Rwandan genocide, The Holocaust...America?

April 27, 2004 12:46 PM

Becoming Evil : Boston WTKK-FM radio's Jay Severin advocates genocide of American-Muslims - this is the advocacy of domestic terrorism. And not the mere targeting of civilians but the murder of over three million men, women, and children. Why shouldn't Jay Severin be arrested and charged, under the Patriot Act, with aiding and abetting US domestic terrorist groups which advocate such violence? [Scroll down towards the bottom of the Globe story for a transcript of the quote in context.]
James Waller has studied the process by which individuals and society come to commit mass atrocities , and says of his theories: "...[the] explanation simply allows us to understand the conditions under which many of us could be transformed into killing machines. When we understand the ordinariness of extraordinary evil, we will be less surprised by evil, less likely to be unwitting contributors to evil, and perhaps better equipped to forestall evil." Hesiod Lists some of WTTK's advertisers : Purina, Hilton Resorts, 99 Restaurant and Pub, A.T. & T. Wireless. Still, Orcinus is my favorite "rise of extremist terrorist hate speech in America" news source. Germany has laws against such hate speech - which it believes to be so dangerous as to override free speech considerations - But we've got the USA PATRIOT Act, right?
posted by troutfishing (104 comments total)

Correction - in the text I reter to WTTK. The station in question is WTKK as decribed in the link title.

"Becoming Evil", by James Waller, was discussed on Metafilter #24363
posted by troutfishing at 12:52 PM on April 27, 2004

I'm no longer shocked by Severin's douchebaggery. Nothing will happen to him, which is a shame. Dennis and Callahan are still on the air after comparing mostly-black METCO students to gorillas.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:55 PM on April 27, 2004

"Whenever someone attacks Muslims or Islam or gets called on it, they say they didn't mean the moderate or peaceful ones, that they only meant to harm those militant radical Muslims, when what they are really saying is that they meant all Muslims," Hooper said

I'm not gonna defend what Severin said, but this sounds like a weird kind of Catch-22: "If you say you don't mean all Muslims, then that means you mean all Muslims." But I assume if you say "all Muslims" then most people would take that at face value. Is there any way to express dissatisfaction with any sector of Islam without being considered a hateful bigot?
posted by jonmc at 12:57 PM on April 27, 2004

Publicity stunt. Simple. And does anyone here remember this guy doing a night show on NJ 101.5 FM, WKXW in New Jersey? I can't believe I am hearing about him again after all these years.
posted by ac at 1:00 PM on April 27, 2004

It sounds like the discussions that have come up here time and time again, which is whether or not it's ok to say that extremist muslims are bad and something should be done about them. If you're not careful with whatever wacky term you use (be it extreme islamacists, all muslims, hardcore muslims, and/or islamofacists), it can come across as damning th entire religion and a sizable chunk of the world's population simply because they share a trait with a much smaller group of terrorists.

I don't agree with the guy's first point that "But, thus far, all the terrorists killing us are Muslims." There are plenty of non-muslim terrorists that have killed us or wanted to kill us in recent years. *cough* McVeigh *cough*

This all comes back to how we deal with Al Queda in a post 9/11 world. Personally, I would have viewed it as a small group of terrorists and gotten the world to help root them out, instead of turning it into the USA vs. the middle east. When that happened, you quickly got people confusing the response to our terrorist attacks with a Christianity vs. Muslim world war, which is most certainly is not.
posted by mathowie at 1:03 PM on April 27, 2004

It's very important to read the transcript closely. Here it is again : [ from the Globe article ] "Severin's employer, WTKK-FM, declined to offer a tape or transcript of last Thursday's show, but the Globe obtained a copy from a radio monitoring service yesterday. Severin's comment, "You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them," came at the end of a conversation with a caller named Chris from Rhode Island who suggested that the United States befriend Muslims in this country "to help us root out their leaders who aren't really Muslims."

As part of his response, Severin said, "I believe that Muslims in this country are a fifth column. . . . The vast majority of Muslims in this country are very obviously loyal, not to the United States, but to their religion. And I'm worried that when the time comes for them to stand up and be counted, the reason they are here is to take over our culture and eventually take over our country."

He said: "My suspicion is that the majority of Muslims in the United States, who regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all, see an American map one day where this is the United States of Islam, not the United States of America. I think it pays to harbor those suspicions."

Toward the end of the conversation, Severin asked, "Do you think we should befriend them?"

The caller said, "Well, I see Muslims in this country, they seem to like freedom."

"Would you answer my question?" Severin said. "Do you think we should befriend them?"

"I think we should . . ." the caller said before being interrupted.

"I'm going to try one more time," Severin said. "The host takes pains to phrase questions sometimes and in a fashion such, the appropriate reply is a yes or a no. This is a three-strike state; you're about to get your third strike. Do you believe we should befriend them?"

"Yes," the caller said.

"I've got good news for you: We have," Severin replied. "Thanks for the call and that's what I'm worried about."

Then, introducing another caller, Severin said: "I have an alternative viewpoint. It's slightly different than yours. You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them." "

In context, Severin's meaning seems very clear to me :

1) First he claimed that Muslims who are US citizens are not really Americans and constitute a "Fifth Column" ( Traitors, that is ) and an invading force who want to take over the country.

2 Then he advocated killing all of them.

______________________________________________

I'm rather suprised that so few here think this is bad.

Reality check - what part of this statement is unclear ? : ""I believe that Muslims in this country are a fifth column. . . . The vast majority of Muslims in this country are very obviously loyal, not to the United States, but to their religion. And I'm worried that when the time comes for them to stand up and be counted, the reason they are here is to take over our culture and eventually take over our country."

Let me say it again, for emphasis - Severin said that the approximately 3 million Americans who are Muslims are not really Americans but, essentially, are traitors and from a lack of proper loyalty....

And, they want to "take over our country" - in other words, they amount to an invading force.

Remember - we are at war - and fifth columnists, in wartime, are traitor-combatants who are usually summarily shot.

This is - at the very least - the sort of hate speech which provokes vicious hate crimes.

BTW - government radio, in Rwanda, proved invaluable in promoting the Rwandan genocide.
posted by troutfishing at 1:19 PM on April 27, 2004

If you're not careful with whatever wacky term you use (be it extreme islamacists, all muslims, hardcore muslims, and/or islamofacists), it can come across as damning th entire religion and a sizable chunk of the world's population simply because they share a trait with a much smaller group of terrorists.

But mathowie, if you read the entire conversation and look at the context of Severin's "I think we should kill them" statement, it seems clear that he was emphatically not referring only to extremists. Immediately prior to issuing the comment in question, Severin had said:

"My suspicion is that the majority of Muslims in the United States, who regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all, see an American map one day where this is the United States of Islam, not the United States of America. I think it pays to harbor those suspicions."

He never specifically mentions terrorists or extremists. The context makes it indisputable that he was referring to "the majority of Muslims in the United States", regardless of his subsequent justifications. Severin can insist that I'm misconstruing his remarks all he wants. Unfortunately, I'm capable of thinking for myself, and those remarks are crystal clear.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:20 PM on April 27, 2004

Which all goes to point out that no sane person listens to talk radio...turn to Jerry Springer TV for The Higher Learning.
posted by Postroad at 1:25 PM on April 27, 2004

it seems clear that he was emphatically not referring only to extremists


yes, it is clear. it's impossible to spin it any other way after you've read the transcript.
American Muslims = Fifth Column. Disloyal. Must kill them.
it really is an appalling genocidal statement

by the way:
But does it really matter whether these atrocities were classed as genocide?
posted by matteo at 1:31 PM on April 27, 2004

But I still don't have an answer to my question - How was Jay Severin not advocating terrorism ?

He didn't say "we should kill the "bad" muslims - those who are enemy combatants. He didn't say "we should kill those Muslims who try to kill Americans". He simply said "we should kill the Muslims" - but the context had been quite clearly established earlier. Severin was talking explicitly about Muslims living in the US - most of them citizens, I believe.

So how is this different - and not worse - from the alleged crimes committed by the Saudi National recently arrested by John Ashcroft's Justice Dept. ?

How is it not a form of terrorism or an advocacy of terrorism?
posted by troutfishing at 1:32 PM on April 27, 2004

Shock jock (and you don't have to talk about lesbians to be a shock jock) says something stupid. That's new.
posted by bondcliff at 1:33 PM on April 27, 2004

I agree with trout and mr_roboto: This is as clear an example of genocidal hate speech as you're likely to get on the public airwaves, and it does no good to try to mitigate it or make excuses for it. I believe in free speech, and I also believe that hate speech should be vigorously combatted. Milosevic was saying this kind of thing about Muslims well before he took power, and people said "Oh, he's exaggerating, he doesn't really mean it..." But he did. (And there are, er, earlier examples.)

Not, of course, that this idiot has any chance of coming to power, but this kind of talk prepares the public to think of their Muslim neighbors as less than human and makes it easier to accept discriminatory government actions.
posted by languagehat at 1:41 PM on April 27, 2004

I don't deny that what Severin said was hateful (although "hate speech" always struck me as an Orwellian concept, and one that is easily manipulated to the benefit of the powerful's or anyone else's agenda), but the response of Hooper dosen't seem to leave a lot of room for legitamite criticism.
posted by jonmc at 1:54 PM on April 27, 2004

In the years up to 1994, many journalists allied themselves with Hutu extremists who planned and carried out the genocide. A magazine called Kangura, or Wake Him Up!, published screeds denigrating Tutsis as a subhuman race that aimed to destroy Rwanda, and urged Hutus to arm themselves. As the genocide got underway on April 6, 1994, the radio station RTLM filled the airwaves with vitriol, even broadcasting the names of individual Tutsis and their hiding places.
Confirming the media's murderous role, the UN war crimes tribunal for Rwanda in December convicted key figures from the magazine and the radio station of incitement to genocide.
posted by matteo at 1:54 PM on April 27, 2004

So, what are you saying, we should lock Severin up?

