▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ⟶
In the late 1990s, Eric Rudolph — raised Catholic and affiliated for a time with a Christian Identity sect — bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar, insisting they were venues of immorality and evil. Last July, an Orthodox Jewish Israeli attacked the marchers in the Jerusalem LGBT pride parade, stabbing six of them, and one of them, a teenager, died of her wounds; justifying his attacks by appealing to Talmudic punishments for homosexuality, he had just been released from a 10-year prison term for doing the same in 2005. Yesterday, a Christian pastor from Arizona, Steven Anderson, praised the slaughter of 49 people in an Orlando LGBT club on the ground that “homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts” and are “pedophiles.”
Violent attacks on gay bars in the U.S. have long been common, as sociology professor Greggor Mattson documented today: “The crime blotters of the gay press have always been punctuated by attacks on patrons at gay bars and continue to be today,” including killings. In 2014, a brutal hate crime against a gay couple was carried out by staff and students at a Catholic high school. In overwhelmingly Catholic and evangelical Brazil, killing of trans women is now an epidemic. The Terrence McNally play Corpus Christi was repeatedly targeted in the U.S. with bomb threats and had to be canceled because it depicted Jesus as gay.
A 2015 Pew poll found that U.S. Muslims were more accepting of homosexuality than evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Similarly, U.S. Muslims are more likely to support same-sex marriage (42 percent support it) than are U.S. evangelicals (28 percent), historically black Protestants (40 percent), Mormons (26 percent) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (14 percent). Indeed, U.S. Muslims are roughly just as likely to support same-sex marriage as Christians generally (44 percent).
Both China and Russia are overwhelmingly non-religious and also vehemently anti-gay; to the extent Russians are religious, they are loyal to the Orthodox Christian Church. In Cameroon, Catholic Church officials continue to spew the most vile and inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric. A prominent evangelical multimillionaire Brazilian pastor and congressman with a history of vile anti-gay rhetoric, Marco Feliciano, yesterday attacked the LGBT community for “using” the Orlando massacre for “self-promotion” and instead said that support for Palestinians was to blame.
Over the last several years, Christian zealots in the U.S. have agitated with both activism and money — often successfully — for the implementation of severely repressive anti-LGBT laws in Christian Africa. That includes Uganda, where they tried to implement the death penalty for homosexuals. The law that was passed, criminalizing homosexuality, has led to severe increases in violent attacks against LGBTs.
None of this is to deny in the slightest that deeply anti-LGBT attitudes are pervasive in parts of the Muslim world: In most countries (though not all) acceptance is in the single digits. But that’s also true of equally poor parts of the Christian world, where only tiny parts of the population of largely Christian countries such as Ghana, Uganda, and Kenya believe society should accept homosexuality. In other countries that are not predominantly Muslim — China, Russia, Nigeria, El Salvador, Israel — pluralities similarly oppose the societal acceptance of homosexuality.It’s also true that parts of Islamic doctrine contain all sorts of horrible views on LGBTs, women, and other issues. But exactly the same is true of both the Christian Bible and Jewish Talmud. When it comes to Jews and Christians, people instinctively understand how bigoted and deceitful it is to cherry-pick particularly offensive excerpts from their holy books and use them to demonize all contemporary Christians and Jews.
Indeed, a standard tactic of neo-Nazis and other various anti-Semites is to cite ugly excerpts from the Talmud — including ones purportedly endorsing Jews holding non-Jews as slaves or lying to and stealing from non-Jews — as evidence of the dishonesty and untrustworthiness of Jews generally. We all understand that this tactic is so vile, unscholarly, and anti-intellectual precisely because modern adherents to those religions interpret and apply (or ignore) those provisions in all sorts of ways.
Exactly the same is true of Muslims, yet an entire cottage industry of pseudo-intellectual charlatans — including ones who admit to never having even read the Quran — uses exactly this tawdry tactic to demonize Islam (watch this social experiment where people are read heinous Bible passages and falsely told they are from the Quran). There are literally millions upon millions of Muslims who hold positive views about, and engage in positive interactions with, gay people with regularity (which is why it’s almost always true that those most devoted to demonizing Islam are the ones who know the fewest number of Muslims (just as is true of LGBTs, ironically)).
