And there we have it, straight from someone else’s mouth.
I don’t. The reason he wants the Christian community to stop taking on the secular world is because he believes that the secular world is hopelessly corrupt, and so that any Christian involvment in that world would just corrupt Christians.
In his other columns, he details the corruption of the secular world.
I have nothing more to add except to say that yes, I do like to wear women’s undergarments.
december: Unfortunately, [some] Islamic kids ARE learning to hate us […] On this one point, Cal Thomas is supported by Thomas [Friedman] of the NY Times.
Actually, based on the piece you cited, even that is an exaggeration. One Pakistani kid was quoted, and he said the following: “Most likely the attack came from Americans inside America. I am pleased that America has had to face pain, because the rest of the world has tasted its pain.” And his view of Americans generally? “They are unbelievers and do not like to befriend Muslims and they want to dominate the world with their power.”
In other words, he thinks that Americans are opposed to Islam and oppress other people unjustly, so Americans deserve to experience some suffering too (moreover, the terrorist attacks were committed by Americans themselves). Obviously, this kid is seriously misinformed about some issues and excessively pessimistic about American attitudes toward the rest of the world, particularly Muslims (though he’s not entirely wrong on all counts, IMHO).
But that is not quite the same thing as literally hating Americans. Nowhere in that piece is there any indication that the kids are being taught that Americans are all evil and must be eternally hated and attacked, etc. etc. etc. I’m sure that there are some extremists in just about every Muslim country who are explicitly preaching violent hatred (although we shouldn’t sloppily ascribe such attitudes to “the Pakistanis”, “the Egyptians”, “the Saudis”, “the Palestinians” in general, since most Muslims in those countries do not hold such aggressive views). But AFAICT, that phenomenon is not what’s being described in Friedman’s article.
As for Thomas, well, if the only source for American views of Islam accessible to non-American Muslims were Cal Thomas, you could hardly blame them for being extremely pessimistic on the subject! Another appalling quote from the article mentioned in the OP:
What facile, distorted, prejudiced bullshit! As though most Muslims really subscribe to the notion that dying in a holy war is what a good Muslim is “supposed” to do. As though there haven’t also been legions of Christians who were themselves convinced that dying in a holy war was what a good Christian was “supposed” to do. Typical glib and shallow religious chauvinism, from the only Attorney General we’ve got. (Or do you think there’s a chance that Thomas made that quote up? I sure hope so.)
[hijack]
Kimstu may be correct that Thomas Friedman didn’t support his conclusion adequately. However, he said that his conclusion applied to “this whole region of northwest Pakistan”
As I said, other articles I’ve read have described severe, government-supported anti-American propaganda in a number of Middle-Eastern countries.
tomndebb, I don’t make this statement to demonize anyone. I’m merely pointing out a problem, which needs to be addressed, and hopefully will be addressed.[/hijack]
Getting back to the OP, I agree that many of Thomas’s statements are idiotic and smack of religious fundmentalism.
december: Kimstu may be correct that Thomas Friedman didn’t support his conclusion adequately.
I apologize for my lack of clarity: what I meant to convey is that Thomas Friedman’s article does not adequately support your conclusion that “Islamic kids are learning to hate us.” Prejudiced, distorted anti-American propaganda in Muslim countries is indeed a serious problem, but I do not think we should react to it with distortions and exaggerations of our own, e.g., labels like “teaching hatred”. I don’t think we serve the cause of truth very well by using such labels to characterize other people’s distortions of the truth.
For example, while I consider, as I said, that Thomas’s remarks about Muslims and Islam were facile, shallow, distorted religious chauvinism, I would not consider it legitimate to conclude that therefore the Christians that Thomas addressed are “learning to hate Muslims” or being taught by him to do so. Similarly, I don’t think it’s correct for you to conclude that Friedman’s article implies that some Pakistani Muslims are “learning to hate” Americans. They are being given some distorted, prejudiced misinformation about Americans, but that’s not the same thing, and Friedman didn’t say it was.
I don’t get the distinction you are drawing. Most or all people who hate other groups of people believe that they do so because the other group consists of evil people out to harm them. Would you say that kids in Nazi Germany were not being tought to hate the Jews? That they were merely “seriously misinformed about some issue and excessively pessimistic about” the role of Jews in controlling the world’s banking, and their harmful intentions towards the world’s Gentiles? How about a white kid in the US being tought that Blacks are lazy criminals? Or that Muslims are terrorists? Seems to me that these are all equivalent.
IzzyR: Seems to me that these are all equivalent.
I think we need to make distinctions more carefully than that. I don’t agree that having distorted or prejudiced ideas about another group of people necessarily equals “hating” them, although I agree that the two often go together. But we should not lump them together automatically. Did you ever have seriously distorted or prejudiced ideas about a different group of people and their attitudes towards your own group? If so, would you have described yourself as “hating” those people? I think lots of us would say “yes” to the first question but “no” to the second, and I don’t think we should blur that distinction by lumping all xenophobic reactions together in one undifferentiated mass and labeling it “hatred”.