I don't want to live in a country where people get locked up for their opinions, no matter how vile they might be.

And my initial response was a crticism of the response given by Hooper to Severin, which struck me as a double bind. I've heard people say here at Mefi (with some justification) "Is it possible to crticize Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism?"

Severin's performance was stupid shock-jockery but what about the next guy who comes along with legitamite criticism?
posted by jonmc at 2:01 PM on April 27, 2004

no, we are saying that he should have been fired 2 minutes after the genocidal statement

doesn't it trouble you that if he hadn't attacked an easy-to-shit-on-after-911 minority, he would find himself in much more trouble?
posted by matteo at 2:10 PM on April 27, 2004

sure, but the world is full of assholes. If we decide he should be fired for an opinion we find repugnant, then how long is it before somebody gets fired for an opinion someone with diametrically different attitudes finds repugnant.

The cure for hate speech is more speech.
posted by jonmc at 2:13 PM on April 27, 2004

So, what are you saying, we should lock Severin up? I think the question "Why shouldn't Jay Severin be arrested and charged, under the Patriot Act" is best answered by saying, because the Patriot Act violates our first amendment rights. The real question is, how does one address this type of hate speech. A boycott would be the traditional response, and not a bad idea in this case.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:13 PM on April 27, 2004

I'm with jonmc in regard to Hooper's response -- partway. That is, I think Hooper is correct to say that 'Severin's explanation of the "kill them" comment "is a common dodge."' To say "I just meant the bad ones" does not remove culpability. But I agree that Hooper's subsequent statement is problematic. Saying "I just meant the bad ones" is not, as Hooper would have it, the same as saying "I meant everyone."
posted by nickmark at 2:14 PM on April 27, 2004

jon:

"I believe that Jews in this country are a fifth column. . . . The vast majority of Jews in this country are very obviously loyal, not to the United States, but to their religion. And I'm worried that when the time comes for them to stand up and be counted, the reason they are here is to take over our culture and eventually take over our country You think we should befriend Jews; I think we should kill them"

that's KKK shit. that's -- and rightly so! -- grounds for immediate termination from a media job. and for possible legal action. ans, as Outlawyr says, possible PATRIOT ACT trouble.

not to mention Muslims should have the same rights as African Americans, Jewish Americans, the handicapped, the elderly, etc.
posted by matteo at 2:14 PM on April 27, 2004

I believe in free speech, and I also believe that hate speech should be vigorously combatted.

Languagehat, this confuses me. If you have freedom of speech, how can you combat hate speech? Surely the first line of defense for those using such language is that they are exercising their freedom of speech.

Americans always seem to go on about this freedom of speech thing and I've never really understood it, especially in situations such as this. Isn't this a pretty clear case of inciting racial hatred? Is it really the case that people can express such views in the US and not be held accountable for them?

Why?
posted by davehat at 2:16 PM on April 27, 2004

Yeh, yeh, but at least he didn't commit the unthinkable acts Howard Stern did and openly discuss sexual deviancy. God, I love this country!
posted by lometogo at 2:39 PM on April 27, 2004

Americans always seem to go on about this freedom of speech thing and I've never really understood it, especially in situations such as this. Isn't this a pretty clear case of inciting racial hatred? Is it really the case that people can express such views in the US and not be held accountable for them?

Here is an example, every year, the KKK marches (or actually stands around pathetically) on the steps of the Indiana Statehouse. Nobody fights against the ability for a few dozen racists to dress up in funny costumes to stand with bullhorns on the statehouse.

Here is why this is a good thing. Every year the Klan stands on the statehouse steps, a much greater number meet on the very same day to talk about how to improve civil rights in Indiana. The ultimate message is obvious, even in a state that is historically one of the strongholds of the Klan, they are grossly outnumbered by at least 10-1.

The point is that we are better off having those opinions out there as lightning rods for comment than to burry them under the surface.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:49 PM on April 27, 2004

I guess maybe there's the faintest whiff of ambiguity in what he said but I really don't care. This guy has a microphone and an audience -- he has to think before he speaks, and if he's too much of an exciteable boy to do that, well, let him pay the consequences.

Who really ought to be in trouble here is WTKK, without whom this guy's just an annoying street fiend. Radio stations have a well-known responsibility serve their communities responsibly. (Christmas Eve 1992, I heard a Pacifica Radio host say "One bullet, one capitalist, you know what I mean?") I think the FCC ought to come down hard -- like, Janet-Jackson's-nipple-hard -- on the stations that put chowderheads like this on the air. I'm sorry if it has a chilling effect on free speech.
posted by coelecanth at 2:58 PM on April 27, 2004

(And if Janet Jackson's nipple ever advocates genocide on the airwaves, well, that would be the last straw).
posted by coelecanth at 3:02 PM on April 27, 2004

I think people are entitled to their opinions, actions are what count. But I think those of you who are very US-centric and don't understand how things might work in other countries can see through this person's words, the same things we hear from hate-mongerers all over the world... it's the same language, the same 'logic'. The difference is that this is a rich country and a free one which can absorb this kind of talk.

Imagine if instead of being publicly rebuked, this man was put in jail for the rest of his life, and all his friends and associates, regardless of their involvement in his actions, were locked up as well and tortured. Imagine if the principal instigator behind this treatment was a foreign country. Then I think you'll start to get an idea of why hate mongerers in countries that are not free gain power and support-- reasonable people thing: if their rhetoric is so dangerous to the oppressive state, there must be truth in it!

Americans and others are lucky to live in wealthy, free countries where someone can make evil statements but not be tortured or imprisoned or killed for them.
posted by chaz at 3:08 PM on April 27, 2004

Languagehat, this confuses me. If you have freedom of speech, how can you combat hate speech? Surely the first line of defense for those using such language is that they are exercising their freedom of speech.
Americans always seem to go on about this freedom of speech thing and I've never really understood it...

And you're in good company; I've encountered the same confusion many times. The basic concept was articulated with concision and clarity by jonmc a bit farther upstream:
The cure for hate speech is more speech.
That's how you combat speech you don't like—by countering it with facts and explaining why you consider it harmful. The essential thing to keep in mind is the distinction between the government and people at large; the government should never be allowed to censor people or cause them to suffer for their speech, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't suffer consequences. A vicious idiot like this should be fired, and ideally ordinary citizens should turn away from him in the street. That doesn't impede his freedom of speech, any more than the fact that you'll get hurt impedes your freedom to jump off a cliff. Saying vicious things should get you in trouble; it should not get you jailed. I hope it's a little clearer now.

Also, what KirkJobSluder said.
posted by languagehat at 3:55 PM on April 27, 2004

I disagree with the "kill them" bit and I also support free speech. I strongly suspect that Severin is being targeted by the left as a scapegoat and a pretext to indirectly knock the war effort etc etc. Troutfishing, as usual, is misusing MetaFilter as a soapbox for his self-righteous lefty agitprop.

Let me say it again, for emphasis - Severin said that the approximately 3 million Americans who are Muslims are not really Americans but, essentially, are traitors and from a lack of proper loyalty....

I believe Roger Scruton has written about the fact that ultimately muslims see themselves as tribes belonging to one nation. Foolish, naive people who have spent their entirely lives in free countries insist on thinking of all muslims as the harmless paki store clerk kind, but Islam still means "submission".

This is - at the very least - the sort of hate speech which provokes vicious hate crimes.

The "kill them" phrase was ill-advised and unfortunate, all the more so because it does reflect an opinion held by many outside the naive liberal circles. Back in 1997, I remember hearing from cab drivers in Nice how lazy, inadequate etc etc the muslim migrants were.

I do not see in the near future a particularly easy time for muslims living in the West. Just as citizens from Western countries are discouraged from living in Saudi Arabia, I strongly recommend that muslims consider going back to their countries or at least move only to other Islamic nations. With the experience acquired in Western countries, they could (if they saw the knowledge acquired in the West as something valuable) act as innovators, bring about productive changes in muslim countries and build bridges between these two different regions.
posted by 111 at 4:24 PM on April 27, 2004

The cure for hate speech is more speech.
So who has the equal airtime, slot, wattage and listenership as this guy - that denounces him, and his bigoted speech?

I'm as terrified as the next [single/gay/male] non-Muslim of the terrorist tendency - but I could not support blanket statements like this.

America has not had a modern era genocide, one facilitated by mass media broadcasting propaganda. I hope that it can avoid one and learn from the european, asian and african experience, cos it seems to be a universal human weakness.

111: the muslims born in the US/UK/France/etc - where should they go?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:31 PM on April 27, 2004

The idea that all muslims view themselves as part of a whole is hilarious.

Seriously, if you look inside the muslim world you'll find the various groups hate each other even more than catholics hated protestants etc - salafis vs sufis etc.

The vast majority of muslims are cultural muslims who just want to go about their daily lives - there's no real onus on the "brotherhood"/Ummah on a day to day level.

