koran “handling†for less perilous times.
I hardly know where to start with this. It is simply factually incorrect. Can Christians and Muslims live side-by-side? Of course! I speak from experience. I lived for a time in the heart of one of Britain’s muslim communities and there I experienced nothing but welcome and a willingness to engage in dialogue. On the visits that I have made to mosques I have always been warmly received. Despite the actions of some Muslims (and Christians) I do not accept that it is impossible for members of the 2 faiths to live in peace. The language La Shawn uses reminds me very much the way that Catholics and Protestants spoke (speak?) about one another in Northern Ireland — hardly a happy precedent.
But since La Shawn has been kind enough to set out her position on “Koran flushing” so simply that even I can understand it, allow me to return the favour. The USA is engaged in what looks to many Muslims like a hostile military occupation. (Whatever the reality, there’s no denying the perception) In those circumstances it makes sense, if there is a genuine desire for good order, to treat the sensibilities of local people with the utmost care. It is simply common sense that if you are trying to win people’s hearts and minds, you will respect the objects and customs of their religion even if they look completely absurd to you.
It amazes me that someone as obviously intelligent as La Shawn doesn’t seem to get that.
But then, I’m mentally disordered.
Update: Sven has more.
I think what westerners like La Shawn fail to appreciate is how western ‘civilisation’ appears to those in Muslim countries. Western democracy and capitalism (’freedom’) brings with it the individualism and decline in moral standards which is utterly opposed to Muslim culture and tradition. So suddenly when Muslims see British and American military forces appearing all over their home territory and see western cultural and political values being gradually introduced into their societies they perceive (rightly) that all their culture and history as they know it is being threatened. This may be hard for many in the west to understand, but Muslims do not want western culture because it extinguishes and degrades their own.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Sven 06.04.05 at 2:07 pm
That’s shocking, the mind boggles, it really does. I am continually amazed as to how intelligent westerners are able to spout such ignorant drivel.
Jen 06.04.05 at 2:17 pm
I totally agree with you Richard. Muslims and Christians can definately live side by side. My sixth form college was Catholic, but was built in a desnsely Muslim populated area, so about 40% of the students were Muslim. We all studied and socialised side by side every day without any problems. There are also a lot of muslims in the area where my home church is, and we ALWAYS have a very positive response from them when collecting for various charities in the area. I think its great to live in a multicultural society - it adds so much diversity.
I will see you in the mental hospital - I’ll be just down the corridor
Joel Thomas 06.04.05 at 3:29 pm
Richard,
It seems from one of the on-line tests we took some time back, you registered as a tad to the left of me. So, I take some solace in the idea that I might be more sane than you. But then why am I the one taking the lithium? I’d ship you some of my supply but it is my understanding that in most countries it is psychiatrists and psychologists who make a diagnosis of mental disorder, not bloggers. But what the heck, go ahead and ask LaShawn if she has a prescription pad at the ready. Then you might be able to start writing rational posts about how Jesus was merely speaking of an embryonic camel going through the eye of a needle, not a full grown one.
I love reading LaShawn’s blog but I rarely see any purpose in someone such as myself leaving comments on those of her posts that are that far out. It would be easier to convert Adrian to Arminianism than to convince LaShawn that both liberalism and conservatism have their place in the political and theological spheres. No, I’ll wait until she writes her next post prior to which she has first taken a few deep breaths.
I hope my comment is seen as humorous and not “trolling.”
Richard 06.04.05 at 3:49 pm
My brother’s a pshrink — I’ll ask him if he thinks I need any of your supply. No doubt it’s cheaper over there!
Bene Diction 06.04.05 at 8:59 pm
All the shrinks in the world wouldn’t help that thinking.
When I read a blog like La Shawn’s I wish I was rich. I’d arrange to have their jobs covered, make the travel plans and plunk them down in a country and location where they had time to help others that don’t speak english, drive a car, have medical attention, access to media etc.
In LaShawn’s case because she believes leprosy was eradicated from the US until the illegal mexicans showed up, a leprosy mission in Nepal might be my suggestion.
There - black, white, liberal, conserative, libertarian, 1st world, 3rd world, law degrees, media, citizenship, success, holy books and blog audiences would take on different importance.
Since I’m not rich and in LaShawn’s world I belong in a mental hospital or on psychotropics, all I can do is ask God to open eyes and soften hard hearts.
