pageok
pageok
pageok
Islam--Good for the Joints and ADD:

In what I think is a genuine effort to express tolerance and openness, an article in Time Out London about a potential future "Islamic London" often reads like a parody:

On the surface, Islamic health doesn't look good: the 2001 census showed that 24 per cent of Muslim women and 21 per cent of Muslim men suffered long-term illness and disability. But these are factors of social conditions rather than religion. In fact, Islam offers Londoners potential health benefits: the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim. The regular washing of the feet and hands required before prayers promotes public hygiene and would reduce the transmission of superbugs in London's hospitals.... Application of halal (Arabic for 'permissable' [sic]) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food [ed: who says Muslims can't eat junk food?], and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems.

Hat tip: LGF.

Alaska Jack (mail):
The best part is this:


Application of halal dietary laws across London would free us

Makes sense. Kind of like a 10-year prison sentence frees me from wandering around the streets.

- Alaska Jack
6.7.2007 9:40pm
plunge (mail):
Hat tip: LGF

sigh.
6.7.2007 9:47pm
keypusher (mail):
You didn't quote the best, healthiest part of Islamic London:

Alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. As London is above the national average for alcohol-related deaths in males, with 17.6 per 100,000 people (Camden has 31.6 per 100,000 males), turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars would have a massive positive effect on public health. Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.

But why wait for Islam? Let's enact Prohibition right now!
6.7.2007 9:57pm
keypusher (mail):
Having read the whole article, I am convinced it really is a parody.
6.7.2007 9:59pm
Minipundit (mail) (www):
I'm with plunge. Ending a post with "Hat tip: LGF" basically invalidates the post in its entirety.
6.7.2007 10:07pm
LM (mail):
The foreign press truly deserves the biased left-wing media label that conservatives pin reflexively on the American MSM.
6.7.2007 10:08pm
LM (mail):
Or, to put it another way, just because it comes from LGF doesn't mean it can't ever be true. The whole A broken clock is right twice a day thing and all....
6.7.2007 10:12pm
Mike Rentner (mail) (www):
Um, their washing regimen promotes hygiene? Has anyone seen their toilets? Or their lack of toilet paper?

I'm sorry, but I've been in Iraq, I've seen the "hygiene" of muslims and I'm not impressed.
6.7.2007 10:47pm
The Drill SGT:
I don't think it is parody. If it were it ought to have sections on the:
1. advantages of wearing basic black.
2. less housework and easier time raising children with 3 sister wives.
3. ecological advantages of forbidding women to drive
4. simplified Justice system (aka Sharia)
5. why stoning gays and adulterers is good for "family values"
6. why denying women the right to vote frees up their second class minds from decisions
6.7.2007 11:03pm
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):
Hell, if it weren't for the whole blowing themselves up thing, they'd probably live forever.
6.7.2007 11:06pm
Henri LeCompte (mail):
And, love-handles melt away after only a few sessions of wife beating!
6.7.2007 11:06pm
Brian K (mail):

And, love-handles melt away after only a few sessions of wife beating!

I guess that's how rednecks and hicks manage to stay so skinny despite the massive amounts of cheap beer they drink
6.7.2007 11:39pm
Bleepless (mail):
Don't forget smelling better. Allah orders them to wash their feet frequently.
6.7.2007 11:46pm
Apollo (mail):
Um, have you ever seen a "redneck" or "hick"? If love handles are any gauge, they must have the least beaten wives in the country.
6.7.2007 11:46pm
rc:
keypusher said: "Having read the whole article, I am convinced it really is a parody."

If you think it is straight-up onion-style parody, you should check out the author's travelogue of Damascus. http://www.timeout.com/travel/features/2403.html Clearly, a man who injected so much anti-Western politics into a travel piece would believe at least a little of the garbage he posted regarding his ideal, Sharia-governed London.

Rather than a parody, I have to believe that the piece is more of a troll. It sure brough a lot of web traffic, and the comments are -!en fuego!-.

The author probably got a good laugh out of this. 'Ha-ha, my opponents are foaming mad.' Unfortunately, it's not a good defense to cover your nutty beliefs with still nuttier beliefs. In the end, all you can say is, 'No, I'm not THAT crazy.'
6.7.2007 11:55pm
Charles (mail):
At first blush, a Christian nation might not appeal to all the nay-sayers. However, consider the commands to "turn the other cheek." Crime in a Christian nation would be almost non-existent. Next, see the Lord's words "do unto others as your would have done unto you," thus ending the need for social programs and civil laws.
Finally, there is the exhortation which all Christians follow "to mind the plank in your eye before turning to the speck in your neighbors." This non-judgmental philosophy is to a theocracy what limited government and separation of powers is to America.

Jesus/Mohammed '08
6.8.2007 12:01am
Harry Eagar (mail):
It isn't a parody, because it is dishonest. Parodists have to be accurate, even if cackhandedly, or what's the point?

On the other hand, Iowahawk's parody is a real parody and very funny.

As for Minipundit, are you suggesting Johnson created a hoax TimeOut page to link to?
6.8.2007 12:08am
rc:
Charles: "Crime in a Christian nation would be almost non-existent."
Heh, coming up with your own parody, are you?

"This non-judgmental philosophy is to a theocracy what limited government and separation of powers is to America."

Putting the fluff-posts about 'Jesus teachings' aside, I do think that Christianity is one of the few actual religions that is compatible with separation of church and state. ('Actual' religions are beliefs with definable doctrines with actual followers who have been aroung long enough to at least make some other people angry.)

Those who aren't Christian could credit this compatibility to the belief's development during a time that it had to be compatible within a neutral, or even hostile government jurisdiction. Only later in its life did Christianity gain any kind of dominance. This suggests that at its root, Christianity need not rule government.

For believers, a powerful statement makes Christianity compatible with a separate government: "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's."

Christianity is a limited religion. Islam is something else.
6.8.2007 12:26am
Barbara Skolaut (mail):
plunge and minipundit: your problem with LGF is, precisely,....?

He does tend to link to stories most Western media would rather ignore, or worse, cover up.
6.8.2007 12:31am
Minipundit (mail) (www):
Eagar - no. What I'm saying is that Johnson is racist pond scum and that for Bernstein to take him seriously reflects badly on Bernstein.
6.8.2007 12:32am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
I should think even more could be said of pre-Vatican II catholicism.

1. The constant exercise of standing, sitting, and kneeling during Mass would offer far more exercise than the Moslem kneeling and bending over.