Jews have a far higher degree of cohesiveness.
posted by Mossy at 4:35 PM on April 27, 2004

I believe Roger Scruton has written about the fact that ultimately muslims see themselves as tribes belonging to one nation.

Oh, it's a fact. Ok, well, discussion over folks, 111 showed us the facts! They're all part of some other nation, they want to overthrow us and all lefty pinkos here should help put them on boats back to their home country. 111, thanks for clearing the air.

Last one here, please turn the lights out when you go. Thanks.
posted by mathowie at 4:37 PM on April 27, 2004

User 1: 1
User 111: 0
posted by dash_slot- at 4:44 PM on April 27, 2004

Hooper's comment makes no sense--either Hooper is stupid, or the comment was misreported.

However, that doesn't take away from the FACT that Jay Severin said that "we" should "kill" "the vast majority of Muslims" in America.

Okay, will someone explain to me how radio works these days? Sandra Tsing Loh says "fuck" by accident and gets fired; Jay Severin advocates killing American citizens because of their religion, and that isn't seen as a problem?

I don't think Severin should go to jail, but I would sure as Hell fire him if I were his employers. How can this be seen as anything but an egregious and unforgivable blemish on his professional record?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:14 PM on April 27, 2004

Mossy: The idea that all muslims view themselves as part of a whole is hilarious.

Not all muslims perhaps. But I think it is legitimate to consider that there is a thread of pan-Islamic solidarity that exists out there and needs to be considered. However, this is not unique to Islam. I've heard Evangelical Christians argue for world-wide solidarity as well in regards to members of their faith in China and the former U.S.S.R.. As you say, there definitely is a pan-Jewish ideology floating around out there.

There are so many people out there that feel some sort of trans-national ideology that it's not really fair to single out Muslims as a unique group.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:22 PM on April 27, 2004

111: the muslims born in the US/UK/France/etc - where should they go?

dash_slot, let them decide. They could look for their parents' origins.

The idea that all muslims view themselves as part of a whole is hilarious.

Mossy, perhaps you could mention a few relevant excerpts from one of the two Islamic legs (the standard texts) disproving the understanding that muslims see themselves as part of one single nation etc etc.


I believe Roger Scruton has written about the fact that ultimately muslims see themselves as tribes belonging to one nation.

Oh, it's a fact. Ok, well, discussion over folks, 111 showed us the facts! They're all part of some other nation, they want to overthrow us and all lefty pinkos here should help put them on boats back to their home country.

Dear mathowie, you live in a dreamy blue-gray-green fantasy world full of fairies and fairy tales. Did you do your history homework? Have you read the essay in question? If there is, say, a 10% rate of muslims who actually put their national loyalties above their religious duties, does that disprove the theory of islamic unity? Finally, in real, daily life, do you see muslims as completely integrated? For instance, is there perfect harmony between parisians and muslims? What about the UK? What about the USA?
And hey, how come you have the gall to imply that anyone is asking for the deportment of muslims?
posted by 111 at 5:22 PM on April 27, 2004

I believe Roger Scruton has written about the fact that ultimately muslims see themselves as tribes belonging to one nation. Foolish, naive people who have spent their entirely lives in free countries insist on thinking of all muslims as the harmless paki store clerk kind, but Islam still means "submission".

Muslims, especially American Muslims aren't any more "tribal" than any other group of people. Once you take race and national origin out of the picture (as American Muslims of my generation intermarry quite a bit and include many white/black Muslims), then you're talking about a group united by religion only. Given that, do you mean to suggest that American Muslim have a loyalty to their religion any greater than Jews, Catholics, or bible-thumping fundamentalist Christians? (The latter is trying to shape & take over America far more than any Muslim attempt, if one exists.)

I strongly recommend that muslims consider going back to their countries or at least move only to other Islamic nations.

Do you suggest the same for African-Americans? They've arguably had a harder time in America than Muslims (who collectively have one of the highest per-capita incomes of any group in America, which suggests they've found a way to "fit in", at least economically.) How about those Mexican immigrants that stubbornly refuse to learn English?
posted by laz-e-boy at 5:22 PM on April 27, 2004

Go back where you came from, 111.

The other "Palatine boors", to use Ben Franklin's deathless phrase, won't want you, of course, but that isn't our problem.

(Why won't they want you, you ask? Because they have laws against hate speech in Germany. Personally, I don't believe in that, but I'm willing to make an exception in your case.

Insulting Matt was the cherry on top of the sundae of asshattery that is the Art of 111.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:26 PM on April 27, 2004

Whoop. And the nice thing about being a liberal democracy is that groups who feel a trans-national affinity for an issue can participate in entirely legal processess to advance that issue.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:26 PM on April 27, 2004

I believe Roger Scruton has written about the fact that ultimately muslims see themselves as tribes belonging to one nation.

Do you feel that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America, and would choose Israeli interests over American ones? After all, they have a much more organized effort to support Israel than American Muslims have to support a similar pan-Islamic entity (not that one exists). I really want to hear your answer to this.
posted by laz-e-boy at 5:40 PM on April 27, 2004

I recall reading when Hitler was released from his first jail term some Bavarian minister had a talk with him and said something to the effect that "you talk and talk and talk sooner or later, your going to have to act on your talk."

then the 24' putsch happened.
I agree, the hate speech should be met with more speech to counter this but i would not be surprised if this person where rightfully fired.
posted by clavdivs at 5:40 PM on April 27, 2004

Jews have a far higher degree of cohesiveness.

I don't think we do. I'm not sure how you measure "cohesiveness", but I think I could demonstrate levels of difference in politics, piety, religious doctrine, language, culture, etc that parallel any in the Muslim world.

You may not see that, because as in the Muslim world, it's the loudest and most committed who get the press.

"The vast majority of X are cultural X who just want to go about their daily lives - there's no real onus on the brotherhood/whatever on a day to day level" could be said of virtually any group.

111: perfect harmony between parisians and muslims. That's a false dichotomy that presumes there are no muslim parisians, isn't it?

On preview, what laz-e-boy said.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:46 PM on April 27, 2004

Mossy, perhaps you could mention a few relevant excerpts from one of the two Islamic legs (the standard texts) disproving the understanding that muslims see themselves as part of one single nation etc etc.

I didn't say they shouldn't, I intimated that they don't.

As someone who is both a part of and works within the community at various levels, it's a clear and ready observation.

Islam is approximately as monolithic as any of the other major world faiths - it even says it would fragment within the hadith of the 73 sects.

Most muslims are cultural muslims. They aren't even up on the basics of their religion. Let's take an example. Aqeedah. That's our theology. The various groups disagree vehemently on this, even though it's the cornerstone of our religion. The average abdul has no idea what it even is.

If you look at the texts you will see other injunctions which the majority tend to ignore, such as to behave as the Prophet (pbuh) did - it being a grevious sin to slander, insult or backbite anyone, especially non-muslims etc.

I'd say the number who place their national loyalties above that of their brothers in Islam is much higher than 10%. I wouldn't even say 10% feel that way.

As an aside, you've forgotten the hundreds of thousands of converts, white and black muslims and those who have intermarried as laz-e-boy indicated. In addition, there are a number of muslims who are 3rd or even 4th generation.

No group is totally integrated. A complete homogenous state would be somewhat boring don't you think? I myself like a bit of diversity.. Here in the UK you see muslims in all fields. Heck, most of the doctors are muslim. As are a number of accountants and lawyers, as well as less middle class vocations.
posted by Mossy at 5:51 PM on April 27, 2004

i_am_joe's_spleen: by cohesiveness I mean seeing your fellow Jews as true brothers rather than standard strangers. I've found the standard concern of my Jewish acquaintances for others in their faith to be more frequent than my muslim acquaintances (I do of course know more muslims). You disagree on politics, methodology, actions - but in the end you maintain the ties, right?

It's like family.
posted by Mossy at 5:54 PM on April 27, 2004

Given that, do you mean to suggest that American Muslim have a loyalty to their religion any greater than Jews, Catholics, or Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christians? (The latter is trying to shape & take over America far more than any Muslim attempt, if one exists.)

laz-e-boy, as of now muslims seem to be bound by a sense of unity stronger than other groups. Remember, most muslim countries are still theocratic dictatorships. Re the loyalties of American muslims, it's up to them to answer your question.
About the Christian ethos, I'd say it did shape America in the first place. The driving force of the USA is historically Judeo-Christian.

Do you suggest the same for African-Americans?

Well, the Malcom-X/Nation of Islam "back to Africa" movement argued for just that, didn't it? Frankly, I think it would be racist and unfair to single out my bruthaz out there because many do fit perfectly into the system. While a black National Security Adviser is something totally normal imho, I'd wonder a bit about a muslim NSA, for instance.

How about those Mexican immigrants that stubbornly refuse to learn English?

Swim back, amigos. Or else act "when in Rome, do as Romans do" and pay your host country the courtesy of learning its official language.

Do you feel that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America, and would choose Israeli interests over American ones?

I think Jews (whose worldview is very similar to the way Christians think about life and society) helped build the United States and therefore bring together Israel and the USA. Israeli and US interests are the same.

joe's_spleen, I've heard immigrant muslims in France, when asked where did they come from, reply "Je suis francais". When you ask them where they were born, they'll say "je suis francais d'origine éthiopienne" or something like that. To be realistic, I think muslims who live in Paris like to think of themselves as locals and they do have equal rights (unlike Europeans in certain muslim countries), but les parisiens de Paris will tell you otherwise.
posted by 111 at 5:58 PM on April 27, 2004

If you look at the texts you will see other injunctions which the majority tend to ignore, such as to behave as the Prophet (pbuh) did -it being a grevious sin to slander, insult or backbite anyone, especially non-muslims etc.