Jim R 06.05.05 at 4:27 am
Well Guys, can you blame her much. She is a Christian that sees people in her own country make such a fuss over how the Koran is treated in front of prisoners that have likely exploded or beheaded the bodies of innocent civilians of their own country, and some from hers, while these same people try like hell to get the equivalent of the Koran removed from their own society altogether, showing it no respect whatsoever
It is a little bizarre, don’t you think. Hyper sensitivity to the sensibilities of terrorists, while showing none to the same religious customs embedded from the beginning in their own country. There does seem to be some ‘disorder’ in the mental process here, no?
Richard 06.05.05 at 7:09 am
Unless you believe that whole populations are terrorists (as La Shawn appears to), no. In the first place, because at some point building a lasting peace is going to require getting the general population “on side”. Disrespect of their holy book isn’t likely to achieve that. In the second, I seem to remember the one who Christistians follow said something about love for enemies. I believe he meant it.
Bene Diction 06.05.05 at 11:30 am
Where is LaShawn’s post is anything but patriotism?
The IRC has spoken publically about they they saw in Cuba.
The Hood report facts have merit…but it is dismissed, minimalized, rationalized and intellectualized because, after all the US provides three hots and a cot. What else happens there is immaterial. The Hood report in a wimp out to terrorists and the world communitee.
It is documented many detainees were sold to the US in Afghanistan, not because they were terrorists, but because tribal leaders wanted the money.
And so what, the US has the right to operate in secret in Cuba. As a lawyer she has no interest in seeing 540 people receive legal assistance. Fortunately several hundred lawyers think otherwise as to human rights groups and US allies.
Where is Christ in LaShawn’s thinking.
“If I weren’t a Christian, the things I’d say on this blog…”
She is not seeing the disconnect in her ability to mock, to hate to dismiss, to equivocate and compartmentalize, her claim of following the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom loses credibility. Her loyalty to US behaviour has precedent. Justify the US first, and above all.
Being a follower of Christ has no place.
“They do it to themselves” Since they do, it’s ok for the US to follow suit because detainess deserve it. It’s the liberal and media that are stirring up trouble, not the behaviour in the base in Cuba and the reports coming out of it.
Why haven’t we heard of similar behaviour from British troops who held combantants being transferred to US control?
Jim R 06.05.05 at 4:00 pm
La Shawn possesses one very important thing in her thinking that seems to be missing from most of the rest of us, COMMON SENSE. She has a habit of getting to the bottom of all the side noise on an issue quickly.
If your country is at war and your soldiers are dying, you don’t threaten your countries chances of wining that war, saving lives on both sides, by running stories in a worldwide news broadcast or publication that you know will damage your countries chances.
It is not relevant if the story is true or not, you protect your countries interest, instead of your OWN for a change, by taking relevant information about misbehavior of soldiers to the civilian authorities over the military and tell them you expect something to be done about it before running out like a damn fool cub ‘Jimmy Olsen’ type waving to the world ‘Look what I just scooped. Aren’t I just a wonderful and important reporter!’.
We are in a war people. Just like the terrorists Israel has been dealing with for 50 years, these people do not WANT Christians and Muslims living side by side. These people don’t WANT rights for women. These people don’t WANT freedom for their people. These people will WANT to behead you without a seconds thought and proudly video tape it for intimidation for the the rest of us.
Everything printed, said, or done by Americans is being watched by these people for signs of loss of our resolve. The Newsweek article along likely extended this war another 6 months alone, with all the associated deaths to go with it. This type of selfish, irresponsible behavior is costly in lives.
People must use their common sense, even if it goes counter to core beliefs they may have such as ‘love your enemy’, until this war is won in the case they just may be wrong and it is deadly for our soldiers and real bad news for Iraq if civilization loses.
Richard 06.05.05 at 4:10 pm
Jim - I hear what you’re saying. The Christian gospel makes no sense. It is, literally, nonsense. It sets “common sense” on its head.
But Christians also believe that this foolish can overcome the evil of the world. I understand your point of view if you’re not a Christian, but if you are I suggest you need to think it through some more. The fact of whether “we” are at war or not is irrelevant - Christians can’t set aside the teachings of Jesus because they’re inconvenient. They were inconvenient for him too. Remember that Jesus said what he did within a situation of a violently oppressive occupation.
Who are “these people”? Do you know any Muslims?
Joel 06.06.05 at 12:20 am
From where I take my view, U.S. security in the world is worse than it was before 911. Much of that has to do with our arrogance. A lot of our security depends on being respected in the world. This administration seems to believe that respect comes only at gunpoint and only uniltaterally. I don’t buy that.
The U.S. Civil War may have needed to be fought both to preserve the nation and to end slavery. However, the North post-war took a very arrogant attitude toward the South and the ensuing bitterness and resentment took years to overcome, perhaps much longer than otherwise.