Indeed, there are LGBT Muslims all over the world who — just like all other LGBTs — struggle to meld their identities and religious convictions and navigate various personal conflicts. As the executive director of the largest American Muslim group, CAIR, said yesterday: “For many years, members of the LGBT community have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Muslim community against acts of hate crimes, Islamophobia, marginalization, and discrimination. Today, we stand with them, shoulder to shoulder.” Muslims who work to make Islam more open to LGBTs deserve support, but those most eager to demonize Islam — for all sorts of tribalistic, nationalistic, and religious reasons — typically erase such people because their presence demonstrates how misleading the absolutist pictures of Muslims they want to paint are.
Despite all this data, the standard group of hateful polemicists who literally seem to devote their lives to exploiting every news event to attack Islam wasted no time yesterday — before any facts were known, while the bodies were literally still in the club — squeezing the horrific slaughter in Orlando to depict Muslims as uniquely hateful of LGBTs. Never mind that the suspect, Omar Mateen, showed no signs of religious fanaticism, was (according to numerous close sources) suffering from mental illness, had a history of wife-beating, worked for a major defense/mercenary contractor, had no known connection to extremist groups until his 911 call citing ISIS, and was obsessed with joining the NYPD.
The opportunity to exploit LGBT suffering to fuel the standard anti-Muslim agenda was far too attractive to resist, no matter how many facts negate it. Try to tell LGBT citizens who grew up in North America, or South America, or Europe, that anti-gay hatred is an exclusive attribute of Islam and the scorn you’ll provoke — grounded in actual personal experience rather than hateful ideology — will be intense.
The instant exploitation of this attack is part of a more general trend of exploiting liberal social issues to glorify agendas of militarism, tribal conflicts, and aggressive foreign policies. Decorate the GCHQ headquarters or the Tel Aviv city hall with the LGBT’s rainbow flag colors and suddenly mass surveillance and decadeslong military occupation seem pretty and liberal. Choose militaristic U.S. presidents who represent social milestones of race and gender and suddenly their militarism seems to liberals to be more tolerable and even inspiring. Pretend that the war on Afghanistan is about feminism, and aggression toward Iran is about protecting LGBTs, and watch liberals melt with appreciation. Disguise anti-Muslim animus as pro-LGBT activism and one can quickly expand support for a neocon mentality and agenda into large sectors of Western liberalism.
Depicting anti-LGBT hatred as the exclusive (or even predominant) province of Islam is not only defamatory toward Muslims but does a massive disservice to the millions of LGBTs who have been — and continue to be — seriously oppressed, targeted, and attacked by people who have nothing to do with Islam. The struggle of LGBTs around the world is difficult enough without having them cynically used as some sort of prop to bash a group that itself is already being bashed from multiple directions.
Many Muslims are homophobic as are many African-Americans and Hispanics. Some members of these minorities do not support LGBT rights. It’s a truth no matter how non-PC it might be to state it. Would have been nice if official representatives of these groups came out strongly against the largely gay Hispanics slaughtered in Orlando. So don’t blame the LGBT community for demonizing other traditionally homophobic groups. Don’t mix up the issues. I find it extremely offensive.
I don’t know why I didn’t look for your opinion earlier. Clear and concise writing with examples and data that I can use when formulating my own discussions around this issue. I was so impressed to have seen The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand come to a hastily organised candle light vigil for the victims of the Pulse shootings held in our capital and state they stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ community, infact the only religious group to turn up and show solidarity with the exception of an individual coming up to the open microphone to offer Christian prayers.
Whilst the important media coverage of the homophobic shootings in Orlando was in full swing a publication in New Zealand called gayNZ was also investigating a story of another mass shooting in a LGBTQ bar La Madame, Xalapa, Mexico that had happened three weeks earlier with little to no reports in media until they got the ball rolling. I feel there is very little discussion or information on crimes that effect LGBTQ people unless it is in the ‘west’ and at the most extreme level in both mainstream and community news organisations and we can be left in the dark leaving whole groups extremely valuable. Information is power but it is also protective.
This is regressivism at it’s finest. The Jewish and Christian bibles do have anti gay passages, but neither religion has true fundamentalists in the same numbers as Islam who respond word for word what is in their holy text. Fundamental (Radical) Islam is not compatible with civilization to a level no other religion can compare at this very moment. Glenn Greenwald is a regressive idiot for peddling this nonsense.