Mossy, what about stuff like "kill all infidels down to the last one"? (quoted from memory, feel free to present the correct phrasing)

No group is totally integrated. A complete homogenous state would be somewhat boring don't you think? I myself like a bit of diversity..

True, but there certain basic tenets which must be universally accepted, such as freedom of speech and religion, women's rights etc.
posted by 111 at 6:04 PM on April 27, 2004

it's a tough call.
but i think what should be considered here is the context: Who is this particular person? If he is an anti-terrorism expert who holds a hawkish view of how to deal with terrorists in general, and has exhibited such view about other terrorists in the past (e.g. McVeigh)? If so, then his excuse (that he was only talking about the extremist muslims) holds. You don't like his expert view, don't listen.
If however he is someone known for his distaste of Muslims in general, and this is just the latest in a string of his attacks on a religious group, then his excuse does not hold.
If it is the latter, I certainly see no reason why he shouldn't be dealt with in the same way as someone who would say that all Jews need to be killed. That is, he should be fired, and a lawsuit should be made to strip him of his economic wealth (racists are much better off poor). As to criminal case, again, the case should be made for whether it constituted incitement for action or was an expression of an idea. If it is only an expression of an idea, then firing and lawsuit is sufficient. If it is an incitement to action (given his previous history of statements) then he should be tried for incitement.
posted by bokononito at 6:10 PM on April 27, 2004

Re the loyalties of American muslims, it's up to them to answer your question.

I would assume that the law-abiding behavior of the vast majority of American Muslims would be a clear answer to that question. And as a born-in-the-USA American Muslim who knows hundreds like myself, I think I can speak for all of us (even though the question is in itself insulting) and say that our actions in and of themselves have proved our loyalty to the US.

About the Christian ethos, I'd say it did shape America in the first place.

You mean the same ethos being pushed right now by today's Christian fundamentalists? Sorry, wrong.

While a black National Security Adviser is something totally normal imho, I'd wonder a bit about a muslim NSA, for instance.

Do you feel the same way about the Muslim director of the National Institutes of Health? The one charged w/protecting us from all sorts of biological terrorism?

Israeli and US interests are the same.

Copout. I'll ask again: when Israeli and US interests conflict (as they undoubtedly do sometimes), do you think American Jews will choose Israeli interests over American ones? The answer to this is significant because you will find VERY few Muslims who will choose the interests of any one Muslim nation over America, precisely because so many of them are messed up (which is why so many Muslims are here).
posted by laz-e-boy at 6:12 PM on April 27, 2004

Okay, will someone explain to me how radio works these days? Sandra Tsing Loh says "fuck" by accident and gets fired; Jay Severin advocates killing American citizens because of their religion, and that isn't seen as a problem?

Sandra Tsing Loh got fired? Holy shit! There were probably petitions to save her and everything, and I missed them all. Damn it. Someone please provide a link.

In other news, mark up yours truly as one non-zionist jew who does not look on all other jews as brothers and sisters.
posted by bingo at 6:20 PM on April 27, 2004

In the current context of radical Islamofascists killing Christians and Jews at any opportunity they can generate, it is a little difficult to get exercised over a little inflated rhetoric.

But, I'm with Ann Coulter, to wit "Invade their countries. Kill their leaders. Convert them to Christianity."
posted by paleocon at 6:26 PM on April 27, 2004

Mossy, what about stuff like "kill all infidels down to the last one"?

I'd take it to refer to the battle of Uhud in a single situational narration as opposed to a generalised command just as was the agreement of the majority of traditional scholars. Wouldn't you?

"There is no compulsion in religion". That's a great one from surah al-baqarah.

The unfortunate tendency is to associate the Saudi regime with Islam and being the representative of it as it seems, on the face of it, the most "rigorous" and "accurate" interpretation of it, even though it is in direct contrast with many of the accepted norms in traditional Islamic scholarship. The polysemy of the Qu'ran in particular leads to a variety of different interpretations being applicable - it is the literal one that leads to many of the problems which are in contradiction to the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and his actions. For example, the favourite scholar of the Salafi movement, Ibn Taymiyyah, had a female scholar as one of his primary teachers of hadith. This would be something unimaginable now as they have twisted the texts to confine females to their houses except in dire need (and indeed, restrict them from the steering wheel) and declared it completely impermissable to study with males.

Seatbelts are also an innovation apparently.. Remember what I said about the large bankroll of Saudi? Guess what form of Islamic evangelism they fund.. Go to any third world Islamic country and you will find Saudi literature everywhere. And it's not nice or in line with traditional Islam. Some of this is funded by the government, others by groups within the country - all in all, it concentrates on certain ayat above and beyond others and in isolation to others which qualify them - I can pick from any book and say "this religion is evil, look what it says!", but that would just be terrible scholarship.

With reference to France, I'd say the segregation of communities is more to do with the nature of migration and the attitudes to generalised immigration by the natives than a major onus on religion, especially in light of the fact that most French muslims aren't the most devout of people.
posted by Mossy at 6:26 PM on April 27, 2004

Copout. I'll ask again: when Israeli and US interests conflict (as they undoubtedly do sometimes), do you think American Jews will choose Israeli interests over American ones? The answer to this is significant because you will find VERY few Muslims who will choose the interests of any one Muslim nation over America, precisely because so many of them are messed up (which is why so many Muslims are here).

Exactly. And would American Catholics choose Vatican interests over American ones?, etc...etc...

It's asinine and bigoted to even insinuate dual loyalties, especially without proof.
posted by amberglow at 6:48 PM on April 27, 2004

the harmless paki store clerk

111, your casual use of a racial slur says far more than your half-baked punditry ever could.

I'd beg you to please stop pissing all over every geopolitically themed thread that pops up around here, but I'm sure it'd only encourage your these-jingoistic-lefties-just-won't-listen-to-my-impeccable-logic faux martyrdom. For the record, reading your posts makes me nauseous. Nice work.
posted by gompa at 6:58 PM on April 27, 2004

I want to thank 111 for provoking informative and thoughtful posts from Mossy and laz-e-boy. Your efforts are appreciated!
posted by BT at 7:01 PM on April 27, 2004

what is this "racist coming out day" in mefi-land?

oh and those Wetbacks had the west before the anglos did, florida too, and texas even after the texas revolution.
thats like blaming telling Pacific Islanders to go home when your in Hawaii, or Israelis in Israel to go back to Europe (oh maybe not a good metaphor there).

Heck, we did atleast hit Godwins earlier than usual in the thread...
posted by Elim at 7:08 PM on April 27, 2004

...when Israeli and US interests conflict (as they undoubtedly do sometimes), do you think American Jews will choose Israeli interests over American ones? The answer to this is significant because you will find VERY few Muslims who will choose the interests of any one Muslim nation over America, precisely because so many of them are messed up (which is why so many Muslims are here).

It's asinine and bigoted to even insinuate dual loyalties, especially without proof.


In that case, I hope that the first statement above is an honest question rather than just such an insinuation, which is what it sounds like.

Also, you speak for all Muslims with disturbing ease, laz-e-boy, although I certainly hope you are right.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:23 PM on April 27, 2004

It was an absurd question pointing out the absurdity of questioning Muslim loyalty, I thought.

Krrrlson, do you actually believe that American Jews will choose Israeli interests over American? (you're very mistaken if you do)
posted by amberglow at 7:30 PM on April 27, 2004

111, let me ask this more explicitly: can Muslims be Parisians? You've told me what Muslims in Paris think, and what "Parisiens de Paris" think (can't a Muslim citizen of Paris be a Parisen de Paris?), but what do YOU think?

Your retreat from "it is a fact" to "seems to be" is noted.

Israeli and US interests are the same. A bald assertion, actively disputed by citizens of both countries, serving also as an evasion of the original question.

As to integration, immigrants have always clustered with their own in the first couple of generations. It makes it easier to get My (Jewish) grandparents did this in Leeds (Chapeltown, to be precise), and guess what? The Pakistanis that have succeeded them have done likewise. It would be surprising to me if Algerians in France, or Turks in Germany, or any X in Y, did any different.

Yo Mossy: your aquaintances aren't a big enough sample. And um, reading an Israeli newspaper or two should disabuse you of the notion that Jews look on other Jews as brothers, except as a handy rhetorical device.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 7:39 PM on April 27, 2004

that should read: "It makes it easier to get by. My..."

Sorry.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 7:57 PM on April 27, 2004

111 - Maybe you aren't aware of this, but there are plenty of places in the Bible where it says to kill all infidels, too. For example, Lv 27:29: "All human beings that are doomed* lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

Or Nm 21:2-3: "Israel then made this vow to the LORD: 'If you deliever this people into my hand, I will doom their cities.' Later, when the LORD heeded Israel's prayer and delivered up the Canaanites, they doomed them and their cities."

Or maybe we could get into a discussion of the Ban (the destruction of that which is doomed), which basically meant destroying every living and non-living thing in a city that the Israelites conquered. This occurs so often in the Book of Joshua that it would be pointless to go verse by verse.

So, assuming you're a Christian and I just take a quick cursory look at these chapters, I could say that, "Wow, all these Christians are dangerous, because look at the stuff that's in their scriptures. Better be wary of them." I won't, because we all know that nowadays Christians are extremely tolerant of other religions.