Bene Diction 06.06.05 at 1:22 am
Jim: We know the US is at war. The Canadian ambassador to the US spoke to the Canadian media this week and reminded them to cut you some slack. I know for a fact many non US bloggers are trying very hard not to be drawn into arguments that none of us will win. The Hood report comes from the pentagon.
The discussion here is about being imprudent. I took time after seeing LaShawn’s statement on liberalism being a mental illness to look up speech in the bible.
Is is common sense to say ‘liberalism is a mental illness?’ I was surprised to see others like Mark Bryon and broken messengers rightfully stand up and say this is wrong. It may be easy to dismiss those of us in the UK, Canada, Australia etc.
Do you know anyone who has been treated for a mental illness?
Mike 06.06.05 at 3:03 pm
It seems that despite Jim’s claim that La Shawn is an arbiter of common sense, she’s entirely ignorant of the fact that her angry, vitriolic and demeaning manner is as much a product of the underlying conflicts as is the angry, vitriolic and demeaning manner of a fundamentalist who call himself Islamic. Tell me if this sounds familiar:
“Christians are and have always been on a mission to conquer and kill Muslims. They’ve been doing it for centuries and will continue until we’re all dead, or they’re all dead, or the world ends, whichever comes first. We need to get over ourselves and focus on stopping the spread of Western decadence. Period. Save civility and ‘democracy’ for less perilous times”
John 06.06.05 at 4:53 pm
That’s shocking, the mind boggles, it really does. I am continually amazed as to how intelligent westerners are able to spout such ignorant drivel.
We are raised in pods, unlike you Natural Birthers. From conception, our ears are barraged with recordings of Rush Limbaugh 24/7. At the age of five, we are taught to read, but our libraries consist entirely of the KJV Bible and Pat Robertson prophesies. The television only plays TBN. Upon completion of our studies, we emerge from the pods and dress in two-piece suits. Our mission: spread hatred wherever we go.
John 06.06.05 at 4:55 pm
People must use their common sense, even if it goes counter to core beliefs they may have such as ‘love your enemy’, until this war is won in the case they just may be wrong and it is deadly for our soldiers and real bad news for Iraq if civilization loses.
Magnificent comment, Jim. Well said!
Richard 06.06.05 at 11:00 pm
I find it hard to believe that you’re not showing the same sarcasm at 4.55 as you obviously were at 4.53 John.
You don’t really believe that Christians should “use their common sense, even if it goes counter to core beliefs they may have such as ‘love your enemy’” do you?
Anonymous 06.06.05 at 11:30 pm
I find it hard to believe that you’re not showing the same sarcasm at 4.55 as you obviously were at 4.53 John.
I’m a very flexible person. I did not mean to be sarcastic, but humorous. It appears that I failed, and I am sorry. I try to stay light-hearted even when engaged in debate over serious issues.
You don’t really believe that Christians should “use their common sense, even if it goes counter to core beliefs they may have such as ‘love your enemy’†do you?
Yes, I do. As I’ve stated before on this blog, I recognize that my rejection of absolute pacifism is a hole in my Christian faith.
I also recognize that we are in a struggle for the survival of Western civilization, and it would be wise to pay attention to the actions of our enemies.
John 06.07.05 at 12:35 am
Oops! I forgot to type in my identification information in that comment.
Richard 06.07.05 at 12:45 am
I was intending “sarcasm” to convey “an ironically worded taunt”, which to my mind includes humour, so I don’t think you failed. No deprecation intended at all. I’m all for staying light-hearted. It’ll help us keep a sense of proportion to thse and all our conversations.
But I don’t see that you have to embrace pacifism absolutely to acknowledge that, though the gospel of Jesus Christ runs counter to “common sense” (all that stuff about forgiving, turning the other cheek, loving enemies…) it is what Jesus really meant. If this really is a struggle for western civilization (which I don’t accept, but I’ll go with it) we can’t win by undermining the very foundations of that civilization.
Can we?
John 06.07.05 at 2:39 pm
Well, Western Civilization predates Christ and derives from the Greeks and Romans. So it isn’t entirely a Christian enterprise, and the Christian faith can thrive far outside of Western cultures.
But to your question: Common sense, as I see it, suggests that we defend our civilization from physical attack, regardless of other moral imparatives. It undermines the Christian every time he pulls the trigger, but I don’t see another option. I wish that there was a peaceful way out, but I don’t think that there is.