Kimstu, I don’t disagree with your latest post. But I do think that while the distinction you make is a valid one, it can be hard to discern, and is not necessarily relevant. I would be inclined to think of someone who thinks that “all Blacks are dumb but are to be pitied and helped live out their lives in accordance with their inferior status” as someone who has a bigoted and seriously distorted view but is not a hater. OTOH, someone who is pleased at the deaths of 5,000 randomly selected Americans because of the evil that they cause is more likely a hater. More importantly, even if he’s not, it makes little difference with regards to the concerns of Cal Thomas and Thomas Freidman.
IzzyR: More importantly, even if he’s not, it makes little difference with regards to the concerns of Cal Thomas and Thomas Freidman.
Right. That’s exactly what I’m objecting to. We should not use extremely loaded terms like “hate” loosely or lightly, because they just broaden and deepen the chasm of mutual xenophobia. The fact that the distinction between prejudice and hatred “makes little difference with regards to the concerns” of an influential public figure like Thomas is, IMHO, a real cause for concern. If he doesn’t consider it important to be careful and accurate in discussing Islam or the attitudes of Muslims, then he’s just going to increase the existing glut of prejudice and misinformation.
Well I disagree with that. I should also add that the distinction makes “makes little difference with regards to the concerns” of IzzyR, though he is not at this time an “influential public figure like Thomas”.
If Muslim children all over the world are being tought that killing people like me is a great idea, I am not much concerned if they feel an emotional hatred of me or if they merely believe mistakenly that they must do it.
IzzyR: If Muslim children all over the world are being tought that killing people like me is a great idea, I am not much concerned if they feel an emotional hatred of me or if they merely believe mistakenly that they must do it. [Emphasis mine]
Understandable, but that is not what the Friedman article said! The article quoted one Pakistani boy as saying that he thinks the terrorist attacks on America were committed by Americans, and that he thinks it’s a good thing for Americans to know from this experience what the sort of pain that they’ve caused to other peoples really feels like. While I deplore the ignorance and callousness in such an attitude, it is not at all the same as “Muslim children all over the world being taught that killing people like [you] is such a great idea”! Good heavens, if we Doper Americans, with our high levels of education and respect for exact knowledge and critical thinking, can’t resist the temptation to exaggerate and obfuscate about cultural antagonisms, how on earth can we ever expect less fortunate people to do so?
Sorry, I should have said “Americans being killed”. It was not an attempt on my part to “exaggerate and obfuscate” - I was unclear - I don’t think this destinction matters a whole lot either. Basically he likes, and would quite conceivably support, the killings of Americans, by whoever.
While on the subject, your own statement “that he thinks it’s a good thing for Americans to know from this experience what the sort of pain that they’ve caused to other peoples really feels like” does not accurately reflect what the kid said. What he really said what “I am pleased that America has had to face pain, because the rest of the world has tasted its pain” - the rest is your interpretation, of which I am skeptical. Most likely he meant something along the lines of “you did these things to everyone else - now it’s happening to you. Ha!”
Thanks for the correction, with which I agree. But your own two readings of the quote are also somewhat inconsistent:
*Basically he likes, and would quite conceivably support, the killings of Americans, by whoever. […]
Most likely he meant something along the lines of “you did these things to everyone else - now it’s happening to you. Ha!” *
I think those two remarks are quite different, and the first one (especially with its hypothetical “would quite conceivably support”) is exaggerated. If you think these distinctions aren’t significant, fine, that’s up to you. But as I said before, I think that being insufficiently careful about such distinctions, especially in times like these, is just a recipe for creating more prejudice and misunderstanding.
I don’t understand this. He is happy because those who (he believes to have) made others suffer are now suffering themselves. He therefore likes (or is “pleased” by) this suffering.
And I don’t think it is much of a stretch to suggest that someone who is pleased by something might support it. What distinction are you drawing? Is it that he feels good emotionally but considers it morally wrong? Possible, but don’t be too confident.
Kimstu, we need to separate what Friedman said from what Friedman [proved. You’re saying that Friedman’s proof consisted of only one child’s statements. That may be a valid point. However, what Friedman said (at least implicitly) is that this child is typical of that entire region of northern Pakistan. Do you have any knowledge that would contradict Friedman’s assertion? If no, what’s your point?
As far as the definition of “hate” goes, I’m with Izzy. Try this example. Suppose some disaster killed 5,000 African Americans. If someone said they were pleased, because 5,000 Black people had been killed, would you not classify him as a “hater”? I sure hope you would!
Cal Thomas vouches for the patritism of anti-war activists!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20011115.shtml
Not to pile on, december, but you’re rubbing against a little pet peeve of mine–not all Middle Eastern countries are Arab countries! Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt are, but Iran and Pakistan are not. I just point this out because I hear a lot of Americans talk about “Arab countries,” “the Middle East” and “the Muslim world” as if they were all the same, and this betrays an ignorance of the region.
Well, here’s an article that shows how some Islamic kids are learning to hate. It doesn’t mention Americans specifically, but I have no doubt that Americans rank right up there with Jews under the term “infidels.”
From today’s Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50740-2001Nov18.html )
Yeah, I wonder, too what the results of such indoctrination will be when these kids grow up.
Now I see in his latest column he is saying that the entire religion of Islam is bent on the destruction of Christianity and Judaism. I just about burst a blood vessel.