2. Fish and omega-3 every Friday, and during Lent.

3. No STDs becaue no sex. Well, okay, a little, if you're married, but don't get carried away.

4. Alcohol .., OK, there they have the advantage. On the other hand, there is little risk of dying during a suicide bombing of a Lutheran church. (Hey, even Guy Fawkes had a getaway plan!)
6.8.2007 12:37am
Bill Woods (mail):
"the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit,"

Designed? I'm having this image of Muhammed as Richard Simmons...
6.8.2007 12:59am
fffff:
your problem with LGF is, precisely,....?

Linking to LGF is a lot like linking to Stormfront. Seriously, Barbara, if you want to go down that route, we can reliably find the kind of comments we need to cement our point on just about every post at LGF.
6.8.2007 1:07am
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Dismissing something because it came from LGF?

sigh
6.8.2007 1:09am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
rc-

Christianity is a limited religion.

Christianity can be a limited religion, but there have been periods throughout history where it has been just as intolerant and coercive as islam. And there are a lot of christians that would like to legislate their beliefs and force their beliefs on others.
6.8.2007 1:19am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
You do have to read the original against a British tradition of contrarianism, if that is a word. Not quite parody, not quite reality, not quite alternative history and "what if," but a sort of combination of all three.
6.8.2007 1:26am
Dave N (mail):
I didn't read the article, but does it also siggest that the Tower of London will again be used for beheadings?
6.8.2007 1:35am
Pantapon Rose (mail):
A lot of people on the left fear LGF because it exposes the racism and anti-semitism on leftist websites like Daily Kos; so, in an attempt to draw attention from this, they attempt to demonize it.
6.8.2007 2:09am
Steve:
Linking to LGF is a lot like linking to Stormfront.

But LFG is the white supremacist site that LIKES Jews. It's a new paradigm, and as you can see, an awesome new coalition!
6.8.2007 2:26am
EIDE_Interface (mail):

Steve:
Linking to LGF is a lot like linking to Stormfront.

But LFG is the white supremacist site that LIKES Jews. It's a new paradigm, and as you can see, an awesome new coalition!


Charles Johnson should sue you for libel.
6.8.2007 3:25am
Harry Eagar (mail):
White supremacist?

Find me anything Johnson has ever posted that's white supremacist.

He finds a lot to dislike in Islam. So do I. That doesn't make me a white supremacist. Heck, it doesn't even make me white.
6.8.2007 3:30am
John Armstrong (mail) (www):
Yes, because my ADHD is caused by my father preparing three home-cooked meals a day when I was young, using fresh ingredients balanced across the food groups...
6.8.2007 3:37am
Barry P. (mail):
The moslem country I live in has planet-leading levels of obesity-induced diabetes. The authorities just convened (unironically) a commission to "study the causes of childhood obesity".

BTW, if Allah had implored his charges to wash their armpits five times a day, I'd be a much happier man.
6.8.2007 5:14am
Barry P. (mail):
All the LGF sycophants might find this enlightening. OK, they probably won't, but it is illuminating nonetheless.

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/
6.8.2007 5:22am
Brian K (mail):
Barry,

I doubt DB will be posting that quiz on the main website, unlike al gore vs. the unabomber
6.8.2007 7:51am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
The topic turned to LGF. Not surprising.

LGF starts out with an article from some media outlet. This is frequently embarrassing to some--upsets the proles or something--and so must be dismissed.
How do you dismiss, say, an AP report? I know!!! Me!! Pick me!!!
Claim it came from LGF and it can't be right. Or if it is right, the right sort of people ignore it.
Comments are different, but, then, the report isn't a comment.
6.8.2007 8:10am
Mr L (mail):
All the LGF sycophants might find this enlightening. OK, they probably won't, but it is illuminating nonetheless.

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/


Oh, hey! Another 'historical monster or person I disagree with?' quiz, every bit as enlightening as the rest of the series: 'Al Gore or the Unabomber?', 'George Bush or Hitler?', and so on. We just had a big argument over the fundamental stupidity of these a few days ago, so that's some chutzpah posting one and not expecting to get creamed.

And I hope to God that none of the LGF=Racist brigade here has ever, ever complained about being called an anti-Semite for attacking Israel...
6.8.2007 9:35am
Mr L (mail):
Oh God, even better: I didn't notice the first time, but the LGF quiz covers commenters, not the blogger. This takes the fundamental stupidity of these types of quizzes to new heights.

If selectively chosen and cropped comments out of thousands of entries are representative of a blog's content, then a few minutes on a search engine will 'prove' that Daily Kos is a raging conservative weblog. Hell, give me some time to find a web proxy that's not been banned and I'll 'prove' any blog with comments enabled you can name is an avid proponent of NAMBLA and horse buggery.
6.8.2007 9:45am
Happyshooter:
"I, for one, welcome our new overmasters and wish to pledge my undying loyalty..."
6.8.2007 9:45am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Actually, LGF provides a useful service.
If you hear something you find not useful, you try to see if it was posted on LGF. If so, presto!, it's racist/nativist/islamophobic/fascist.
The libs keep a few Designated Demons on hand for that purpose. If the DD has said, quoted, or posted something, the truth, the source, and the relevance can all be dismissed because the DD said it.
Newt Gingrich filled that role for some time.

I was once posting with some feminists when some DOL stats I had read in a paper turned out to be useful. What a shock. "Warren Farrell said that." Thus the stats and I were lower than pond scum.
I eventually found out who Warren Farrell is. I can see why feminists dislike him. He's done a lot of publishing, and a lot of research. So practically anything having to do with the practical aspects of feminism and male privilege--or its myth--has been cited by Farrell. One may be using DOJ, or DOL, or OSHA, or any other source and if the feminists don't like them, you'll be dismissed because that's one of Warren Farrell's faves. End of story. Even if, as in my case, you never heard of the guy.
Farrell, it should go without saying is a current DD.

And we see the same thing here. You really like LGF...? Veiled threat being to read you out of civilized society if you don't apologize abjectly. Even if, as with this case, LGF had nothing to do with it. But the right sort of people aren't supposed to know about this, or think about it, or think it important.
6.8.2007 10:15am
fffff:
Oh God, even better: I didn't notice the first time, but the LGF quiz covers commenters, not the blogger. This takes the fundamental stupidity of these types of quizzes to new heights.

Comments are different, but, then, the report isn't a comment.

The types of comments at http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/ are pervasive and consistent at LGF. If I ran LGF, I would either delete those comments, or at least speak out against them, and would certainly evince some concern about them or that I not be associated with them. Charles Johnson does neither. It is not plausible that he doesn't know about these types of comments; he either agrees with them, or is so indifferent to sectarian invective that he does nothing. No matter how you slice it, Johnson's silence on those types of comments is probative about his attitudes towards Muslims and xenophobia against Muslims.