Almost every religion has it's dirty little secrets, and focusing on them versus focusing on the tenets of the religion as a whole is a mistake.

One last note: every major immigrant group has it's haters, especially when they're a different religion from what's normal in America. 100 years from now, your position will seem as tenable as the Know-Nothing party's feeling towards the Irish seems today.

*"doomed" here has an unclear meaning, refering to either the Canaanites or to prevent human sacrifice; I'd go into more detail but I no longer have a copy of the JBC handy. In other verses, it unambiguously refers to the Canaanites.
posted by thecaddy at 8:39 PM on April 27, 2004

Also, you speak for all Muslims with disturbing ease, laz-e-boy, although I certainly hope you are right.

I speak only for the ones that I know - although I do know a lot. Should that be disturbing?
posted by laz-e-boy at 8:40 PM on April 27, 2004

In that case, I hope that the first statement above is an honest question rather than just such an insinuation, which is what it sounds like.

It was an honest question, which remains unanswered. I still want to know if someone who thinks American Muslims are monolithic and untrustworthy thinks the same about Jews given the "evidence".

As for my opinion, well, I know enough Jews to prove the old adage about two Jews & three opinions.
posted by laz-e-boy at 8:44 PM on April 27, 2004

"We" are being threatened.

"They" are not like us

Kill them.

Hey - I'm only being realistic.

"....I strongly suspect that Severin is being targeted by the left as a scapegoat and a pretext to indirectly knock the war effort." (111)

Oh please. I posted the relevant transcript of what Severin said about 1/4 through this thread. He advocated genocide. Flat out. So, while you're at it, would you kindly shovel some coal into this incinerator?. We need to get it good and hot.
posted by troutfishing at 8:49 PM on April 27, 2004

111: Like The Onion. Only real, and not funny.
posted by iamck at 9:11 PM on April 27, 2004

111, do you know any muslims? Why not go and talk to some. Then you would at least have a real face to match up to your stereotypes. The number of old white people you cite as references to your knowledge of Islam is almost humourous. Almost.

People would be up in arms if a member of the KKK was on the radio going on about the need to lynch black americans. If someone got on the radio and went off on the need to murder the jews people would be upset. I'm sure the US must have hate crime laws of some form. Why wouldn't these apply in this case? In Canada I am quite sure I can't stand on the street shouting out "kill all the Muslims", let alone do it on the radio.

I think the US should at least make some effort to pretend that the minorities living in its borders aren't second class citizens.
posted by chunking express at 9:48 PM on April 27, 2004

About the Christian ethos, I'd say it did shape America in the first place.

At the expense of the native population, which greatly illustrates how citing the ethos of any religion often has very little to do with individuals who practice it to various degrees.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept of interpretation (of both what are traditionally called religious texts and any creative work of art) then perhaps a quick look see into a local educational institution may be in order. There you might be exposed to the concept of metaphors in writing as well as the inability to understand metaphors and take them for literal truths. Great examples exist in Python as well. That said, I'd love to hear more about this Christian ethos. So far, in my experience, it has been quite fractured.

Foolish, naive people who have spent their entirely lives in free countries insist on thinking of all muslims as the harmless paki store clerk kind, but Islam still means "submission".

Statement, meet blanket.

The "kill them" phrase was ill-advised and unfortunate, all the more so because it does reflect an opinion held by many outside the naive liberal circles.

Statement, meet blanket again.

I strongly recommend that muslims consider going back to their countries or at least move only to other Islamic nations. With the experience acquired in Western countries, they could (if they saw the knowledge acquired in the West as something valuable) act as innovators, bring about productive changes in muslim countries and build bridges between these two different regions.

There is definitely a rift between regions, as there is a rift within regions, nations, communities, even households. My sister, whom though not religious at all would be classified, no doubt, as a Christian, has just returned from vacation in Syria and Jordan and found the experience to be one of the best of her life. She was welcome into many strangers' homes and served tea with discussion. She commented on how peculiar the individuals she met found the idea that they hated Americans or the West. Now no doubt there are individuals in Syria and Jordan, and the world over who do despise the West. But clearly there are those that do not. Severin's blanket doesn't account for this. Nor does his qualifying statement afterward. People aren't like cholestrol, where there is the good cholestrol and the bad cholestrol.

I seem to recall something about Japanese Americans being imprisoned during World War 2 for comprehensive reasons very similar to the, ah, wait, did I say comprehensive reasons? The ideas, no, the, hmmn, nonsense being presented by Severin.
posted by juiceCake at 10:07 PM on April 27, 2004

Krrrlson, do you actually believe that American Jews will choose Israeli interests over American? (you're very mistaken if you do)

No I do not, though I'm intrigued as to how you inferred that I do, or why you can make a statement to the contrary.


It was an honest question, which remains unanswered. I still want to know if someone who thinks American Muslims are monolithic and untrustworthy thinks the same about Jews given the "evidence".

Of course no one is monolithic (though I doubt you'll get a satisfactory answer from the person you seem to be asking). The only concern that I feel is valid is this (for any population) - is there an extremist minority, and if so, how widespread and how much of a danger is it? And is it succeeding in drawing moderates to its cause?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:19 PM on April 27, 2004

If someone got on the radio and went off on the need to murder the jews people would be upset. ... In Canada I am quite sure I can't stand on the street shouting out "kill all the Muslims", let alone do it on the radio.

Agree with you there. Too bad the rising anti-Semitism goes by just fine in Canada.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:24 PM on April 27, 2004

Krrrison, What is your point? What if there does exist an extremist minority within the Muslim community. What does that even mean? To lump a group of people together based on their ethnic background is stupid. fucking stupid. People are varied and different. You can try and put people in neat categories, but the fact of the matter is most categories won't do any one person justice.

Putting that aside, what do you suggest people do if there are in fact a lot of crazy muslims, and there numbers are increasing? Finish your thoughts. What is a reasonable course of action? I do concede that interment camps and shooting people in the streets are one way to go. Don't call me close minded. But, I would argue there is no reasonable course of action, because to persecute what one perceives is a community is absurd to begin with. A person should be judged by their actions, not the actions of others.
posted by chunking express at 11:35 PM on April 27, 2004

I really do wish folks would just ignore 111's persistent trolling. Paying attention to him not only encourages him to decant more dribbling shit into the threads he graces with his presence, but degrades the conversation into hammerhead bigstick blacknwhite stupidity.

'The cure for hate speech being more speech' notwithstanding, there's nothing to be gained in arguing with a blind man that the sky is blue when he repeatedly avows that it's red.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:18 AM on April 28, 2004

Ignoring 111 is one thing, but a better idea would be to just get rid of him/her. I don't come to MeFi to read bigoted commentary. A troll is a troll. Trolls should be banned. I've followed MeFi for years, and while I don't agree with everything that everyone says here, the commentary is usually quite civilized and well-argued. Why can't we vote this person off the island? And to those who would say that 111 would just use that as justification that we are all liberal crazies who can't stand real free speech, I say, why should we really care?
posted by piedrasyluz at 9:03 AM on April 28, 2004

111: About the Christian ethos, I'd say it did shape America in the first place. The driving force of the USA is historically Judeo-Christian.

This is a telling statement right there. Most of my Jewish friends hate the phrase "Judeo-Chistian" because they argue that the differences between how Jews and Chistians approach philosophy, their sacred texts, are radically divergent. Furthermore there is a keen awareness of historical and contemporary anti-semitism. Judeo-Chistian usually just means "Chistian" and I suspect that the only reason why we are not talking about the old stereotype of pan-Jewish loyalty is because that is currently taboo on the right for pragmatic rather than sincere reasons.

Swim back, amigos. Or else act "when in Rome, do as Romans do" and pay your host country the courtesy of learning its official language.

Except that there is no official language in the United States. English is a majority langugage and the language that is used by the government more through consensus than a formal processes. Standardization on English really only developed as a result of educational reforms after WWI.

But I'm wondering if this is all a setup to begin with. I don't see Latin American immigrants as having anywhere near the same ethnic and regional identity as speakers of Catalan or Basque for example. I don't see much of a refusal to learn English either.

As another anecdote counter-example of pan-Islam loyalty. I'm told that there are muslim nuclear-war heros on both sides of the Pakistan/India conflict.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:12 AM on April 28, 2004

Krrrison, What is your point? What if there does exist an extremist minority within the Muslim community. What does that even mean? To lump a group of people together based on their ethnic background is stupid. fucking stupid. People are varied and different. You can try and put people in neat categories, but the fact of the matter is most categories won't do any one person justice.

If there is an extremist minority that is willing to cast aside its American citizenship and act in support of another nation, I'd say that's a bit of a problem, no? Perhaps even a... quagmire? In that case, denying or disregarding the existence of a problem would be quite "fucking stupid" as well.


Putting that aside, what do you suggest people do if there are in fact a lot of crazy muslims, and there numbers are increasing? Finish your thoughts. What is a reasonable course of action? I do concede that interment camps and shooting people in the streets are one way to go. Don't call me close minded. But, I would argue there is no reasonable course of action, because to persecute what one perceives is a community is absurd to begin with. A person should be judged by their actions, not the actions of others.

That's good -- thinly veiled accusations that I generalize Muslims AND endorse genocide. Real good.

The solution does not lie in persecuting a community. Sanctions against Muslims? No. Cracking down on hate speech in places of religious gathering and community media? Yes (should be the standard for any group, btw). Information campaigns to help counter the influence of extremists? Yes. Unlawful detainment of citizens? No. Improvement of domestic intelligence and investigation procedures so that those who *do* need to be detained, are? Yes. More stringent checks on who enters this country? Certainly.