Mike 06.07.05 at 3:01 pm
If Western civilisation is falling down at all, its doing it itself; we don’t need some created enemy to do that. Please realise that the discontent that others (actually, I may as well say ‘the other’) feel with regard to western civilisation/the anglo-saxon model/post-modernism/capitalism (or any of the other now redundant phrases that get thrown about with reckless disregard for their actual meanings) is mostly today a result of what western civilisation has done to them. the dispossession felt by those who turn to fundamentalism rarely has its roots in mythical, grandiose, ancient conflicts between east and west, orient and occident; it is a result of gross contemporary inequality and injustice that is dished out by the failings of anglo-saxon economic models - models that could and should work far better.
When those whose ancestors went through an enlightment stop reducing the value of their inherited wisdom (which is something to greatly value in European civilisation) to blatant schoolyard bullying in order to preserve an imagined order that doesn’t even exist, we might get somewhere. When, however, those who should act with wisdom - and who have the means and the education to do so - choose instead to continue to say “but miss, he started it”, we’re not going to get anywhere.
If that’s the attitude that passes for western civilisation, then it’s about time I stopped calling myself an Englishman.
John 06.07.05 at 4:55 pm
Mike, are you saying that the failures of the Islamic world are due to the actions of Western civilization?
Joel 06.08.05 at 9:01 am
John,
In part, they are. The western world’s manipulation of many Islamic lands, particularly in the Middle East, really can’t be denied. Take how we helped prop up the Shah of Iran as just one example. Or how we helped prop up the Saudi royal family. Or divided the map up in illogical ways.
Mike 06.08.05 at 2:30 pm
I’m not saying that Western civilisation is the only source of the failures of society being seen in the Islamic world. On two levels they are: 1) The aftermath of colonial restructuring, and 2) The current distribution of power that does favour development in the economies of - amongst others- the middle east. Just as many problems lie within the internal institutions of the Islamic world. However, the growth of reactionary elements within Islamic society is primarily due to the dispossession felt by their people towards the western world.
Even if you think that we still carry what Rudyard Kipling described as ‘The White Man’s Burden’ - the duty to civilise - surely you must agree that we, as those who hold the power to affect change, are doing a terrible job of it. Fundamentalists are reacting because of the failures of Western civilisation to accomodate their institutions - institutions they feel as dearly about as some Europeans and North Americans do theirs - and also to bring them properly into the economic systems that might bring them prosperity.
They are not getting angry for no reason. There’s a root cause to this, and it isn’t just that there’s a mythical age-old rivalry between Islam and the Christian - Secular west. People fail to realise that ethnic, religious or any kind of conflict only emerges because of a deeper failure of society. Thus, genocide occured in Rwanda not simply because Hutus hated Tutsis, but because of such embedded structural inequality that many within Hutu circles wanted to lash out, and an authoritarian govt provided them with an incentive to do so. Race riots do not occur in Europe simply because white folk hate black folk, but because deeper problems of unemployment, insecurity and a loss of identity as a result of inadequate policy leaves them feeling that all they can do is again, lash out. Young muslim men, so disillusioned at their unemployment, their lack of prospects and in some cases again, the decay of their identity, feel that they should revert to a conservatism that gives them grounding and a sense of identity, even if that identity is only manifest as a result of finding an ‘other’ to exist in contrast to. Western economics holds their countries in a stasis that prevents adequate economic growth, while also throwing at them all that is worst about our culture of greed. That’s enough to unsettle anyone - even the USA and Europe. Think about it, why are we scared? Because we fear we’re losing our identity. Because these folk who are so different from ourselves are infiltrating our societies, taking our jobs, marrying our daughters etc. etc.
It’s a common story. Our countries hold the power and influence to lessen the negativity; theirs don’t.
John 06.08.05 at 3:02 pm
So, if I’m following you guys correctly, then if Western nations had not colonized, traded with, or invaded (from time to time), then Islamic nations would be better off today, such as more equality for women, democracy, and prosperity?
Richard 06.08.05 at 4:00 pm
No, I don’t believe that is what Mike and Joel are tring to say John. Putting it in a nutshell, I believe the case that’s being made says that these hatreds arise - christian/muslim, white/black etc — not because there is an inherrent tendency to hatred, but because of social and economic abuses. There is nothing controversial there, surely?
John 06.08.05 at 8:54 pm
So people only hate if they have been wronged?
Joel 06.09.05 at 4:59 am
John,
Abused children often grow up to be abusers themselves. Climate does influence behavior. It doesn’t excuse it. But if ways can be found to stop the cycle, that’s more effective than merely punishing the abuser.