LGF starts out with an article from some media outlet. This is frequently embarrassing to some--upsets the proles or something--and so must be dismissed.

That argument can't work here. VC contributors are (with one or two exceptions) pretty solidly libertarian and not shy about criticizing sloppy reporting (or reasoning in general). You can't tar the commentators in this thread as people who blindly accept some purported liberal media-manufactured truth: VC commentators plainly engage conservative or at least libertarian arguments by virtue of being VC readers.
6.8.2007 10:33am
tripp:
I read the comments only for selected posts, and when I saw "Hat tip: LGF" on this one, I knew it was going to raise some very interesting responses/discussion, so I decided it was readable. It's amazingly funny/sad how predictable people are.
6.8.2007 10:41am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
multiffff

What argument did I make that didn't work? What I stated was the fact. LGF's threads always start out with a news item. Johnson doesn't make them up. He comments. Others comment. But the comments are a separate component, useful for retroactively discrediting the original report.

What we see here are efforts to dismiss the news item because it came through LGF. Had it not come through LGF, the very same news item would be receiving much different treatment. Even though it would be the same news item, word for word.

My point is that LGF as a source enables those who dislike certain themes to dismiss them if LGF referred to them. In that sense, those folks are fortunate if LGF referred to whatever annoys them. LGF has a public role as DD.

So let's ask what the response to this would have been if the hat tip had been to, say, Joe Blow who happened to spot it in the original media outlet. Would you like to try to make the case the response would have been the same?
6.8.2007 10:50am
LongSufferingRaidersFan (mail):
Unfortunately, the tendency to strap bombs on oneself and blow up rooms or buses full of innocent people tend to negate most of the health benefits....
6.8.2007 10:55am
fffff:
The libs keep a few Designated Demons on hand for that purpose.

Framing the argument this way does not work. First, none of the criticisms against LGF in this thread have been based on liberal arguments (I do not believe anti-xenophobia is exclusively a liberal position. Do you?)

Rather, the criticisms are made on the substantive ground that LGF is a breeding ground for xenophobia against Muslims. None of LGF's defenders have disputed that criticism. At most, they attack critics of LGF for . . . well, criticizing LGF. That dog won't hunt -- if you want to defend LGF, you need to produce reasons why the criticisms of LGF are misplaced.

Last (and least), the defense that LGF is unfairly controversial can be challenged as hypocritical. Given the fact that Mr. Aubrey is framing critics of LGF as "liberals," I'm guessing that if we sat down through every post he's made, we could find that he has his own liberal "Designated Demons."
6.8.2007 11:02am
Zathras (mail):
RC: "Christianity is a limited religion."

It certainly seems limited when its supposed adherents use children as leverage.
6.8.2007 11:11am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
multiffff
No, you wouldn't. Since I discovered the tactic, from feminists, I've been particularly careful not to even accidentally use DDs. I don't believe in trying to coerce behavior by the use of DDs or by insinuating that anybody who quotes something a DD, among many others, once said, might be lower than pond scum and can only redeem himself by disavowing the facts I find so inconvenient.

The criticisms of LGF's comments are probably correct. But the response on this board was that anybody who linked to LGF was a turd, and that the fact that the report--not the comments--came through LGF instead of from someplace else made the report problematic. You can criticise the comments and be accurate much of the time. Problem is, that isn't what happened up thread. As you know.
6.8.2007 11:18am
senate wren:
Here we go again. Anti-anti-communism is not gone, it is back as anti-anti-islamofascism. How unabashedly ideological it is to find any reason to divert from unpleasant truth. Would you even open your New York Times if you knew your mailman was Klansman? Old Moscow school of demagoguery shows through.
6.8.2007 11:20am
fffff:
What we see here are efforts to dismiss the news item because it came through LGF . . . So let's ask what the response to this would have been if the hat tip had been to, say, Joe Blow who happened to spot it in the original media outlet. Would you like to try to make the case the response would have been the same?

But the response on this board was that anybody who linked to LGF was a turd, and that the fact that the report--not the comments--came through LGF instead of from someplace else made the report problematic.

I don't think the criticisms or comments regarding the news article itself would be any different. I don't see how any commentator here dismissed the news item or discredited its existence because it came from LGF; it is patently ridiculous (whether intentionally or not - it appears some people think its a parody).

That's besides the point. People are criticizing the linkage to LGF. LGF is associated with xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric. If someone linked to a news article, and hat-tipped Stormfront, even if the article itself was valid and legitimate, I'd find it objectionable because, as a VC reader, I do not want to be associated with Stormfront and white supremacy. Similarly, I am objecting here because I do not want to be associated with LGF and xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Would you even open your New York Times if you knew your mailman was Klansman?

I'd make a stink about him being a Klansman, so nobody thought I tacitly endorsed the KKK, and to pressure him, as best I could, to stop participating in the Klan. Same thing here. Way to smear with the communism brush, though. (I'm thoroughly capitalist, wren. Take it to the bank.)
6.8.2007 11:26am
Elliot123 (mail):
LGF will never be forgiven for sacking Dan Rather.
6.8.2007 11:27am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
This page on the Founding and Islam from the library of Congress is quite illuminating.

Many in the Founding generation were quite tolerant of Islam. The whole notion of being founded on "Judeo-Christianity" seems without historical merit (that is some type of special status given to Christians and Jews, but excluding other religions). Many believed only Protestant Trinitarian Christianity ought to have "rights." And the folks who tolerated Jews, tended to tolerate Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Deists and Unitarians along with them (with a whole variety of opinions in between -- for instance the link notes that Locke believed in tolerating Islam, but didn't wouldn't extend toleration to atheists or Catholics).
6.8.2007 11:32am
senate wren:

Way to smear with the communism brush, though. (I'm thoroughly capitalist, wren. Take it to the bank.)

Of course you are not a communist, nor an islamo-fascist. May even have never been anti-anti-communist. That was not my point. I have a more general, not personal observation. Anti-anti-islamofascism is new anti-anti-communism and methods are the same. Fellow travelers are useful idiots for the newly in vogue murderous ideology. They can not quite bring themselves to openly support odious ideas, so they resort to attacking those who stand up against the same as
racist and xenophobes.
6.8.2007 11:41am
fffff:
This is going to come as a shock to you, but calling out an
article in TimeOut does not quite constitute "standing up to Islamofacism" nor does criticizing xenophobia mean that people don't cherish and value the freedoms and protections we enjoy in the US just as much as (if not more than) the LGF'ers.