There are a number of things that can be done. But since you see no reasonable course of action, I guess that means I'm all for genocide.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:27 AM on April 28, 2004

Does the "screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" 1st Am. exception test apply here? If someone who listened to his show goes out and kills a Muslim, can/should something then be done?
posted by mzanatta at 9:44 AM on April 28, 2004

... to Jay Severin, that is.
posted by mzanatta at 9:47 AM on April 28, 2004

On the whole, we should be far more worried about this type of guy, rather than Muslims.
posted by amberglow at 10:07 AM on April 28, 2004

willing to cast aside its American citizenship and act in support of another nation, I'd say that's a bit of a problem, no? Perhaps even a... quagmire?

do you mean, say, Americans with dual citizenship who end up serving in the other (ie, not the USA) nation's army?
do you consider that to be a bit of a problem?
double loyalty talk is ugly, period. no matter what's the religious/ethnic minority involved.
;)

But since you see no reasonable course of action, I guess that means I'm all for genocide.
no, not necessarily "all for genocide". but the only prejudice that seems to disturb you (and it disturbs you A LOT) is the prejudice against a certain minority.

________________


anyway, back to topic, ie the Severin radio comment: there's a similar case happening in the Uk right now:

The Big Ron Affair: Your Views
"Ever since the Guardian decided to part company with Ron Atkinson following his racist on-air description of the Chelsea defender Marcel Desailly, we have been inundated with emails. Here is a selection of your views"
posted by matteo at 10:24 AM on April 28, 2004

Here's FreeRepublic on Jay Severin's statements.

They take him at his word, and they generally agree.

A good number think that all American Muslims should be killed, and a few "reasonable" freepers think they should be merely driven out of the country (ethnic cleansing).

Oh - and the ADL is taking this seriously. Good for them
posted by troutfishing at 11:47 AM on April 28, 2004

Krrison, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Sorry. I didn't think you were advocating genocide. I should have been more clear.

My point was simply this: It is far easier to do all the bad things we have seen done in history the moment you start treating people as groups, and not as people. Extremist Muslims form a group of Extremist Muslims, to say they are some how related to Muslims in general is foolish. To say there is such a thing as a nationwide muslim community is also foolish. Even muslims who go to the same mosque will have different opinions on politics, religion, and most everything else I imagine.
posted by chunking express at 11:48 AM on April 28, 2004

It is becoming disturbingly easier to predict that, if Bush is defeated in November, the new President will face a much more active terrorist problem than we have now (still awaiting AlQueda's second major attack within the U.S. more than 900 days after 9-11). But it will NOT be coming from "Muslim Extremists", but rather the thousands of McVeigh-ites, many of them fans of Jay Severin, who will see the need to take up arms against the "Muslim Menace" now that they no longer have a "friend" in the White House. And THAT would be why the rantings of a 'shock jock' (or a MeFi Troll) really matter.
Wendell's Meta Prediction #1 of a series, marked for easy Googling when we see if I'm right or wrong later
posted by wendell at 11:49 AM on April 28, 2004

Oh, and one more wee observation : "....people want to find common ground; and that their bigoted stereotypes about the people with whom they disagree are strongly weakened or eliminated the more they have actual (honest, equal) interaction with those people." (Ethereal Bligh) - Indeed : and hateful rhetoric can be indispensible at mantaining these stereotypes and preventing that negotiation of common ground which takes some suspension of judgement.

One key distinction I would make is :

I haven't noticed any calls, from prominent politicians or talk show hosts on the left, for either a campaign of violent persecution to eliminate the right in the US, pogroms or genocide against various ethnic groups, or exhortations to individuals to carry out their own vigilante or terrorist campaigns against such groups.

If anyone knows of any examples which contradict my claim, please let me know. Remember, I said prominent (and not merely rantings from the extreme fringe, but highly public statements by politicians and other well known figures which are broadcast to hundreds of thousands or millions via TV, Print* media, or radio).

There numerous, recent examples of such calls which have come from prominent members of the US right. Jay Severin's recent call for a campaign of genocide against American Muslims is not an abberation. It is part of a wider pattern - the rising curve of extremist hate speech in the US.

Dave Neiwert, at Orcinus, has made a career of tracking extremist groups and hate speech. There's an awful lot of it to track these days.

Now, this pattern of hate speech does not invalidate right wing positions - but it is inherently opposed to and contemptuous of Democracy and the democratic process, and I think it is the duty of responsible Republicans to work to rein this in - to shame those who make such statements, and to refuse political support to those who preach hate.

"  "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."  - John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01 "

Try substituting "jew" there in the place of Hillary Clinton, or Italian, Irish - even "christian" perhaps. How does the statement look then? How could Mr. Derbyshire have gone any further - except to add that Chelsea, and all her relatives four generations down should be tortured with devices from the Spanish inquisition and then burned in public squares ? Oh yes - he could have also suggested that all mention of the Clintons be expunged from public records and any mention of them, even their very names, be made illegal.

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95 "

 "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

By their grotesque and bizarre extremity, such statements tend to extend the boundaries of the permissable. For public figures to suggest such violence emboldens those in the public who share such views and have less restraint - or less to lose - to join the chorus with their own extremist and hateful speech. Sometimes, also, they channel that hate into violent action.

It's a very simple strategy, really : From the encouragement of such extreme hateful public speech, members of the public with extreme views who are also inclined towards violence begin to carry out attacks against disparaged groups.

Then, the rising mayhem demands an authoritarian government response - but that response targets far more than those rogue, violent individuals who served as useful idiots. In this way, parties and political faction and tendencies can be effectively silenced or neutralized.

And the frightened middle just hunkers down and waits for things to die down, and for things to return to normal only...... things do not return to normal.


*The National Review does not have so wide a circulation, but it is highly influential.
posted by troutfishing at 11:50 AM on April 28, 2004

I do not see in the near future a particularly easy time for [Negroes] living in the West. Just as citizens from Western countries are discouraged from living in [Nigeria], I strongly recommend that [Negroes] consider going back to their countries or at least move only to other [African] nations. With the experience acquired in Western countries, they could (if they saw the knowledge acquired in the West as something valuable) act as innovators, bring about productive changes in muslim countries and build bridges between these two different regions.
posted by moonbiter at 12:35 PM on April 28, 2004

Damn, missed a "muslim."
posted by moonbiter at 12:37 PM on April 28, 2004

Why do you people even try to have a conversation with 111? God knows, we've all given him enough chances to engage us reasonably.

He's not interested in a civil discussion, he's only interested in stirring up the shit pot.
posted by bshort at 3:03 PM on April 28, 2004

111!
He's our man!
If he can't morally justify genocide and/or forced deportation of men, women and children based on their faith,
No-one can!
posted by Jimbob at 3:24 PM on April 28, 2004

First of all, I'd like to strongly recommend stavros' website.

I would assume that the law-abiding behavior of the vast majority of American Muslims would be a clear answer to that question.

laz-e-boy, after 9/11 I do not endorse this kind of statement. True, the terrorists were disguised as "tourists", "foreign students" etc, but I would be lying if I said there's no suspicion towards muslim migrants in the USA and Europe.

And as a born-in-the-USA American Muslim who knows hundreds like myself, I think I can speak for all of us (even though the question is in itself insulting) and say that our actions in and of themselves have proved our loyalty to the US.

Unfortunately, you can't. Perhaps we're divided by different types of subjectivism: I'll read books and newspapers and, based on my social background and the recent historical events, draw conclusions re the migrant muslims. You, on the other hand, will have an opinion based on your acquaintance with the muslim community and on your need to justify yourself as a bona fide citizen. I can understand that we're both speaking from different standpoints, but I cannot take your own POV for a fact.

About the Christian ethos, I'd say it did shape America in the first place.
You mean the same ethos being pushed right now by today's Christian fundamentalists? Sorry, wrong.

You can't rewrite the history books from the multicultural perspective of your own ethnic/religious minority. What you try to define as "Christian fundamentalism" would be called common sense by the puritans and founding fathers.

Israeli and US interests are the same.
Copout. I'll ask again: when Israeli and US interests conflict (as they undoubtedly do sometimes), do you think American Jews will choose Israeli interests over American ones?

With all due respect to other groups, as a Christian I cherish the jews and consider the jew community entirely trustworthy. The jewish culture is a foundation to everything good about civilization. I also cannot think of an example of Israel-US conflict. Since you say they "undoubtedly" exist, I'd like you to mention one.

Mossy, what about stuff like "kill all infidels down to the last one"?
I'd take it to refer to the battle of Uhud in a single situational narration as opposed to a generalised command just as was the agreement of the majority of traditional scholars. Wouldn't you?

So far no, I would not. Unfortunately, such scholars do not seem to have influenced the first caliphate from the 7th century onwards or the terrorists who acted in Madrid last march. The world needs continued gestures from muslims so as to clearly signal you are peaceloving and do not condone terrorism in any sense whatsoever. Those gestures include rooting out all terrorists hiding within muslim communities worldwide and promoting freedom of speech and religion, the rule of law, equal rights for women etc.

The unfortunate tendency is to associate the Saudi regime with Islam and being the representative of it as it seems, on the face of it, the most "rigorous" and "accurate" interpretation of it, even though it is in direct contrast with many of the accepted norms in traditional Islamic scholarship.