One of Greenwald’s primary motivations is obviously to trivialize the link between religion (sets of doctrines) and behavior. By doing this, he feels free to demonize those who criticize religious doctrine as “racist”: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2. He consistently conflates the criticism of religious doctrine with the demonization of adherents:
“When it comes to Jews and Christians, people instinctively understand how bigoted and deceitful it is to cherry-pick particularly offensive excerpts from their holy books and use them to demonize all contemporary Christians and Jews.”
Demonizing *people* is not the issue, except for those in the Trump camp. The issue is having the right to criticize and even castigate religious literature. None of the religious critics he attacks are trying to demonize “all Muslims” or all anyone. They are simply stating the fact that bad ideologies will lead inevitably to bad actions. Note that he never mentioned Mateen’s father and his pro-Taliban Islamist views, which obviously influenced his son (and perhaps led to schizophrenia).
You have to look carefully to see how Greenwald so adeptly twists stats for his own purposes:
“A 2015 Pew poll found that U.S. Muslims were more accepting of homosexuality than evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
He’s comparing *evangelicals* at 36% (far higher than I expected), Mormons at 36%, and Jehovah’s Witnesses at 16% with *all* Muslims at 45%. This is totally misleading, as evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. are all very fundamentalist. All Christians collectively, though, are at 54%. Still, both Christians and Muslims are very low (compare Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Unaffiliated), but the bottom line is that Muslims are still under 50%. The poll doesn’t show what percentage of those Muslims consider themselves Islamist, conservative, etc., nor does it indicate what percentage are new arrivals versus multi-generational Americans. The biggest point to me, though, is that it confirms the somewhat obvious direct relationship between strong, conservative, Abrahamic religious views and anti-homosexuality. And by real contrast, look at where the various “Unaffiliated” stand.
For a better view of the same poll data with a *proper* context, see: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/15/after-the-orlando-massacre-we-cannot-ignore-the-connection-between-islam-and-anti-gay-bigotry/ and note:
“The Muslim population within the U.S. is perhaps the most tolerant and liberal in the world, yet their attitudes align more closely with the most conservative elements of American society — evangelical Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
Let me say this again: Even among the most tolerant Muslim community in the world, a majority (52%) oppose equality for LGBTQ individuals, a fact that should give us pause. This isn’t a mere “East vs. West” difference — opposition to LGBTQ rights amongst members of other Eastern minority faiths in America is relatively small (Hindus at 23%, Buddhists at 13%).”
Islam does not need to be “demonized”, they speak for themselves.
All these charts you posted are useless and misleading, you should be ashamed of this whitewash you pushing on the people.
Let’s add up all murder victims slayed by by evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses together. Yeah, those people these groups killed for having a different faith or practicing some disagreeable way of life.
What’s the number, huh? Now look at the Muslims and what they do across the world to make the point that only their religion is the right one and only their religion has the right to exist.
Mr. Greenwald, is it ok to bash Christians as a group for what happened in Orlando? This is happening in liberal circles due to a reticence to hold Muslim terrorists (not all Muslims) responsible for their own crimes undertaken in the name of their faith. So while you can praise those who refuse to engage in divisive identity politics, apparently you and your supporters have no problem allowing those who claim to be tolerant bash a wholly innocent group who had nothing to do with any Muslim terrorism happening anywhere in the world.
I note that his cute little diatribe fails to mention that muslims just kill anyone they don’t agree with…….including other muslims.
It isn’t only the special protected class that is their targets, it is the non-muslim, non-shia/sunni/sufi/whatever that they hate.
To ignore the ongoing history of violence, rape, enslavement, and murder, that accompanies islam, is to do a great disservice to reality.
Reality? No other single ideology is responsible for as much death and misery as islam.
Replace “muslims” with a slur of your choice and see how prejudiced you are. People’s violence usually has a lot to do with economic desperation.
Replace ‘Peoples violence’ in your statement with ‘Inquisition’.
It will sound like “Inquisition usually has a lot to do with economic desperation.”
Which is totally wrong. Inquisition HAS to do with christian dogmas. And to not address it as such is a non-starter towards solving the problem.
Same applies to dangerous ideas present in Islam and practices by its founder. We need to accept the problem for what it is, otherwise we will be doing a great disservice to the future generations to whom we will leave a much unsafe world.