There are a lot of Internet tough guys out there, aren't there?
6.8.2007 11:53am
MDJD2B (mail):
South Asian cuisine (which I love) tends to be very high in sodium and in fat.
6.8.2007 11:55am
Roundhead (mail) (www):
That's besides the point. People are criticizing the linkage to LGF. LGF is associated with xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric. If someone linked to a news article, and hat-tipped Stormfront, even if the article itself was valid and legitimate, I'd find it objectionable because, as a VC reader, I do not want to be associated with Stormfront and white supremacy. Similarly, I am objecting here because I do not want to be associated with LGF and xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Of course, LGF has nothing to do with Stormfront ... that's more like Daily Kos / Media Matters territory these days...
6.8.2007 12:00pm
Josh E:
fffff wrote:


I don't see how any commentator here dismissed the news item or discredited its existence because it came from LGF;


To which I must refer to posts by

plunge (2nd post):

Hat tip: LGF

sigh.


and Minipundit:

I'm with plunge. Ending a post with "Hat tip: LGF" basically invalidates the post in its entirety.


I don't believe I've ever read LGF, though I know it exist. This thread is the first time I've heard it demagogued as racist scum, but then I haven't heard much about it at all, so that's not much of an indicator. But to claim that no posters here dismissed the article because it came from LGF is simply incorrect. That's what started the whole LGF discussion.

This whole conflating the views of commentators with the views of the blog author thing is an excellent reason to turn off comments, though. Small wonder instapundit doesn't have them, and anonymous comments are being disallowed at some sites.

Would you rather DB have linked the article without acknowledging the source? Sure, that could be viewed as a kind of plagiarism, but at least your view of VC wouldn't have been sullied by the thought that DB might read a site you consider anathema.
6.8.2007 12:12pm
rc:
I'm just glad that the VC contributors aren't judged by their commenters. As for LGF, those comments are the typical product of any sort of echo chamber. It's funny that some of you are shocked, shocked that internet tough guys would write horrible comments at LGF. Welcome to teh internets.

American Psikhushka: "Christianity can be a limited religion" Can, yes, that's what I'm saying. Christianity CAN be a limited religion. This is to distinguish it from the 'God is greatest' Caliphate-producing Sharia-enforcing Islamist worlview. World domination is a fundamental goal of Islam, which is why articles like the one linked above aren't funny... if it was ever intended to be funny in the first place.

Zathras: "[Christianity] certainly seems limited when its supposed adherents use children as leverage." Your link describes the actions of the CIA. Though they are sometimes referred to as the 'Christians in Action,' it's about as fair to have them represent Christians as the KGB atheists, or Al Quaeda Muslims.

Christianity, properly followed, can be limited. Islam, properly followed, cannot. That's why the linked article is out of line.
6.8.2007 12:21pm
fffff:
Josh, I think plunge and Minipundit's comments aren't fairly read as arguing or claiming the TimeOut article didn't happen or didn't exist. I'm pretty sure they're saying whatever point or argument DB had in mind with this post was undermined because he linked to LGF.

Would you rather DB have linked the article without acknowledging the source? Sure, that could be viewed as a kind of plagiarism, but at least your view of VC wouldn't have been sullied by the thought that DB might read a site you consider anathema.

Yes, I would. You use the term "sullied," which might connote overly delicate sensibilities. Its worth remembering that the criticisms of LGF are that its a haven for virulent anti-Muslim sentiment (and nobody has yet disagreed with that characterization). I do not think opposing xenophobia makes my sensibilities overly delicate.

You also use the term "plagiarism." I do not blog much myself, but I've never felt any moral equivalence between hat tipping and plagiarism. I do not think DB has any obligation to hat tip LGF. In my understanding, hat tips are an endorsement -- one hat tips because one wants to recommend to one's readers the source of the underlying link.

It's funny that some of you are shocked, shocked that internet tough guys would write horrible comments at LGF.

LGF's reputation isn't based on the occasional stray comment that crosses the line. The anti-Muslim sentiment at LGF is pervasive and consistent. Charles Johnson neither criticizes these comments nor does he exercise any editorial control. That is certainly his right, but it strongly suggests that he either agrees with the anti-Muslim sentiment or is so indifferent towards it that he does nothing. His inaction is probative about his attitudes towards Muslims and xenophobia against Muslims.
6.8.2007 12:30pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Christianity, properly followed, can be limited. Islam, properly followed, cannot.

I wonder if there are verses of the Koran similar to the ones in the Bible which support secular government.

Who is to say what is the proper interpretation of either religion? Many distinguished historical Christian thinkers who knew the Bible as well as anyone (Calvin, Rutherford, Winthrop) thought that it demanded "dominionism," burning heretics at the stake, etc.

If we view the overriding tenets of liberal democracy (secular government, toleration and granting of individual rights regardless of religious status, etc.) as the ultimte lens through which we view Christianity as "properly followed," we could do the same with Islam. We simply need to look harder in the text of the Koran to find those verses.
6.8.2007 12:56pm
Hotel Coolidge:
- a link to the LGF commentary that is so blantantly offensive would be appreciated. Just one or two example of where Johnson is so xenophobic. I don't read the comments that often but when I do I find only about one in a hundred or more that makes me wince. And I had never heard of Stormfront before today.

secondly and I would love to hear confirmation on this - but I heard it on BBC Radio 4 hardly conservative... 54% (58?) of the marriages between people of Pakistanti descent in UK are consanguineous. (We do not have laws that restrict marriages between first cousins, or uncles and nieces etc..Just tradition). There is as a result a very very high rate of birth defects for these couples. (I recall the figure of 150% of the norm). The NHS is more concerned about smoking than providing Muslim women with the information that they need to prevent these tragedies.
6.8.2007 1:02pm
Triangle_Man:
A global map of life expectancy. Even the wealthiest nations with Sharia law have a shorter life expectancy than the UK. They are about on par with Central America.
6.8.2007 1:05pm
Triangle_Man:
6.8.2007 1:06pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
By the logic of some of the commentors here, I could never link to the Huffington Post, among other sites.

As for comment policy, I'm often tempting to give up moderating comments entirely, and never respond to them, because it's extremely time-consuming. There are some comments on this thread that ideally I'd delete, but who has time to bother deleting every offensive comment? I would never criticize another blogger for ignoring the comments.
6.8.2007 1:12pm
davod (mail):
I read the posts on LGF but rarely read the comments. Why should Johnson exercise editorial judgement on the comments. His service is to point to news which fits his point of view. Much like the Bloggers at VC comment on what they want.
6.8.2007 1:44pm
davod (mail):
I read the posts on LGF but rarely read the comments. Why should Johnson exercise editorial judgement on the comments. His service is to point to news which fits his point of view. Much like the Bloggers at VC comment on what they want.
6.8.2007 1:44pm
davod (mail):
Hotel Coolidge:

How would Muslim women have any control over marriage decisions.
6.8.2007 1:48pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'Rather, the criticisms are made on the substantive ground that LGF is a breeding ground for xenophobia against Muslims. None of LGF's defenders have disputed that criticism.'