True. Let me tell you, my own religion has faced many conflicts until all extreme, heretical interpretations of the Bible were put aside. It would seem urgently necessary to keep endorsing and promoting the peaceloving variants of Islam.

I can pick from any book and say "this religion is evil, look what it says!", but that would just be terrible scholarship.

Still, there are scholars such as Ibn Warraq who are very critical of Islam's tenets. It's up to muslims to prove them wrong, but not merely through scholarly rebuttals.

With reference to France, I'd say the segregation of communities is more to do with the nature of migration and the attitudes to generalised immigration by the natives than a major onus on religion, especially in light of the fact that most French muslims aren't the most devout of people.

Paris (CNSNews.com) - French officials have noted an increase in Islamic radicals taking over Paris area mosques in the last year, with 32 mosques now under the control of extremists.
According to a study by undercover police forces, the number of radical mosques has increased by 10 in the last year. Officials say there are a total of 373 mosques or prayer groups in Paris and its suburban areas.
The study was reported in the French daily Le Monde. Police officials have declined to comment further on the findings. (continued here)

gompa, we've had this discussion here before. Paki, like "Norse", is not necessarily insulting.

For the record, reading your posts makes me nauseous. Nice work.

Well don't read me then, Einstein.

111, let me ask this more explicitly: can Muslims be Parisians? You've told me what Muslims in Paris think, and what "Parisiens de Paris" think (can't a Muslim citizen of Paris be a Parisen de Paris?), but what do YOU think?

joes_spleen, when Flaubert made his famous voyage to the Orient, he got a tan, dressed and cut his hair like the locals etc etc. To an egyptian, how do you think he looked? The only place in the world where anyone can behave like a local is New York City. We are territorial, and although our own perception re tourists and foreign vary, we're usually wary of strangers.

111 - Maybe you aren't aware of this, but there are plenty of places in the Bible where it says to kill all infidels, too.

thecaddy, not "all", but I am aware. As you know, since then Christians have had a Divine Covenant. In the Christian Era, the Church has promoted a Counter Reformation, several Councils, Edicts etc etc. Rest assured that the Biblical battles belong to the Ancient Times. I don't know of any Christian group currently promoting Holy War through suicide bombings and the like.

juicecake, so your sister liked Syria? Excellent. Perhaps she'll consider living there eventually. But, as much as I consider her experiences legitimate, I cannot take her individual point of view as a general assessment of the current stage of West-East relations. Some people above have quoted their neighborhood/family/friends as evidence for their own conclusions, but your immediate surroundings are not enough to have an opinion about such issues.

For instance, when KikJobSulder extrapolates from his jew friends' alleged views to a general indictment of the whole geopolitical and cultural Judeo-Christian alliance, he's trying at the same time to 1) foster intrigues between Christians and Jews (I'm surprised he didn't mention "The Passion of the Christ") and 2) pretend everything's okie-dokie between the West and the muslims. Both conclusions are patently false and partisan, so people would be wise to take these limits into account.

Ignoring 111 is one thing, but a better idea would be to just get rid of him/her. I don't come to MeFi to read bigoted commentary.

mathowie, piedrasyluz, who "smiled a lot as a child", wants to "get rid" of me. "Why can't we vote this person off the island?", he asks.

Before piedrasyluz attempts to smite me with fundamentalist zeal in a martyrdom attack, I'd like to suggest that you contact Jay Severin and let him have a temporary account so that he would be able to defend himself. Unless, of course, piedrasyluz votes him "off the island".
posted by 111 at 3:37 PM on April 28, 2004

111, Paki is offensive. You being the White man you are must know what South Asians find offensive. Incase you don't know, you should not call black people Niggers, White people Honkeys, Chinese people Chinks, Japanese people Nips, Korean people Gooks and Brown people Pakis. It's not just rude, it's racist.
posted by chunking express at 4:16 PM on April 28, 2004

chunking, Paki doesn't mean "brown". Paki means "Pakistani". It could have an offensive meaning if used as a derogatory term. Then again, depending on the tone, even neutral expressions like "jew", "migrant", "foreigner" or "the help" can be interpreted as bigotry etc. I tried to find a link (originally posted in Attu Sees All, I think) for a site listing all the slangs and slurs used against various nationalities. Just about every country has at least one.
posted by 111 at 4:47 PM on April 28, 2004

111, Paki is offensive.

saying "the jew community" and "jew friends" is offensive, too. "Jew" as an adjective is not a neutral expression at all. The proper term is jewish--use it. Just because slurs are used by some doesn't mean you're allowed to use them too--unless you're a bigot, of course.
posted by amberglow at 5:02 PM on April 28, 2004

If you mean "Pakistani", say "Pakistani", not "Paki", you squarehead Dutchie bohunk honky ofay mofo.

Oh, I'm sorry. "Squarehead Dutchie bohunk honky ofay mofo" means "Palatine boor", so you shouldn't interpret it as an ethnic slur, cracker.

And don't interpret "cracker" as an ethnic slur, either; I'm just referring to the tasty saltines that so many rednecks enjoy.

Of course, "redneck" isn't a slur; it's a simple comment on the propensity of so many people of the Caucasian persuasion for sunburn.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:10 PM on April 28, 2004

amberglow, that's really in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion sounds a little oversensitive. The jews I know have never objected to the word as used from yours truly.

Sidhe, you know what? You're nothing but a blickfo wetnecker. Do you know what that means? Neither do I. I just made it up. Said by Eric Cartman it would probably sound quite offensive, huh?
posted by 111 at 5:24 PM on April 28, 2004

blickfo wetnecker

sure, but the intention is quite clear.
posted by clavdivs at 5:50 PM on April 28, 2004

111: For instance, when KikJobSulder extrapolates from his jew friends' alleged views to a general indictment of the whole geopolitical and cultural Judeo-Christian alliance, he's trying at the same time to 1) foster intrigues between Christians and Jews (I'm surprised he didn't mention "The Passion of the Christ") and 2) pretend everything's okie-dokie between the West and the muslims. Both conclusions are patently false and partisan, so people would be wise to take these limits into account.

Not at all. The fact that religious groups in America tend to get along does not justify the phrase "Judeo-Chistian". As much as Chistians like to make an appeal to a common heritage, Chistianity has about as much in common with Islam as with Judaism. The theologies of the two groups are fundamentally different, and cultural segregation was pretty typical until the 20th century.

In fact, I would argue that in terms of theology, Jews and Muslims have more in common with each other than with Chistianity. The whole foundation of Chistianity, the idea humanity is fundamentally sparated from god by sin, is sort of alien to Judaism which holds that god can be addressed, argued with, even called an asshole, but will always be there. It is not just that Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah of prophesy, but rather, they believe that Chistians don't even understand God to start with.

And the problem goes both ways. I think that it is naive in the extreme to pretend that anti-semitism has not repeatedly reared its ugly head. Many Jews are skeptical of the "under god" addition to the pledge of alegiance because history has shown that such governmental references to god frequently end up with an anti-semetic pogrom. The Passion contraversy does certainly seem to indicate that American Jews don't always feel like they are part of a big "Judeo-Chistian" family.

I think it is also absurd to argue that there is not some tension between the U.S. and Israel the same week after the person who blew the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons program was released from jail. Like many of our allies, Israel gets a free pass due to its strategic importance.

Am I fostering intrigue? I would argue that the intrigue exists whether we like it or not. Pretending that Jews and Chistians form one big happy "Judeo-Christian" family is a pretty intense distortion of the truth. But what do I know, the local paper just reported that the local Jewish community center was hit again by anti-semitic vandalism.

The second claim is just plain ludicrous. Of course there is tension between the east and west. But I would argue that a pogrom, forced conversion, internment camps, or revoking citizenship for muslim-Americans would be blatantly un-American.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:57 PM on April 28, 2004

do you mean, say, Americans with dual citizenship who end up serving in the other (ie, not the USA) nation's army?
do you consider that to be a bit of a problem?
double loyalty talk is ugly, period. no matter what's the religious/ethnic minority involved.

An enemy army or a terrorist group, yes. It may be a case of dual citizenship, or of an American who betrays his country. Double loyalty *is* ugly... so what're you going to do if it is found to exist?

no, not necessarily "all for genocide". but the only prejudice that seems to disturb you (and it disturbs you A LOT) is the prejudice against a certain minority.

OT: If you mean prejudice against Jews, then I admit it disturbs me immensely. While I find prejudice against other groups abhorrent, I admit that the intensity of emotion is greater when it's personal. When I express concern, it is not to cry wolf, but out of genuine fear that the horror that transpired during the Holocaust, and even the far less widespread but still atrocious incidents of anti-Semitism that have taken place around the world since then, will come again.

If this is some jab at my alleged prejudice towards Muslims, it's yet again unfounded.


chunking express -- Sorry for the misunderstanding. As for me, I was not trying to treat extremist Muslims in terms of their relationship to other Muslims, or lump all Muslims into a general group. I was merely pointing out that if some extremist group or groups (Muslim or not) present a problem to a nation's security or important principles that define it (that'd be things like freedom and justice, not porn or Christianity), then that threat needs to be addressed. The ethnicity or origin of the threat should not change the fact that it needs to be dealt with.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:06 PM on April 28, 2004

"... harmless paki store clerk ..."

