Saturday, March 04, 2006

Weird Violence at UNC--Apparently Islam-Related

You've probably heard about this (story from the Daily Tar Heel). An Iranian student (or graduate--not clear which) drove a jeep through "the Pit," a sort of gathering place more-or-less in the middle of campus, injuring several people. The DTH reports that UNC DPS caught him soon thereafter.

See, now, the Pit has always been a magnet for religious crazies...tho usually of the Christian fundamentalist variety. When I was there it was common to see "Pit preachers" out there with some frequency, telling us all that we were sinners and sodomites (correct!) and, consquently, going to hell (incorrect). One of them was always ranting about the "comm'inists, the feminists and the HO MO SEK'SHULS!" We just ignored them or made fun of them. If we were bored we'd actually argue with them and humiliate them.

Harder to do that with folks who try to kill you with a jeep.

Anyway, yet a another little bit of evidence that our domestic religious crazies are not, as a rule, as crazy as Islamic religious crazies. I mean, I prefer no religious crazies at all, of course...but if I get a choice, I prefer our mostly domesticated variety that mostly just say stupid things to the feral variety that actually, you know, try to kill you.

17 Comments:

Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

I'm preferring to see this as an isolated incident, like the guy who shot up the LA airport or whatever the DC sniper was about.

I'm hoping that America's Muslims see themselves as part of us, and that's why we haven't had any more terrorist attacks, because we don't bottle up our Muslims in ghettoes like Europe does, and we haven't created a Fifth Column.

I hope.

(And thanks for the almost-kind words about Christian loonies. I do think taking life is a useful dividing line.)

9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

O.k., the fundie Christian crazies are less rabid than the Islamists, but the margin is not that great.

Some murderous Christian lunatics, in no particular order:
* Eric Rudolph
* the KKK
* Christian Identity
* Matthew Hale
* Tim McVeigh
* various "pro-life" assassins
* Pat Robertson (no murders yet!)

Sure, sane Christians reject these idiots. Sometimes they even say so publicly, though not nearly as often as we ask the mullahs and imams to reject their loonies. (If you ask me, they still don't do it enough, though.)

(Note: Above is not a response to TVD, just coincidental timing. But murder is a useful dividing line.)

9:38 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

More hit-and-run hate from the Lovable Liberal. The margin is very great.

Check your slanders before you commit them, LL, especially about McVeigh, who did not kill in the name of Christianity and whose link with it defies any real connection.

There are always isolated incidents. By your twisted logic, environmentalists are responsible for the Unabomber. I try to be polite, but there's nothing in my religion that requires me to suffer fools gladly.

10:54 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Tom's totally right about McVeigh, LL.

On the other hand, LL's clearly right about the KKK.

Christianity and Islam have both produced prodigious amounts of evil and suffering...we've all got to admit that. But Christianity seems to have calmed down a good bit in the last couple hundred years.

Islam...not so much.

7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey you guys,

In terms of comparing one society's religious fundamentalists against anothers, I saved this comment from a poster at another site that I considered a good starting point for discussion of similarities and differences:

"I did make an analogy between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. The analogy clearly involved ONLY their resistance to secular moral reasoning and secular moral philosophies. I said secular moral reasoning sounds to them like just another dogma ("secular humanism"), or like a completely foreign language, rather than a shared framework of rules and standards within which any of us can appeal to any other person.

No analogy was made to their propensity to violence. If everything lined up one-to-one in an analogy, it wouldn't be an "analogy," it would be a case of self-identity. Of course there are disanalogous elements. They differ on their view of the Propethical status of Muhammed and the divinity of Jesus, they differ on their preference for beards, they differ on eating pork, etc. Pointing out these irrelevant difference does not falsify the analogy I made. Your straw man argument about terrorism is equally fallacious."

The context was that the commenter to whom this person was responding attempted to characterize his argument as a drawing of equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists, regardless of the fact that there may be differences in the nature and prevalence of acts they each commit based on their interpretation of their faith.

This is a whole lot more complicated than most punditizing blowhards like to suggest, and there are geographical and societal differences that should come into play, as Tom's first comment alludes to.

2:15 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

There is no equivalence, only "religion" in common. The intent of the rhetorical violence of these comparisons is clear: to play the Hitler Card, argumentum ad Nazium, to equate Christians with doers of unspeakable violence, based on surface similarities.

Unlike Islam, Christianity is not a politics. The more apt equivalency is between the bin Ladenists and murderous Communist revolutionaries like Che Guevara and the Baader Meinhofs, not to mention the states like the USSR whose totalitarianism was quite secular, atheist, and indeed anti-theistic.