Well, allow me.

Johnson links, with evident enthusiasm, to published statements by respectable Muslims that endorse toleration, living in peace and moral values (among which, he does not include training kindergarteners to pretend to be suicide bombers).

If his links to pro-violence Muslim statements seem to outnumber the anti-violence Muslim statements by about 99 to 1, that might indicate something.

As for his not disassociating himself from the slimier comments, see his statement on comments and numerous amplifications.

He is, however, vulnerable to criticism of his wide-open comment policy, in that he often ridicules the comments of what he calls Kossacks or Kos Kidz.

But, even then, most of his sniping at Kos is at Kos posters, not Kos commenters.

Last point: About 9/10ths of LGF posts are devoted to being disgusted by public behavior as reported by other people than Charles Johnson -- often, self-reported.

If you are not also disgusted by most of these reports, there's something very wrong with you.
6.8.2007 1:59pm
rc:
fffff: "The anti-Muslim sentiment at LGF is pervasive and consistent. Charles Johnson neither criticizes these comments nor does he exercise any editorial control."

I agree that LGF is a Bad Place. But does that support the closely held belief that he's so evil that a weblink from his site is automatically tainted? Even if Johnson is truly 'phobic,' emotional shrieking in his direction isn't going to solve a thing. Neither is ignoring what he says just because he's a Big Meanie.

Wasn't LGF what got Dan Rather fired? Ugly as it may be, it seems like LGF is providing a wake-up call to the more respectable media. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Jon Rowe: "Who is to say what is the proper interpretation of either religion? ... We simply need to look harder in the text of the Koran to find those verses."

I get the feeling that a discussion with you regarding the Constitution would be quite interesting. It sounds like you define 'interpretation' as 'staring long enough at a document for it to mean what I want it to mean'.

So for the sake of brevity, I'll use fffff's words (11:30am), slightly modified, to reply to Jon Rowe. Anti-west sentiment is pervasive and consistent in Muslim countries. Prominant Muslim leaders do little to denounce these comments, nor do imams exercise any positive control over their constituents. That is certainly their right, but it strongly suggests that they either agree with the Islamist sentiment or are so indifferent towards it that they do nothing. Their inaction is probative about their attitudes towards terrorists and xenophobia against Westerners.

Ironically, the meme used to denounce LGF is the very meme used on that site to denounce Islam. I agree with fffff: tacit approval is telling. Fortunately, we are free to criticize LGF. Unfortunately, that freedom does not extend to criticisms of Islam.

Let me reiterate for the shrieking masses: I am not defending LGF. But I am defending the necessity to criticize Islam.
6.8.2007 2:15pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

I get the feeling that a discussion with you regarding the Constitution would be quite interesting. It sounds like you define 'interpretation' as 'staring long enough at a document for it to mean what I want it to mean'.


There is one big difference between the two: There are a Hell of a lot more words in the Holy Books than the US Constitution.

Holy Books are full of so many potentially contradictory verses that clever hermeneutics (or "context") really can get them to support practically any position.
6.8.2007 2:32pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

That is certainly their right, but it strongly suggests that they either agree with the Islamist sentiment or are so indifferent towards it that they do nothing. Their inaction is probative about their attitudes towards terrorists and xenophobia against Westerners.


That might be the dominant sentiment now. Whose to say it will always be? Someone like Locke helped transform the way the Christian religion thought about rights (and he might not even have been "Christian").

This is what the Christian religion looked like before Lockean thought.


"It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition."—Samuel Rutherfurd, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience. (1649).


Servetus, btw, was a unitarian whom Calvin saw put to death simply for publicly denying the Trinity. Christianity used to look a lot like what Islam looks like today.
6.8.2007 2:37pm
The Drill SGT:
I for one, read the LGF articles but don't look at the pictures of the naked playmates (I mean comments :)

Most of what Johnson posts are what he considers MSM faux reporting or comparisons (negative) between what Muslim public figures say to the MSM and what they speak when they address their Islamic constituencies.

He does provide a positive venue for Muslim condemnations of terrorists, etc. Unfortunately, he doesn't find too many of those and notes that fact.
6.8.2007 2:39pm
abayrat:
I first saw the article posted on Robert Spencer's site Dhimmi Watch, not LGF. Will that make it more acceptable to everyone?
6.8.2007 3:06pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
I work for MSM, and I think Johnson paints us with too broad a brush. But there's stuff there to criticize, and he criticizes it.

Bravo.

Here's a test for critics of Johnson. A doy or two ago, he posted (without comment) a film of a Muslim cleric denouncing Jews as 'descended from apes and pigs.'

Anybody see that in any other publication? Anybody care to say it isn't worth knowing that this sort of thing is uttered every Friday? Anybody care to argue that Johnson is wrong to object to this sort of vileness?
6.8.2007 3:11pm
rc:
Jon Rowe: "Holy Books are full of so many potentially contradictory verses that clever hermeneutics (or "context") really can get them to support practically any position."

The same could be said of court rulings, but that doesn't stop the Supreme Court from making decisions.

I'm going to go way out on a limb and state that Islam and Christianity actually do mean something, as reflected by their texts. Just because meanings can be manipulated by the clever does not invalidate that.

Jon Rowe: "That might be the dominant sentiment now. Whose to say it will always be?" Not me. But the thing about Islam is that it hasn't changed. I don't need to look into the future, I just need to look into the past.

The mutability of Christianity is one of its positive attributes. Its most zealous evengelist (Paul) boasted of becoming a jew to the jews, a greek to the greeks, etc. This has been an example and possibility from the inception of Christianity. In contrast, Islam shows no similar example, and has indeed shown by hundreds of years of history through many civilizations that it is extremely resistant to criticism and change.

In that context, puff pieces like the one in TimeOut are way out of line.
6.8.2007 3:28pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Jon Rowe writes:

The whole notion of being founded on "Judeo-Christianity" seems without historical merit (that is some type of special status given to Christians and Jews, but excluding other religions). Many believed only Protestant Trinitarian Christianity ought to have "rights."
Since most states had either constitutional provisions or statutes that gave a special preferred legal status to Christianity (and sometimes just to Protestant Christianity), it is ahistorical to pretend otherwise.

