You are massively ill-informed about right-wing fundamentalist Christianity if you think that Jews are the only ones still taking “Deuteronomy and other portions of the Old Testament” seriously.
Consequently, Judaism as a global faith is becoming more fundamentalist and extremist.
But to return to the Chicken-Little OP and the debunking of its primary claim:
So, your hysteria about the SPLC’s allegedly “jumping the shark” by “placing” two activists “on their list of hate groups”, has apparently dwindled in the face of factual rebuttal to grumbling about the expansion of the SPLC’s activities beyond the scope of their original name. :rolleyes:
Indeed, publishing a Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists" has absolutely no direct bearing on US Southern poverty law. If you want to Pit the SPLC for the undeniable fact of having expanded their human rights mission beyond Southern poverty law, you’ve got 'em over a barrel.
However, what the SPLC does is entirely in line with their stated mission:
:dubious: Still whining about the SPLC’s “mission creep” and “jumping the shark”? In fact, the SPLC is still going strong in principled and effective opposition to all forms of hatemongering and injustics, including the very widespread hatemongering and injustice against Muslims.
Here, by the way, are the actual statements that the hysterical Islamophobe Sam Harris appears to have twisted (if your OP’s description of his remarks is accurate) into the claim that SPLC “placed” Ali and Nawaz “on their list of hate groups”:
How low ignorant and credulous Islamophobes will stoop to misrepresent and distort reasonable criticism of ideological extremists.
Ignorant idiots who use a few second-hand Islamophobic hissy fits by Sam Harris as an excuse to wank-whine about the SPLC being * “hypocritical”* and “taken over” by “extremists” and having “fallen” and “lost all sense of perspective”—and who would faint in a terrified heap of soiled underwear if they ever had to encounter even a tenth of the death threats and other hate and intimidation that the SPLC and its plaintiffs deal with daily—can shove their pearl-clutching tut-tuttery right up their stupid asses.
My bad–I worded that poorly. I didn’t mean only ultra-Orthodox Jews take *any *portion of the Old Testament seriously. I meant there are parts of the OT that involve laws handed down from YHWH specifically concerning war and conquest that are ignored by all but ultra-Orthodox Jews. The most disturbing example is the genocide prescribed in Deuteronomy 20 for “the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance” (i.e., the West Bank and even a good chunk of present-day Jordan):
If there are fundamentalist Christians who care about this passage and others like it, I’m not aware of it–but maybe you have some evidence for this that I haven’t seen, in which case please share it by all means. What is patently obvious to me is that these kinds of commandments absolutely have a strong impact on the way ultra-Orthodox Israelis think about their military and foreign policy regarding their immediate neighbors. And while they obviously feel dissuaded by domestic and international political pressure from actually carrying out genocide against Arabs in Biblical Israel, I have no doubt that they are itching to do it, and that they have no compunctions about the kinds of indiscriminate killing of civilians that the IDF is notorious for.
Okay, I’m convinced–not that I was ever putting up much of a fight on this front. I have been involved in online debates where I started out beefing with Islam, and there were hardline Jewish right wingers cheering me on…until I turned to them and started blasting them for the hate literature that is central to their ideology.
FYI, a lot of people don’t think about it, but the phrase “over a barrel” is kinda rapey.
Going after a Deep South neo-Confederate douchebag geezer like Moore hardly strikes me as being out of their traditional wheelhouse, despite your citing it as evidence of the broadening of their mission. But it does raise this question: if “vigorous defense of LGBT rights against violence and repression” is a key aspect of their contemporary mission, there’s a lot of defending needed on that front in the Muslim world. Are they doing any of it?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that question, and if you can show me examples of their doing so, I’ll be impressed (remember, I wasn’t lying or exaggerating when I said I had great respect for this group for many years). Until I see evidence to this effect (and I’m talking about real efforts, not just pro forma statements), I’m going to suspect they tend to concern themselves with conservative white Christians who preach and practice oppression of gays and lesbians. Which is fine as far as it goes, but when it occurs at the same time as their producing lists like the one that is the subject of this thread, it suggests a huge double standard.