3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm impressed with your mind-reading abilities...

But seriously, why do you believe Islam is 'a politics'? And if so, why would you hope "that America's Muslims see themselves as part of us", as you stated above?

If it is 'a politics', like your examples intended to evoke a visceral reaction, why would you even think there is hope for such support? Or if there was, that would make them not adherents of real *Islam*, right? Or is it just 'a politics' that is compatible with our society?

6:58 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Easy there, dhimma. Until you know your din from your muzdhab, we don't have anything to talk about.

(And don't listen to jahili like Ibn Rushd. They'll just confuse you.)

1:17 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Now, boys, we're all *kafir* here...

Anyway, LC's comment seems pretty close to the mark, and less objectionable from the X'ian perspective than you seen to think, Tom. He's just pointing out that both X'ians and Muslims have to reject ordinary moral reasoning that appeals only to reason and experience in favor--at least in some cases--of special revelation that is not available to non-believers.

As for violence--well, just because the communists provide one good analogy doesn't mean that the KKK and medieval X'ianity don't provide other good analogies...

Maybe I'm not getting your point.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did Tim McVeigh worship? What god did he pray to? Doesn't that make him Christian? Isn't that how he identified himself?

Did he have Christian Identity connections? Did those connections encourage or motivate his heinous act?

Please note that despite TVD's unwarranted characterization of my posting as hit-and-run hate, I did not tar all Christians with the acts of a few. I said in black and white, sane Christians reject these idiots. I guess that defensive Christians such as TVD don't think rejection is enough and must deny these idiots.

Please note also a typical rhetorical tactic of TVD's. He attacked my "hate" based on just one of my examples and conspicuously neglected to deal with the rest.

For TVD, my list, even omitting McVeigh arguendo, are isolated incidents. This is the solace that he grants himself that Christianity is different, that its murderous fanatics do not falsify its claims to be a religion of peace. The difference may well be that TVD actually knows and trusts many Christians who are good exemplars of peace.

Generalizations are possible, but putting all Muslims into a single derogatory category ('adherents of a violent religious politics') is really an appeal to prejudice. Just as putting all Christians into a single derogatory category would be - if anyone in this discussion were doing it.

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, who was Tim McVeigh avenging by killing 168 in the Murrah Federal Building? What was their religion?

3:45 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

No, you're not, WS, and it's frustrating. For instance, the KKK is to Christianity as Nation of Islam is to Islam. As in, not. We're just not speaking the same language.

Further, to maintain that Christian political theory is founded on superstition alone and that modern secularism is the heir to all reason from Aristotle forward is not accurate. (Plato we shall leave for special pleading.) You'll find John Locke's moral and political vocabulary closer to Aquinas' natural law than to modernist philosophy. You will find Christianity philosophically and historically in easier accomodation with the Enlightenment and the Founding principles, and frankly, vice-versa. It is in post-Enlightenment thought where the true radicalism exists.

In other words, theories of natural law do not depend on the Bible, which is why I continually point out that the Dalai Lama is also a natural law theorist, his philosophy not dependent on any holy book, but on reason alone.

Au contraire, mon ami: Christian thought does not reject ordinary moral reasoning. The Bible is nowhere near comprehensive enough to get by without it. Neither is it particularly political, especially the Christian part.

To return to your comment, one could certainly look at the Spanish Inquisition as a red flag on Christianity; however, there is zero scriptural basis for it, and very little in natural law.

Still, Thomas reluctantly gave his assent to it (shame on him). If such a reasonable man could fall into such error, what can we expect from Islam, where capital punishment for apostasy has firm grounding in the Hadith, the Muslim equivalent of the Talmud (both of which are considered authoritative in their respective traditions).

Now it seems I'm coming off as some hardass on Islam, but that is not the case. I hope for a reform, and a liberalization. In fact, it's the only way we will avoid a global war. However, the specifics of Islam, that it is not seen (and does not offer itself) merely as a religion (muzdhab), but as a self-contained Tao (din), make liberalization far more difficult, especially in accomodation with Western secularism, which seeks to pop Islam into its conceptual pigeonhole as mere religion.

In fact, the entire difficulty we're having with meaningful discussion is in my view one of pigeonholing and therefore caricature: each tradition has its specifics and self-conception, which cannot be ignored and thrown into one amorphous soup.

I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything and besides the constant linking has proved quite personally unrewarding. I can only put my teasers out there hoping folks will some homework on Islam (and perhaps Christianity while they're at it) so that they can understand them as they understand themselves.