Sure, at the national government level, these special protections did not exist. But you can't read the state constitutions of the Revolutionary and early Republic and pretend that Judaism was on an equal legal footing with Christianity, much less Islam.
6.8.2007 3:40pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
RC:

I agree that those religions do mean something to their adherents. The question for Islam is whether converting people at the point of a sword and not respecting rights of others to practice their creed are central tenets to the Islamic faith.

Christianity managed to change [.e., liberalize] without sheding its central tenets (i.e., the Nicene Creed).

I am not convinced such intolerance is central to Islam (maybe it is?). Though I am not an expert, I think there was a time pre-Middle Ages where Muslims were tolerant of other faiths.
6.8.2007 3:47pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
rc writes:

I get the feeling that a discussion with you regarding the Constitution would be quite interesting. It sounds like you define 'interpretation' as 'staring long enough at a document for it to mean what I want it to mean'.
I wouldn't just pick on Jon Rowe for that problem. The conservative opposition to judicial activism (and I will agree that conservative judges aren't immune from this) is that it does become "staring long enough at a document for it to mean what I want it to mean." Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Roe v. Wade (1973). Lawrence v. Texas (2003). All of these decisions were examples of the Supreme Court staring long enough, and in the case of Lawrence, rewriting history, so that they could find a Constitutional right that had gone completely unnoticed for generations.
6.8.2007 3:55pm
Gaius Obvious (mail):
Those who think this piece is satire remind me of the time Stalin meeting with Truman (or was it FDR?) seriously suggested that all the officers in the German Army should be rounded up and summarily shot after the war. When Truman reacted with disgust at the suggestion, Stalin said (paraphrasing) "It was only a joke, ha, ha, just kidding."
6.8.2007 3:58pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Clayton,

I'm viewing this more from a top down perspective -- look at the ideals as they were implemented at the national level and through the framework of natural rights.

This is relevant in determining how the 14th Amendment ought to be interpreted.

States were permitted to do things that violated natural rights (things that were perhaps constitutional but "un-declarational").

The key Founders actually differed on establishment policy though. While Jefferson and Madison thought all state establishments violated natural rights, Adams and Washington thought a mild-establishment (like the one in Mass.) did not. Interesting though, Washington and Adams both still thought that all religions were equally protected under the "unalienable rights of conscience."

Washington's thoughts on P. Henry's VA Bill to Aid teachers of the Christian religion (the one Madison remonstrated against and help defeat) are quite telling. He thought it fine to use tax money to support teachers of "the Christian religion," but thought Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians were, by right, entitled to some kind of exemption or accomodation:


I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief.
6.8.2007 4:01pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Jon Rowe writes:


I am not convinced such intolerance is central to Islam (maybe it is?). Though I am not an expert, I think there was a time pre-Middle Ages where Muslims were tolerant of other faiths.
Actually, their tolerance of Judaism and Christianity was pretty limited, even when using the correct definition of "tolerance" (as distinguished from the currently fashionable idea of "full social and legal equality").

Jews and Christians, being People of the Book, were allowed to continue their faith, but paid a special annual tax on assets (not income)*, and were subject to severe restrictions. Jews and Christians weren't allowed to ride horse or bear arms, for example. But Jews and Christians were not allowed to proselytize, and Muslims could not become Jews or Christians for fear of being executed for apostasy.

* A tax on assets is far more destructive than a tax on income, if the tax rate exceeds the average annual economic growth of a society.

If your religion wasn't Jewish or Christian--well, you weren't even that lucky.

I do agree that Islam has the potential to become tolerant (in the sense of "no legal punishment for differing beliefs"). Christianity became tolerant because the seventeenth century's wars between Catholic and Protestant (which were often only partly about religion, and often mere proxies for economic and political agendas) demonstrated the futility of the old approach.

Islam, in spite of centuries of bloody conflict between Shiites and Sunnis (and again, often as much a proxy for other differences as about religion itself), still hasn't figured this out. I think one of the reasons is that Islam is suffering a severe cognitive dissonance caused by the conflict between "We are specially favored by Allah" and "Even sitting on oceans of oil, we are so desperately poor that a bunch cow-worshipping Hindus are about to pass us on the path to wealth." Islam might well be capable of developing tolerance, or even the comparatively modern Western concept of religious equality--but it is probably going to take a severe humbling of their religion to do this. (And yes, I'm thinking of Tancredo's remarks about nuking Mecca.)
6.8.2007 4:10pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
To return to LGF for a moment.

One of their recent posts is a video of a commentator on some ME television program explaining how to beat your wife in an approved fashion. Johnson didn't make this up.
Is there something wrong with making it available? Is it Islamophobic to do so?
And if someone were to point it out, hattipping LGF, would the video become somehow less relevant, or the pointer-out read out of polite society?
6.8.2007 4:16pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Jon Rowe writes:

I'm viewing this more from a top down perspective -- look at the ideals as they were implemented at the national level and through the framework of natural rights.

This is relevant in determining how the 14th Amendment ought to be interpreted.

States were permitted to do things that violated natural rights (things that were perhaps constitutional but "un-declarational").
I don't find this argument persuasive because:

1. Exactly what constituted natural rights was not universally agreed upon.

2. Your argument is based on what you think the Framers believed, based on their writings. But what was actually written into constitutions and statutes is a lot more concrete.

3. In determining what rights the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the states, Revolutionary period ideas of natural rights are far less relevant than post-bellum definitions of those rights. Fortunately, debate on the Fourteenth Amendment gave a pretty clear statement of the intent of the privileges and immunities clause. Some items were mentioned more than others, such as the right to keep and bear arms (to deal with Klansmen who were terrorizing freedmen). For some odd reason, no one in 1868 mentioned a right to same-sex marriage or homosexual relations. But I'm sure that they really did mean for that to be included. :-)

The key Founders actually differed on establishment policy though. While Jefferson and Madison thought all state establishments violated natural rights, Adams and Washington thought a mild-establishment (like the one in Mass.) did not. Interesting though, Washington and Adams both still thought that all religions were equally protected under the "unalienable rights of conscience."

Washington's thoughts on P. Henry's VA Bill to Aid teachers of the Christian religion (the one Madison remonstrated against and help defeat) are quite telling. He thought it fine to use tax money to support teachers of "the Christian religion," but thought Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians were, by right, entitled to some kind of exemption or accomodation:

I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief.
There's a big difference between granting a preferred legal status (as many of the states did) to a particular religion, and taxation. The statute that Jefferson sought to repeal was specifically to fund churches. Those who argued against disestablishment in Virginia include many who preferred that tithes should be directed to the taxpayer's choice of church, rather like the system that Germany had in effect, until until quite recently.