And although I appreciate that (unlike some others who are coming at me in this thread) you are intelligent, articulate, and able to marshal evidence to support well-constructed arguments, you too seem to be guilty of this same double standard or blind spot. You’re clearly keenly aware of the increasing percentage of “fundamentalist and extremist” elements within Judaism, but you fail to acknowledge that even when the ultra-Orthodox (thanks to the way they breed like rabbits and expect taxpayers to foot the bill for their children, while the men pray and read all day and the women stay barefoot and pregnant) rise to double the proportion they are now, there will still be a far greater proportion of Jews who are genuinely progressive and tolerant than there can be found among the Muslim population.
Similarly, early in your post you raise the specter of “right-wing fundamentalist Christianity”, and later on specifically namecheck the odious Roy Moore. But a majority of all Christians say homosexuality should be accepted by society, and even among evangelical Protestants and Mormons, the figure is a not-insignificant 36%. You won’t find anything close to this in the Muslim world, yet I don’t see you condemning them. Just the opposite, in fact. The double standard is clear.
And again, if Islam was something like Mormonism, a predominantly white religion (although they are working hard to change that with all the missionaries they send around the world), I have no doubt you’d be much harder on them. You defend them largely because of the color of their skin and their non-Western geopolitical position, not because their actual culture or religious ideology is defensible by the standards you apply to Western religiosity.
Sorry, but the sole Jewish nation on Earth does not apply Biblical law to their criminal code. Homosexuality, pre-martial sex, atheism, converting to other religions, even burning a Torah, etc. are legal in the nation that majority professes Judaism. Can’t say the same for Muslim majority countries. Well burning a Torah in an Islam country might be but burn a Koran, off with your head (very literally).
I’d argue with SlackerInc about Israel, but it just more seems like he’s trying to be “balanced” and avoid being called a “neo-con.”
But Islam is savagery. I respect the great religions of the world, like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahaism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. Islam is not among the great ones, and is never among them. Ever.
Wait, do Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have full Israeli citizenship now? Amazing that I missed this stunning development, but if so, you are right: Israel is no longer an apartheid state.
That’s exactly the essential premise of major “Christian Zionist” groups such as Christians United for Israel: namely, the Jews are entitled to all of Judaea and Samaria because God gave it to them, so they are going to take it back. (Of course, the CZ’s have an ultimate eschatology of tribulation/conversion that most Israelis would not be on board with, but they see eye to eye with Jewish fundamentalists in supporting Jewish sovereignty over the whole of the historic region.)
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
FYI, a lot of people don’t think about it, but the phrase “over a barrel” is kinda rapey.
However, I try not to use expressions that other people find offensive or disturbing (unless I’m actively attempting to insult them in a Pit context, natch), so I apologize for the mention of “over a barrel” and will do my best to remember to avoid it henceforth.
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
But it does raise this question: if “vigorous defense of LGBT rights against violence and repression” is a key aspect of their contemporary mission, there’s a lot of defending needed on that front in the Muslim world. Are they doing any of it?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that question
[/quote]
:dubious: I think the problem is that you just know hardly anything about the SPLC. No, as a specifically US-based anti-hate organization, the SPLC does not operate in “the Muslim world” in the sense of Muslim-majority countries. A brief look at their webpage makes it quite clear that their mission is confined to US society:
And obviously, within US society, open bigotry and hatred directed at Muslims is a much bigger problem than open bigotry and hatred directed by Muslims at other groups. (Yes, we definitely have a problem with covert bigotry and hatred leading to, e.g., occasional Islamist-extremist terrorist attacks. But the SPLC is not an undercover spy ring: they deal with forms of bigotry and hatred that are openly promoted in our society.)
The one notable exception to this trend is the Nation of Islam (to the extent that they even count as “Muslim” per se, with their idiosyncratic theology). And as my cite clearly showed, the SPLC does indeed call out the Nation of Islam as a hate group.
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
Until I see evidence to this effect (and I’m talking about real efforts, not just pro forma statements), I’m going to suspect they tend to concern themselves with conservative white Christians who preach and practice oppression of gays and lesbians. Which is fine as far as it goes, but when it occurs at the same time as their producing lists like the one that is the subject of this thread, it suggests a huge double standard.