Hey Samira,
These people have gone crazy. Don’t worry about them. I know why you keep coming back here and why you want to keep having a conversation. Forget about it. Just move on to another article. Stop responding to these people on this comments section. If you like Glenn Greenwald (and there’s nothing not to like), move on to another Greenwald article. You don’t have to respond to their detective inquiries. Don’t stop reading Glenn Greenwald, because of some people on the comments section. That would indeed be a tragedy. Whatever you are, gay or straight or anything else, Glenn Greenwald is fearless, and is beautiful to watch. You don’t have to agree with him all the time. I don’t. But don’t stop reading him because of the comments section. I’ll try to answer all your questions about the politics in these parts.
Oh sure… Religious minorities are real happy in Iran. Because Press TV and an article in The Guardian says so. In most authoritarian countries, Muslim or not, Minorities lead subdued lives. They shut the fuck up. And people talk shit about minorities openly, religious or not. I’ve seen it. I wouldn’t want to be a minority of any sort, in most places on earth, whatever the Guardian says.
Thanks again for your kindness.
I’m not going to stop reading Glenn’s articles and in fact, I did read his recent article. I was aware of his opinions on this matter, but this particular article felt very offensive to me to the point that I decided to post a comment.
I also have to add this that I feel like some people in this comment section are at the very least, borderline anti-Semites because I see no other reason for their repeated accusation of me being an Israeli/Zionist. This is very unfortunate for a website such as the Intercept, that it attracts such a crowd.
No, they’re not anti-semites. That’s a very serious word, like “racist,” or “sexist,” that shouldn’t be used lightly. It diminishes the impact of such terms. Many people on this site are very passionately anti-Israeli. And it’s not the first time for posers. So I understand why they’re wary. This is the Internet after all.
Cheers.
I was very hesitant to use it but that’s how I feel about them. I understand being anti-Israel and I’m very familiar with how the Internet allows certain behaviors, but I have no other explanation for this level of paranoia without slightest evidence and repeatedly praising a murderous dictatorship for its support of the Palestinian cause and absolving it of its crimes because of it.
I mean both Israel and Iran have horrible human right records and their prominent difference is that they follow different religions. Why is one country the devil incarnate and the other praiseworthy?
What is Iran doing, that is similar to what Israel is doing? Who is Iran occupying? Whose houses and land and water is Iran stealing, and whose children are they jailing and killing? What are the comparable elements between Iran and Israel?
It’s occupying our houses and stealing our resources. It’s killing our men and women and children.
Did you know that after the revolution, many many people lost their homes, lands, factories, etc in the name of the revolution? Many people had to leave the country and still are leaving the country because it’s impossible for them to live here.
Did you know that Iran has executed more children than any other country in the world? We actually execute the most people per capita. We have also killed around 8000 political prisoners since the revolution.
My point is that you don’t have to start a war to kill people or steal from them. All you need is a totalitarian regime that answers to no one and has an ardent fanbase.
What is “it?” Your government is yours. It’s up to you to effect change in it. Israeli government is not the government of the occupied Palestinians. It’s strange that you cannot see the distinction. Lots of Governments, in South America, Cuba, South East Asia, also took the property of the wealthy “in the name of the revolution?” Lots of people were jailed and killed. You can compare Iran to such countries, but to compare it to Israel, who’s taking the lands and homes of Palestinians to benefit Israelis, is not the same thing. And it is quite strange that you cannot see this distinction. I have Iranian friends here. I have a gay Iranian friend too. And she’s never said anything like you’re saying. In fact, she’s quite defensive about Iran.
So yeah… your “point” is a little strange, to say the least.
>Your government is yours. It’s up to you to effect change in it.
The government is not ours by any means because it’s not chosen by our will. We’ve tried to change things but when unarmed people fight with armed forces, the results are not pleasant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009
> Lots of Governments, in South America, Cuba, South East Asia, also took the property of the wealthy “in the name of the revolution?” Lots of people were jailed and killed. You can compare Iran to such countries, but to compare it to Israel, who’s taking the lands and homes of Palestinians to benefit Israelis, is not the same thing.
I think the situation is pretty similar in all these cases. It’s the struggle of the powerful and the powerless and I don’t think ultimately the nationality of the oppressor makes much difference to the victims. Of course, the number of the casualties of the wars in Palestine and Israel and the scale of the atrocities are much higher.
As for Iranians, in my experience, most of us see ourselves as very separate from the government because the regime is controlled by a ruling class that’s unreachable to most people.
I don’t know how close you are to your Iranian friends, but we’re generally very proud of our nationality and it’s difficult for us to admit to the disastrous state of our country.
Writing in his usual style and his comfort zone, the Grand Obfuscator – aka CraigSummers – continues with evasive maneuvers.