Of course, the number of Jews and Muslims in Virginia was vanishingly small at the time, and the vast majority of the Muslims were probably slaves. (Yes, increasingly, the evidence is showing that part of why slaves imported to America so readily accepted Christianity is that many were already from a monotheistic religion.)
6.8.2007 4:21pm
rc:
Clayton Cramer: "All of these decisions were examples of the Supreme Court staring long enough... that they could find a Constitutional right that had gone completely unnoticed for generations."

And we all agree that that's a bad thing. Or at least that it more resembles magic than actual jurisprudence.

Jon Rowe: "Christianity managed to change [.e., liberalize] without sheding its central tenets (i.e., the Nicene Creed)."

Yes! One of the reasons this was possible was that Christianity's main tenets didn't include establishing things like the Caliphate and Sharia law.

There are now many countries whose state-sanctioned religion calls for a globe-spanning islamic government. In that context, it's in very bad taste to fantasize about how great it will be under our new Islamic Overlords.

Contributors to this board have taken lots of stands about what's constitutional or unconstitutional, what's right or wrong. That all gets thrown out under the Caliphate.
6.8.2007 4:38pm
clambake (mail) (www):
fffff said: I do not think opposing xenophobia makes my sensibilities overly delicate.
No, no it doesn't; it makes you the most wonderful person in the world, and so very able to see the badness in others and the goodness in your self. Which brings us to the connection between the linked article and many comments: vanity.
6.8.2007 4:40pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'Those who think this piece is satire remind me of the time Stalin meeting with Truman (or was it FDR?) seriously suggested that all the officers in the German Army should be rounded up and summarily shot after the war. When Truman reacted with disgust at the suggestion, Stalin said (paraphrasing) "It was only a joke, ha, ha, just kidding."'

It was at Yalta, and Churchill, not Roosevelt. Stalin's proposal -- which I regard as reasonable and just -- was to shoot the top 50,000 Germans (that would have swept up all the afficers of colonel and above and similar party or government rank, and every one of them deserved shooting), not all officers.

Both men were drunk.
6.8.2007 4:47pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Contributors to this board have taken lots of stands about what's constitutional or unconstitutional, what's right or wrong. That all gets thrown out under the Caliphate.
And Professor Rowe has a lot more to lose on this than I do. I at least get to keep my head. That's one of the reasons that I find it so bizarre that so many people who claim to be concerned about homosexual rights are also throwing themselves so wholeheartedly into defense of Islam, or in opposition to winning the war on terrorism. It's a bit of a death wish, I think.
6.8.2007 4:59pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

And Professor Rowe has a lot more to lose on this than I do. I at least get to keep my head.


Just to make sure everyone knows where I stand on this issue; I neither accept nor make excuses for Islam as it is now practiced in many places, but rather believe that Islam (and all religions) must conform to the tenets of liberal democracy, a point I made in this post which was linked by, among others, Andrew Sullivan and PZ Meyers.

In principle, I think Islam, like Christianity, can do this, even if it means Westerners "persuading" the Muslims that a more liberal, enlightened Islam is the proper way to practice the creed.

As far as keeping one's head, I know many evangelical/orthodox Christians are fond of stating that Allah is not the same God they worship (the God of Abraham), but a pagan moon God. And folks like Falwell have said much worse like calling Mohammad a demon possessed pedophile (if I remember correctly, this sparked riots in India where people died).

I doubt the same Mullahs who would drop a wall on me for my personal life would let Christians keep their heads for saying these things.
6.8.2007 6:40pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

In determining what rights the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the states, Revolutionary period ideas of natural rights are far less relevant than post-bellum definitions of those rights. Fortunately, debate on the Fourteenth Amendment gave a pretty clear statement of the intent of the privileges and immunities clause.


And the P or I Clause included the first eight amendments to the bill of rights. Indeed, the framers of the 14th probably had a broader understanding of such rights than the framers of the First. All of the states had disestablished by 1868 so the right to be free from a state established church was arguably one of the P or Is. Akhil Amar and Phillip Munoz make pretty good cases against the incorporation of the Establishment Clause. But both also note that we have an Equal Protection Clause which, when applied to religious discrimination, may do much (but certainly not everything) of what the Supreme Court currently has the Establishment Clause doing. Though Amar is more enthusiastic about this theory than Munoz.

I do believe a similar argument is fleshed out in some detail in Christopher L. Eisgruber's and Lawrence G. Sager's new book Equal Liberty.
6.8.2007 6:54pm
GG (mail):
"Those who think this piece is satire remind me of the time Stalin meeting with Truman (or was it FDR?) seriously suggested that all the officers in the German Army should be rounded up and summarily shot after the war. When Truman reacted with disgust at the suggestion, Stalin said (paraphrasing) "It was only a joke, ha, ha, just kidding."

Actually it was at Teheran, not at Yalta. According to Churchill's memoir of the Second World War, it was Churchill who acted with disgust, not Roosevelt. I believe Churchill wrote that Roosevelt treated Stalin's suggestion as a joke. Churchill clearly did not believe it was a joke, and left the room and sulked in another room until Stalin retreived him and made the excuse that it had been a joke. I do not believe Churchill wrote any of them were drunk, although there may be other sources for that information.

In any event the suggestion was monstrous — to execute that many people would have meant doing it without meaningful trials. Well within Soviet practices, but alien to western moral values.

GG
6.8.2007 6:55pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Jon Rowe writes:

And the P or I Clause included the first eight amendments to the bill of rights. Indeed, the framers of the 14th probably had a broader understanding of such rights than the framers of the First. All of the states had disestablished by 1868 so the right to be free from a state established church was arguably one of the P or Is.
They certainly had, but disestablishing state churches is a long ways from the ACLU's ahistorical reading of the establishment clause. You won't find anyone arguing in favor of state establishment of churches today, as that phrase was understood in 1789. The argument is about the ACLU's "separation of church and state" claim, which far beyond what anyone in 1868 would have understood the establishment clause to require.
6.8.2007 7:20pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Jon Rowe writes:

As far as keeping one's head, I know many evangelical/orthodox Christians are fond of stating that Allah is not the same God they worship (the God of Abraham), but a pagan moon God. And folks like Falwell have said much worse like calling Mohammad a demon possessed pedophile (if I remember correctly, this sparked riots in India where people died).