[/quote]
What it actually “suggests”, as I noted, is simply that the SPLC’s activities are and always have been specific to hate groups and extremism within the US. (It also suggests that perhaps you can’t fucking read, as you seem to have remained completely oblivious of the SPLC’s unambiguous condemnation of the decidedly non-white and non-Christian Nation of Islam.)
It’s not a “double standard” that the SPLC doesn’t monitor Islamist-extremist groups in Muslim-majority countries, any more than it’s a “double standard” that they don’t monitor Hindutva-extremist hate groups in India.
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
You’re clearly keenly aware of the increasing percentage of “fundamentalist and extremist” elements within Judaism, but you fail to acknowledge that even when the ultra-Orthodox […] rise to double the proportion they are now, there will still be a far greater proportion of Jews who are genuinely progressive and tolerant than there can be found among the Muslim population.
[/quote]
I have no problem at all acknowledging that worldwide, a higher proportion of Jewish communities than Muslim ones are progressive/tolerant/secular: it’s a well-known fact, especially in our own strongly-Islamophobic culture in the US. There’s no “double standard” in my not repeating that well-known fact whenever I happen to mention another fact that’s much less well known (such as the fact that there are actually significantly more than a “few” ultra-Orthodox Jews).
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
Similarly, early in your post you raise the specter of “right-wing fundamentalist Christianity”, and later on specifically namecheck the odious Roy Moore. But a majority of all Christians say homosexuality should be accepted by society, and even among evangelical Protestants and Mormons, the figure is a not-insignificant 36%. You won’t find anything close to this in the Muslim world, yet I don’t see you condemning them.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Dude, if you wanted a thread on the theme of “Let’s compare social attitudes toward LGBT rights and other modern secular values among religious communities worldwide”, you should have written a different OP.
The OP you actually wrote was a poorly substantiated half-assed rant about the SPLC somehow having lapsed from its former principled glory by criticizing anti-Muslim extremists. I wrote a response making the points that in fact, criticizing anti-Muslim extremists is a perfectly valid part of the SPLC’s mission, and that it hasn’t in any way interfered with the SPLC’s ongoing critiques of more old-fashioned forms of American hatred and bigotry (which I illustrated by the references to the SPLC’s Roy Moore and Nation of Islam links).
In short, you said some ill-informed shit about Jewish demographics and about the SPLC, and I corrected your errors. Stop whining that it’s a “double standard” because I didn’t also throw in some gratuitous tangential remarks about comparative levels of oppression and bigotry in various religious communities worldwide. Like I said, if you want to discuss that subject, then fucking well start a thread on it.
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
And again, if Islam was something like Mormonism, a predominantly white religion (although they are working hard to change that with all the missionaries they send around the world), I have no doubt you’d be much harder on them. You defend them largely because of the color of their skin and their non-Western geopolitical position, not because their actual culture or religious ideology is defensible by the standards you apply to Western religiosity.
[/QUOTE]
Again, stop trying to hijack the discussion away from the silly errors of your own OP onto made-up accusations of hypocrisy. I do not in the least “defend” bigotry or intolerance on the part of Muslims, any more than I would on the part of practitioners of any other religion.
But I don’t defend bigotry or intolerance directed at Muslims either. Which is why I think it’s a good thing that the SPLC publicly criticizes well-known anti-Muslim extremists.
Once again, Hirsi Ali is actually described by the SPLC as an “anti-Muslim extremist”, not as a “hate group”. The false allegation that SPLC put Hirsi Ali on their list of “hate groups” is apparently owing either to Sam Harris not being able to read or SlackerInc not being able to hear, since the OP claimed to derive that “information” from Harris’s podcast.
Whatever you may think of Hirsi Ali’s “hatefulness” or lack thereof, I think we can all agree that she’s an anti-Muslim extremist: namely, her anti-Muslim views are extreme.
As for your previous “point”:
Nobody here claimed they did, AFAICT. How the hell did you manage to get from my factually correct claim that ultra-orthodox are a significant and growing minority among both US and Israeli Jews to the completely illusory allegation that the Israeli state applies Biblical law to their criminal code? Certainly not from anything I actually said.
