Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Ramblings from a Somewhat Marginally Orthopraxic Skept-a-Yid.
Um, Neither Frum Nor a Heretic
Don't Label Me...
Posts
10 comments:
I'm surprised it's so few. I have so many GOP Jewish friends who are convinced.
Ya' know, you're - sadly - probably right.
What's really interesting about this is what it reveals about the public's perception of Islam (not that there's really any surprise there).
Even if it were true, and he was a Muslim, the only really appropriate response should be, "So what? Why does that matter?"
The problem (in addition to their gullible stupidity) is that everyone still sees every Muslim as a horrible bogeyman. It's stupidity topped with a dollop of bigotry.
I could be called a "GOP Jew" but I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim. However, I object to these comments. It would be nice if all religions and cultures behaved equally well, but in the real world, there are significant differences. While I would agree that there can be and have been versions of Islam such that there would be no valid reason to suspect such version's adherents, the sad fact is that even the so-called "moderate" version of Islam today is such that the American people are correct in being suspicious of Muslims. The "moderates" don't commit terrorism, and don't quite condone it, but they largely seem unable to condemn it in the way we expect decent people to. I strongly suspect that for most of them, pluralism is seen as beneficial in protecting their rights as minorities, but something to be discarded should Muslims begin to approach majority status.
So, no, I don't see every Muslim as a "horrible bogeyman", but I do see a great many of them as highly problematic. Maybe it's time to examine the evidence (for failure of which the "Obama is Muslim" people are - correctly- being criticized) rather than hiding behind "we're all equal" platitudes and the easy labelling of others as "bigots".
The subject of the post is the obviously false notion that many conservatives have about Obama, and the subtly suggestion that he is somehow sympathetic towards co-religionist terrorists. The Hedyot raised a "so what?" question which is a real debate that can be relationally discussed. It is certainly clear in the eyes of most Westerners that a high percentage of today's Islamic world are sympathetic towards the means and goals of various terrorist organizations. What percentage? Is the USA (or Israel) an innocent victim of Islamic anger or are there some legitimate historical reasons for this? Moving forward, what is the best way to interact with the entire spectrum of Islamic factions? What do we do if a democratically elected government in Iraq or Afghanistan becomes fundamentalist? Is there such a thing as moderate Muslims or do they all want a world governed by sharia law (even though many Jews and Christians want something similar.)? And especially for many conservatives: how does one justify selective application of the 1st amendment in which it somehow doesn't apply to Muslims?
Generally good questions. Some comments:
"It is certainly clear in the eyes of most Westerners that a high percentage of today's Islamic world are sympathetic towards the means and goals of various terrorist organizations."
I would add that a high percentage may not be "sympathetic", but they are tolerant. That would generally not trigger any legal violations on their part, but certainly justifies suspicion and dislike on the part of everyone else.
"Is the USA (or Israel) an innocent victim of Islamic anger or are there some legitimate historical reasons for this?"
I'm not against this line of inquiry (although, no surprise, I generally do not find legitimate historical reasons), but the formulation of this question disturbs me. Let's try this:
"Were the Arabs killed in Hebron innocent victims of Baruch Goldstein's anger or are there some legitimate historical reasons for this?"
"And especially for many conservatives: how does one justify selective application of the 1st amendment in which it somehow doesn't apply to Muslims?"
For this conservative, we apply the first amendment to all groups equally. Build your mosque wherever you want. But if I want to build, say, a Museum of Islamic Atrocity, featuring Imax-sized screens of September 11 footage and Muslims-dancing-in-the-street footage on constant loop, and if I want to build this right next door to the Mosque, well then, first amendment rights and all.
Obama, peace be unto him, can daven in Jeremiah Wright's church all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that by Moslem halacha he takes the religion of his father.
Big woop. Muslims believe that EVERYONE is born Muslim and are converted to another faith by their parents. Obama is as much a Muslim as you are (unless you actually ARE a Muslim...)
Had there been any sort of "Not In My Name" kind of rally after 9-11 I might feel differently. But I've come to HATE anything connected to Islam and am proud of that hatred. For the life of me I just can't understand why so many Jews support the GZ mosque, etc. All I can think of is Lenin's famous remark re capitalists selling their persecutors the rope with which to hang them with.
FH,
You haven't refuted my point. If Moslems believe everyone is born a Moslem, then Obama satisfies at least two conditions for being a Moslem. You or I would satisfy just one-and it's one that's so broad that no Christian or Jew would recognize it as a legitimate condition.
On the other hand, if the Jews can specify which parent's religion the child inherits, shouldn't the Moslems be able to do the same.
Post a Comment