So, 111, What exactly is a Paki store? Are all shops run by brown people Paki Stores, or only ones run by Pakistani's. You want to pretend Paki isn't offensive, that's all well and good. You won't hurt my feelings. I didn't care that you used the term in this thread. I did take offense to you claiming it isn't an offensive word. At least have the guts to admit when you're being racist. Stand by what you say.
posted by chunking express at 12:37 AM on April 29, 2004

I absolutely fail to understand why people are ignoring stavros's perfectly sensible advice and continuing to feed 111 the fuel he loves, encouraging his long rants that completely derail any thread they're in. If you ignore him, he'll go away. Talking to yourself isn't much fun. If you insult him, he gets worse. What outcome do you prefer?
posted by languagehat at 9:27 AM on April 29, 2004

The fact that religious groups in America tend to get along does not justify the phrase "Judeo-Chistian".

What do you mean, "justify the phrase"? It is widely used and accepted. This is not Iran; people don't have to submit their choice of words to the dictates of some thought police or PC censorship. The Judeo -Christian alliance is stronger than ever and remains, at the same time, the root, tree, flower and fruit of the civilized world.

Christianity has about as much in common with Islam as with Judaism.
In fact, I would argue that in terms of theology, Jews and Muslims have more in common with each other than with Christianity.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! KirkJobsluder says Christianity (whose Old Testament is mostly based on the Jewish canon, whose entire theological foundation stems from Jewish Monotheism and who officially acknowledges the immense relevance of Judaism) has just as much to do with Islam!!!! Christians have fought Muslims in the Crusades, At Tours/Poitiers, Lepanto, Vienna etc, and have never had a lot to do with Islam except for Monotheism.
Christianity respects the Muslim beliefs, but since the birth of Jesus Christ happens to predate Islam by six centuries, it would seem somewhat difficult to detect any major Muslim influence in Christian thought.

Now regarding Judaism, if you happen to attend Mass, you must notice that, on special occasions, such as Good Friday, we expressly pray for the happiness and well-being of the Jews, and we expressly acknowledge the Jewish role in Catholic religion.

But wait, there's more: according to KirkJobSluder, Jews and Muslims have more in common with each other than with Christianity. Surely that's why Jews and Muslims pray peacefully side by side, while Palestinian and Jewish kids play happily together in the peaceful suburbs of Jerusalem. That's also why Turkey was given free access to join the European Union etc.

Jews (...) believe that Christians don't even understand God to start with.

Please quote any Jewish scholarship supporting this most eccentric view.

I think it is also absurd to argue that there is not some tension between the U.S. and Israel the same week after the person who blew the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons program was released from jail. Like many of our allies, Israel gets a free pass due to its strategic importance.

Rubbish. The USA and Israel have common interests and common affinities. Both chosen democracy, free speech and the rule of law as State guidelines. Both countries abhor terrorism, cruelty towards women and theocratic dictatorships. Minor issues are just that, minor; Christians and Jews know better than letting themselves grow apart due to malicious attempts of the barbaric minorities of the world.

OK chunking, substitute, say, Bengali for Paki. There, happy now? Or is Bengali "offensive" as well?
posted by 111 at 10:15 AM on April 29, 2004

Somewhere, a sixth form is missing a debate team second.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:32 PM on April 29, 2004

Regarding a Jewish theological assertion that Christians misunderstand the nature of God:

[... A]lthough it is proper to emphasize that Christians "worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, creator of heaven and earth," it is essential to add that worship of Jesus of Nazareth as a manifestation or component of that God constitutes what Jewish law and theology call avodah zarah, or foreign worship—at least if done by a Jew. Many Jews died to underscore this point, and the bland assertion that "Christian worship is not a viable religious choice for Jews" is thoroughly inadequate. (source)

This statement was issued by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Meanwhile, any assertions about an alleged "Judeo-Christian alliance" being "the root, tree, flower and fruit of the civilized world" is just absurd, counterhistorical poppycock. One might as well speak glowingly of the Russo-Finnish alliance, or the Anglo-Irish alliance. Christians did not form a historical alliance with Jews - they dominated them, they persecuted them, they forcibly converted and expelled them. Many, many of those Jewish exiles took refuge in the lands of the Middle East (under Muslim rulers, I might add). Is there some point in history where Jewish communities ever rallied under a Christian banner?

In terms of theology, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share common features, and each pair shares features not held by the third. For example, Judaism and Islam share a pure, simple monotheism, whereas Christianity features the Trinity. It also has been said that Judaism and Islam both emphasize adherence to divine law, whereas Christianity emphasizes divine mercy and brotherly love. On the other hand, Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions, and both stress that all individuals are spiritual equals before God, with similar responsibilities, while Judaism professes that the ancient Hebrews and their descendants are God's chosen people, and therefore have different, more stringent responsibilities to fulfill. Thus, there aren't a lot of Jewish missionaries knocking on people's doors. All three religions are basically monotheistic, believing in a single god who created the universe, sent signs, instructions, and revelations to various prophets throughout ancient times, and who is guiding the world towards an apocalyptic end to history, followed by a day of judgment whereupon the sinful will be condemned and the righteous rewarded. This cosmology is not only held in common by the Abrahamic faiths, but is pretty much unique to them.

I haven't been to Mass in a while (read: ever), but considering the aforementioned history of Christian-Jewish relations, in which the Roman Catholic Church took full part, I'm guessing such benevolent mention of Jewish people is a post-Vatican II innovation.

Both countries abhor terrorism: All countries abhor terrorism... when it's aimed against them. I don't recall Bush or Sharon, or any prominent American or Israeli leader, making a lot of fuss about the Tamil Tigers. On the other hand, possession of a nuclear arsenal could in itself be interpreted as a resort to terror: "Leave us alone, or we will blow up your children and kill you where you stand." Not to mention the actual body counts that both countries have left in the wake of their less than spotless foreign policies.


... the barbaric minorities of the world: Jews and Christians are a minority. Syria, Iran, and Pakistan - all Muslim-majority countries - are all U.S. allies in the War on Terrorism. These false dichotomies are rather tiresome.
posted by skoosh at 2:14 PM on April 29, 2004

Regarding a Jewish theological assertion that Christians misunderstand the nature of God:

Well, saying that Jews do not believe in Jesus etc is not exactly news, but it's not quite the same as proving the point that Jews think "Christians misunderstand the nature of God". Ironically, the quote begins with "although it is proper to emphasize that Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, creator of heaven and earth"... The excerpt you present simply says that Jews shouldn't worship Jesus.

Christians did not form a historical alliance with Jews - they dominated them, they persecuted them, they forcibly converted and expelled them.

No. Unfortunately, Christians have inflicted terrible suffering to Jews in religious-political wars which affected several religious groups, but yes they did manage to form an alliance based on common views about society and the world. It's not an exclusive, closed country club, but it does exist.

Is there some point in history where Jewish communities ever rallied under a Christian banner?

No, since it would consist of a religious entity that would necessarily turn Christians and Jews into something else. The Judeo-Christian alliance is based on similar spiritual ideas that find secular expression in democratic societies etc etc.

any assertions about an alleged "Judeo-Christian alliance" being "the root, tree, flower and fruit of the civilized world" is just absurd, counterhistorical poppycock. One might as well speak glowingly of the Russo-Finnish alliance, or the Anglo-Irish alliance.

Go ahead then, tell me about this other alliances. Your mistake is to think in terms of States as opposed to the more lasting cultural affinities between Jews and Christians.

Both countries abhor terrorism
All countries abhor terrorism...when it's aimed against them

Oh well...

Not to mention the actual body counts that both countries have left in the wake of their less than spotless foreign policies.

OK, let's compare the US/Israel foreign policy to the one practiced or endorsed by Iran (made hostages out of diplomatic workers), Iraq (used chemical weapons against own people) and the several sponsors of international terrorism out there.

... the barbaric minorities of the world:
Jews and Christians are a minority.

Wrong. Christians are the largest religious group. But we are talking about the political and cultural similarities that Jews and Christians have build.The essential word, in my statement quoted above, would be "barbaric".
posted by 111 at 4:58 PM on April 29, 2004

amberglow, that's really in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion sounds a little oversensitive. The jews I know have never objected to the word as used from yours truly.

The proper term is "jewish." Use it.

Was i not clear before?
posted by amberglow at 6:01 PM on April 29, 2004

Well, it seems that Jay Severin will get away with his call for genocide.

If he had suggested genocide as a "solution" to almost any other ethnic or cultural group in the US, I think it's fair to say, Severin would be wearing down shoe leather hunting for a new job.

But I guess YTKK considers it OK to target muslims.
posted by troutfishing at 6:50 AM on May 1, 2004

The proper term is "jewish." Use it.

I hope you are Jewish amberglow, to give someone such an order. I, personally, am a Jew regardless of whether someone considers that word a slur.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:28 PM on May 1, 2004

I am, and "jew" is not a adjective (or verb, for that matter)--and these are the kinds of people that use it the way 111 did.
posted by amberglow at 7:30 AM on May 2, 2004

I have to say that while I am fairly thick-skinned about this kind of thing, amberglow has a point. You can say, for example "he's probably gonna get some Jewish lawyer," which, depending on the context, might or might not be implying something insulting about the lawyer's Jewishosity. However, if the speaker says "he's probably gonna get some Jew lawyer," well...there is only one context in which I've ever heard anyone talk like that. And that's when the speaker has never, or almost never, met anyone Jewish, but is set in some very general and mostly inaccurate ideas about what Jews are. Typically, the speaker is from a culture in which Jews are just not discussed often enough (or to their own faces) that anyone knows that the adjective form is "Jewish."
posted by bingo at 9:54 AM on May 2, 2004