Bullshit. I wrote two short paragraphs about ultra-orthodox Jewish demographics, completely devoid of any reference to “radical Islamic terrorists and Islamists”. After that, I explicitly moved on to a different topic responding to a different quote from SlackerInc.
If you thought any of that constituted any kind of a claim that the Israeli state applies Biblical law to their criminal code, then you, like Sam Harris, apparently simply can’t read.
Simmer down, Kimstu. I had not read your post on the Nation of Islam. Looks like you posted it while I was composing mine. So, good for them. And a definite debating point for you. As is the one about the SPLC confining itself to Americans. Except…that Nawaz is British. So what is that about?
Which reminds me: Derek, your cites made a big impact on me, although not in the way you intended. That’s pretty fucking gross that Ayaan so highly praised Bibi (and Kissinger, ugh). You have convinced me to stop defending her.
But the question posed in the Atlantic article I linked in my OP stands: WTF, why is Nawaz on the list? All the more puzzling since he is British.
And Derek, whenever you’re ready, I still want to hear you defend your assertion that Israel is a democracy rather than an apartheid state.
Okay, this one was both linked and quoted in a post I know you did already read:
In other words, these extremists are fostering anti-Muslim bigotry in America, so SPLC and their co-authors wrote this “field guide” to take a closer look at the sources.
Remember, the SPLC monitors hate groups only within the US, but that doesn’t mean that they never mention anybody who isn’t in the US. (Contrary to what Sam Harris apparently believes, Maajid Nawaz is not a “hate group” and is not monitored by the SPLC as such.) For example, note the call-out of foreign dictators in the above-cited Nation of Islam condemnation:
Apparently for being an unreliable con artist, as in the description I cited above?
The Palestinians claim to seek a separate nation and society, which implies they neither seek or want a voice in Israeli Knesset. Thus failing to give it to them is OK. Blacks did seek it in South Africa until apartheid ended. Also, the defining feature of Apartheid SA was that only people of certain races/ethnic groups could sit in parliament and vote on laws, like the ones that instituted apartheid. Israel has never had such a thing nor currently does.
Maybe, Slacker, you should think why an opponent of Radical Islam, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, supports Israel, as do most other anti-Islamists, like Bill Maher, etc., and join the party.
All I can say to that is that clearly MMV.[/qyuote]
Of course you are the idiot who united the conservative and the liberal in their contempt for your idiot and badly informed
Funny.
Of course since you are the person who got the basic fundamental facts wrong, it is not a suprrise.
I have of course brought the actual regard to the numbers, I was the person who bothered to actually look up what the supposed list was and I provided the actual direct links.
Nothing much to support = Slacker : I am butt hurt about being called out again and again for being wrong on the facts many times, for my habit of making the sweeping assertions about things I know little about and getting fact after fact utterly wrong because I do not read and I am full of shit.
Bold and italics absent from SPLC original, but added by Hastie.
So she picks up:
No, they never accused her of any such thing. They repeated her claim without comment.
If they were trying to convey an implication, it was probably that there’s obviously no way to verify or falsify such a claim, but that they’ve found other claims she’s made to be unreliable. But even that’s my reading of it. The fact is, they stated her claim without comment, and without any emphasis on the ‘says.’ That was blatantly added by Hastie.
Except, um, the ‘regressive left’ just called it ‘mutilation.’ It’s right there in the quote.
(Not to mention, I’ve read plenty of comment about such practices on left-leaning sources over the years. ‘Mutilation’ is the term overwhelmingly used, IME, and it’s regarded by said lefties as a horrific practice that has no place in a civilized world.)
I stopped reading there. It took just two statements (and one doctored quote) for Hastie to destroy her own credibility.
That’s exactly the essential premise of major “Christian Zionist” groups such as Christians United for Israel: namely, the Jews are entitled to all of Judaea and Samaria because God gave it to them, so they are going to take it back. (Of course, the CZ’s have an ultimate eschatology of tribulation/conversion that most Israelis would not be on board with, but they see eye to eye with Jewish fundamentalists in supporting Jewish sovereignty over the whole of the historic region.)