For Islam, it is best to read sites written by Muslims for Muslims, I think. Please permit me I recommend googling "Islam comprehensive system" as a start.

4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, that may all be true, but it can hardly be said that there are no sanctionings of violence in the Bible. Do you disagree?

Are these passages not accurate?:

http://www.noreligion.ca/readEssay.php?eid=5#part2

Is that a fair characterization of Christianity and Christians in general? Or Jews? Of course not. And that's exactly the point.

I don't consider it fair for me to define another's faith for him. All one need do is count the number of different sects that call themselves *Christian* to see that that's an unfair arrogation of judgment.

Rather, I see rigidity and literalism as the enemies of religion's compatibility with modern society. There is nothing unique to any faith that renders it more or less compatible with the principles of an open society except the overly literal and rigid interpretation of its tenets.

The series about this guy shows that he obviously has some complex balancing to do, but based on his following in the Muslim community, he is both learned and devout. He also clearly repudiates many of the beliefs you seem to think are undeniably Muslim:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/nyregion/06imam.html

Here are what I thought were some choice quotes:

""Islam is a religion based on intellect," he tells his young listeners. "Islam says to you: 'Think. Don't close your eyes and just follow the sheik. Perhaps you have a better mind than his"."...
"We don't hate Jews," he recalled saying. "To kill one man is to kill all mankind."..."I do not accept suicide operations that target civilians at any time or place", Mr. Shata said. But striking Israeli soldiers "as a means of self-defense" was justifiable."..."Mr. Shata acknowledged that his opinion, while common among Arabs, is strongly opposed not only by many non-Muslims, but even by some of his congregants. "Some Muslims, if they hear this, would make me out to be a nonbeliever because they see that all these suicide operations are a must," he said. "And there are other Muslims who feel that all of these operations are forbidden.""

So it seems to me that you are unfairly attempting to characterize the Muslim world as some monolithic rigid belief system, of a bunch of blind followers who can't think for themselves. To be sure, there are plenty of those. But if there weren't plenty of the others, I don't think we'd be seeing so much Muslim-on-Muslim violence in the world.

I definitely agree with you on your earlier point about the fact that the US has been much more welcoming of the *other* than has Europe. This gives me hope because I think since we've maintained an open society, we can allow our values to sell themselves; the best advertisement for our system is living under it. That seems to be bearing fruit in our making inroads in America with the Muslim community in terms of trust.

This guy's example shows that, despite some tension, our society's welcoming attitude to outsiders has allowed Muslims to reach a more beneficial equilibrium between our existing society and their imported culture. The photo accompanying the article showing Muslims peacefully protesting the Mohammed cartoons is emblematic of this.

11:22 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Your website reference is subliterate. I enjoy talking with you, but you misrepresent my position, insult my intelligence and yours with tripe like this, and troll for things to disagree with me rather than learn what I'm talking about.

You cannot crib your way through matters of substance, and you have ignored everything I wrote above, which was the result of much effort and honest inquiry.

This is not a discussion. This is a waste of both of our time.

1:11 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

We may have reached the point at which it'd take a prohibitively long time for us to understand each others' points.

Just a couple of quick responses to Tom's earlier comment:

1. Arguing that the KKK isn't really Christian sounds a lot like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, i.e. a kind of self-sealer: anybody who is bad can't be a TRUE christian... But Muslims can make the same move.

2. I didn't claim that christians were thoroughly irrational, nor that atheists were the heirs to all that is rational. I've got huge respect for versions of natural law theory--Kant's in that tradition. But Christians have to supplement reason with faith to get some of their conclusions. To take an obvious example, the anti-homosexual conclusion. No purely reason-based argument can defend it.

Anyway, this prompts me to write a fascinating post I've been meaning to write for a long time...

7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How did I misrepresent your opinion? Would it have somehow been more valid to just post the relevant passages from the Bible?

The point is that you either judge based on the literal words in the text or you don't. You can't reasonably do it in one case and not the other.

10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God

is probably along the lines of what you're talking about, though it's hard to precisely determine. But is this (excerpted from above):

"Despite Christianity's designation as the official religion of the empire, Augustine declared its message to be spiritual rather than political. Christianity, he argued, should be concerned with the mystical, heavenly City of Jerusalem rather than with Earthly politics."

a fair heuristic for determining *true Christianity*? Why is that valid?

I mean, I think I can fairly make all kinds of other judgments about today's politically active religious groups, but on what basis can I ponitificate about how true they are to their faith?

10:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home