Mike 06.09.05 at 3:23 pm
You’re simplifying things too much John. All i’m saying is that the situations in Islamic societies are as much prone to outside influences as are Western societies.
So if you or others are arguing that Fundamentalists in other countries are affecting the survival of Western civilisation in our countries, how - by any logic - can you then assume that influences from our countries (which because of our greater powers are so much more pervasive) do not affect Islamic societies in the same way?
Are you assuming that it is only Islamic principles that stand in the way of progress? Is Malaysia not a primarily Islamic country? How about Indonesia (pre-1997)? Are all Christian nations more democratic than Islamic ones?
It’s a lot more complicated. Why not take into account the fact that democracy in most instances where it has appeared has done so with rising prosperity, an empowered working class/peasantry, and an enlightened leadership. These things are as absent in many Christian nations as they are in Islamic ones, and so is democracy. But not always, Senegal is one of AFrica’s most well-renowned democracies, yet it also extremely poor, undeveloped, and Islamic. Zimbabwe is one of the most repressed, increasingly poor, and Christian. Trade barriers imposed by European and North American nations are as influential upon a nation’s ability to develop (that means economically, politically and socially) as are the religions of that country. And no fundamentalist is powerful enough to impose and sustain a trade barrier (George Bush jokes not withstanding…).
You cannot generalise about any objective relationship between the principles upheld by the culture of a country and its societal progress. It’s about so much more than that, and it’s about external influences as much as internal ones. Only when we recognise that can we actually begin to change things. This is what I am saying.
John 06.09.05 at 8:28 pm
You’ve described a lot of (alleged) harms done by the West to Islam.
Have there been any positive influences by Western civilization on the Islamic world?
Mike 06.10.05 at 3:42 pm
When you say ‘…done by the West to Islam’, are you conscious of the connotations of that? I’m talking about the damage done to the societal structures of countries where Islam is predominant. That certain changes within Islam have occured in reaction to that, I don’t take as being a harm directly to Islam.
Anyway, yes, of course there have been positive influences. Don’t assume that i’m a tree-hugging hippy that thinks modern civilisation has destroyed our traditional values. That’s codswallop. Traditional values are far too romanticised about these days, and if you’re familiar with the nature of a lot of my previous posts, i’m a big advocate of modernism and its benefits. That’s not to say however, that i’m so blinded by its wonders that I fail to recognise its shortcomings.
Without western developments, its unlikely that middle-eastern countries would have developed improvements in basic living standards as they have. Although the state of the developing world is by no means perfect, it’s still a lot better than it was even 50 years ago. The problems inherent in underdeveloped societies lie around the fact while the technologies developed in the west are available, as are modern livelihood systems, modern education etc., people cannot access them. This is a structural fault that is largely to be blamed on the failings of ‘The Anglo-Saxon Model’.
I’m not saying European societial structures have done irrevocable damage to the wonderful, airy, fluffy traditionalism of non-European societies. I’m saying that they haven’t done enough to bring other societies into this modern realm and to share with them the fruits of our development. My criticism of the current wave of American fundamentalism is that it entirely negates the positive aspects of our post-feudal enlightenments, and instead drags an invented conflict into the arena by believing that problems can be solved by in fact reverting to feudal ideas of the I and the Other.
Anonymous 06.10.05 at 8:34 pm
I’m saying that they haven’t done enough to bring other societies into this modern realm and to share with them the fruits of our development.
So, then the problem isn’t that the West has interfered in Islamic cultural/political/economic development, but that it hasn’t interfered enough?
John 06.11.05 at 1:04 am
Where’d my comment go? Well, I’ll type it again.
I’m saying that they haven’t done enough to bring other societies into this modern realm and to share with them the fruits of our development.
So your criticism of the West isn’t that it has interfered in the Islamic world’s natural development, but that it hasn’t interfered enough?
Mike 06.13.05 at 10:52 am
Why do you automatically jump to the word ‘interfered’? That seems to be the problem, you’re always looking for a negative.
What i’m saying is that, yes, the West hasn’t done enough to help. Not interfered, however - SHARED. Rather than sharing properly, we’ve interfered badly.
I’ve got no qualms with saying that without Western development, a lot of the world would still be very much in the fuedal stage. However, what Europe and North America has done is actively put up barriers to prevent other regions from sharing in our prosperity. This is the wrong thing to do. By any account.
Chris Edwards 06.22.05 at 9:20 pm
The way liberals behave these days it seems fair comment, my theory is that since the demise of communism where have they gone? infiltrated the old moderate parties, especially the liberals it seems sad the liberals let this happen,