I doubt the same Mullahs who would drop a wall on me for my personal life would let Christians keep their heads for saying these things.
No doubt. But then again, you won't find many Christians arguing (as the leftist who wrote the piece referenced at the top) that Islam would be an acceptable situation. We're prepared to fight it to the death, even though at least some moderate forms of Islam might tolerate us in dhimmitude. I'm not aware of any Islamic government that would not make homosexuals look back with fondness on the oppression of say, 1950s America.
6.8.2007 7:22pm
Barry P. (mail):

One of their recent posts is a video of a commentator on some ME television program explaining how to beat your wife in an approved fashion. Johnson didn't make this up.
Is there something wrong with making it available? Is it Islamophobic to do so?


Last time I drove across northern Montana I hit a radio dead zone, where all I could get was christian radio. I listened in amazement at some preacher explain why a father should beat his kids with a stick or paddle, and not with his hands.

If a moslem said this, I'm sure it would make LGF, but I somehow doubt that what I heard was reported by Johnson.
6.8.2007 7:23pm
wooga:
Minipundit said:
What I'm saying is that Johnson is racist pond scum and that for Bernstein to take him seriously reflects badly on Bernstein.

Being anti-Islam does not make someone racist, as Islam is a belief system, not a race.

Of course, your quickness to link Islam with a racial component (Arab) reveals much more about you than it does about LGF. Did you know that Arabs are less than 16% of muslims worldwide? Johnson knows it.

You hear "Islam," and you think "Arab." This knee jerk reaction reveals your own racism, caused in no small part by your slavish devotion to multiculturalism over history and facts. Merely because your racism manifests in patronizing condescension towards Arabs does not make it any less disgusting than the racism from places like Stormfront.

Me, I view Arabs like adult humans, open to the same criticism and ridicule for their poor behavior and religious choices as I subject people of my own color and creed. You, you see them as children who will throw understandable temper tantrums if you don't step in to stop mean people like Charles Johnson from taunting the children. Disgusting.
6.8.2007 7:44pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Barry. You're right. However, the question is whether your experience was an aberration. Clearly, the problem with Islam is inappropriate beatings. That's why they have to have instruction. That beatings are not a good idea isn't part of the program.

However, the point is that quoting some other media outlet isn't islamophobic, no matter how anxious somebody is to dismiss the report in question. Even if LGF does it.

Here's an experiment. See if you can remember enough of the broadcast to track it down. Send the references to LGF and see what he does with it. No sense speculating when we can experiment.
6.8.2007 7:45pm
The Drill SGT:
Harry Eagar said...It was at Yalta, and Churchill, not Roosevelt. Stalin's proposal -- which I regard as reasonable and just -- was to shoot the top 50,000 Germans (that would have swept up all the afficers of colonel and above and similar party or government rank, and every one of them deserved shooting), not all officers.

So Harry, if you think shooting German Officers out of hand is just fine, what did you think about Stalin having shot all the Polish Officers down to cadets he could find in 1939 and then working on Priests? I for one think Stalin only spoke of senior officers because that is what he thought he could get away with.

I am amazed and shocked by your opinion. A strong believer in collective guilt are we? How about genocide in general? For that?
6.8.2007 7:58pm
Bernie Shearon (mail):
I realize this thread is about LGF, but:
Keypusher said:

Alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. . . turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars would have a massive positive effect on public health.

and David Hardy said

I should think even more could be said of pre-Vatican II catholicism. Alcohol .., OK, there they have the advantage.

I understand that recent studies (don't ask me for links, I don't need no stinkin' links) have shown that ONE glass of wine a day has the effect of improving health substantially, and an even more recent study has shown ONE glass of beer lowers chloresterol.

So, the nanny state should mandate each citizen consume one glass of each a day when it imposes prohibition otherwise and set up beer/wine distribution stations where it would be mandatory to appear and show your ration card, then consume the beverages under the watch of a state agent (appointed by Mayor Bloomberg?).
6.8.2007 8:41pm
LM (mail):

In any event the suggestion was monstrous — to execute that many people would have meant doing it without meaningful trials. Well within Soviet practices, but alien to western moral values.

I have a murky recollection, so feel free to correct me, that Churchill favored summary execution for the Nuremberg defendants. Does this ring a bell?
6.8.2007 9:14pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Sgt., why do you assume I'm talking about collective punishment and not actual guilt? Are you of the opinion that anyone could have risen as high as colonel in the Hitler regime without being guilty of monstrous crimes?

I'm not.

By your argument, the denazification courts were impermissible. I happen to think they were a bad idea, and I have Telford Taylor on my side, although I wouldn't for a moment want anyone to think I'm saying Taylor agrees with my reasoning.

Far too many of the senior Germans who were tried got derisory sentences for crimes of historical magnitude and then were let go, a la Paris Hilton, after serving a negligible sentence.

And that was just the minority who got tried. Most skated without even that much.

And the history of international justice since Nuremburg doesn't inspire any confidence in me that international collective judgment -- as opposed to collective punishment -- is anything but a unicorn.

I'm sure all of you are shocked by my immorality and harshness, but then some of you are rather easily shocked.

Charles Johnson is leading a fight against people who publish 'The Secret Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' and preach that Jews are descended from apes and pigs. Johnson is not publishing anything like the Secret Protocols of the Elders of Islam, yet he is labeled pond scum and hatemonger.

I have only a limited supply of pond scum labels to pass around, and I'm afraid they are all going to be used up on far worthier people before I get around to LGF.

I don't consider the deliberate murder of thousands and millions of helpless people as an unfortunatee by-blow of more important disputes in law schools about fine principles of the way we do things. Murder is the issue for me.

YMMV.
6.8.2007 9:20pm
LM (mail):

Minipundit said:
What I'm saying is that Johnson is racist pond scum and that for Bernstein to take him seriously reflects badly on Bernstein.


Being anti-Islam does not make someone racist, as Islam is a belief system, not a race.

Of course, your quickness to link Islam with a racial component (Arab) reveals much more about you than it does about LGF. Did you know that Arabs are less than 16% of muslims worldwide? Johnson knows it.

You hear "Islam," and you think "Arab." This knee jerk reaction reveals your own racism, caused in no small part by your slavish devotion to multiculturalism over history and facts. Merely because your racism manifests in patronizing condescension towards Arabs does not make it any less disgusting than the racism from places like Stormfront.

Me, I view Arabs like adult humans, open to the same criticism and ridicule for their poor behavior and religious choices as I subject people of my own color and creed. You, you see them as children who will throw understandable temper tantrums if you don't step in to stop mean people like Charles Johnson from taunting the children. Disgusting.


Minipundit's statement is certainly uncivil, and for all I know it may be entirely wrong (I don't know enough about Johnson to opine). But from his one sentence you got all that? There's one bridge that may be too far to pass even Ted Stevens' smell test.
6.8.2007 9:37pm