In his zeal, he forgets to conceal his bigotry. That his usual semantic gymnastics does not work on this site deranges him.
Whether he is a good person with bad principles, or a bad person with well-honed principles, he does not know much about being a peaceable human being. More reason to continue his pretense to being principled.
If you are religious, pray for him. If you are not, ignore him as often as you can, and censure him strongly as regularly as needed.
DocHollywood writes:
“…….“I am so bigoted against “brownies” – yes, I have really used that racial slur against Muslims…….”
Gator90 writes:
“…….While Craig appears to mean well where Jews are concerned, he is simply unable and/or unwilling to grasp the distinction between anti-semitism and principled anti-Zionism……”
Atheistinchief writes
“…….Either you’re talking like a child, or you’re talking like we’re children,… or you’re just nuts, Craig…….”
Sillyputty writes:
“…….Everyone has chips on their shoulder; that’s’ the human condition. Also a part of that, unfortunately, is the ongoing, reductive laments by people, like you, who claim deferential treatment simply because of the group or clique you claim an affinity to..…….”
Would all of you classify the following statements by Mona as principled anti-Zionism?
Mona calling Adolph Eichmann a Zionist:
“……..And altho Eichmann explicitly said, “I am a Zionist,” he didn’t mean it. Not according to the way Shalev defines “Zionism” and would prefer you to define it……To understand why Eichmann could be both a Zionist and also have committed the atrocities he did, one must understand a very critical thing about the man……..”
“……..It’s a matter of the historical record that the Third Reich did, in fact, support Zionism. Other than Nazi symbols and flags, the blue-star flag of Zionism was the only other flag permitted to fly in Nazi German……”
“……..Zionists [Jews] have grossly exploited the Holocaust as their “permission slip” to commit vicious crimes themselves, primarily against Palestinians. Enough of that. The Holocaust was an abomination, but it is not the only crime against humanity, and I now advocate that it be removed from sacred status…….” My insertion in brackets
“……Money amplifies voices. If the people First Look is hiring are able to help shape the dominant narrative, I wouldn’t even care if they were funded by a Nazi — as long as said Nazi was as laissez-faire as Pierre says he will be.…..”
Mona (even) calling Mona an anti-Semite:
“…………Ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby were the most dangerous thing to arise for Jews in many decades. He noted that once Americans realize the U.S. is sending their sons and daughters into Middle Eastern wars desired by Israel and promoted by neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby at home, there will be rage. There will be fury about the billions we send Israel and the way our foreign policy and politics are warped by the Lobby. And it has come to pass — we are seeing that with the antisemitic Trumpites. They realize it all, and they are furious…….”
Mona repeating this claim to another poster:
“…….Yes, it’s definitely ratcheting up. Almost ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me he was certain that once Americans woke up to the extent the Israel Lobby controls U.S. foreign policy — including the neocon enthusiasm for sending U.S. sons and daughter to fight Middle Eastern wars that Israel and the Israel Lobby demands — Jews will suffer……..”
According to Wikipedia,
“………In 2002, [David] Duke traveled to Eastern Europe to promote his book, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question in Russia in 2003. The book purports to “examine and document elements of ethnic supremacism that have existed in the Jewish community from historical to modern times.”[118]……”
Mona’s response (agreeing with David Duke)
“……..And about that, he has a great deal of truth on his side……”
“………When I claim Zionists are fascists, I am not calling names or waxing hyperbolic: I mean it literally, as a reasonably well-educated person would understand the term……”
http://palestineposterproject.org/poster/long-live-the-red-army-long-live-the-ussr-long-live-socialist-zionism
Well, the Zios weren’t only fascists. They also had a long flirtation with the commies. But then, there wasn’t much difference e. Hitler and Stalin were also co-conspirators.
Kind of disappointing. I never did hear back from my friends on “principled anti-Zionism”. Oh well. If you look at about the middle of Mona’s comments which I posted above, you will see the one that starts off with “Mona (even) calling Mona an anti-Semite” which follows with,
“…………Ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby were the most dangerous thing to arise for Jews in many decades. He noted that once Americans realize the U.S. is sending their sons and daughters into Middle Eastern wars desired by Israel and promoted by neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby at home, there will be rage. There will be fury about the billions we send Israel and the way our foreign policy and politics are warped by the Lobby. And it has come to pass — we are seeing that with the antisemitic Trumpites. They realize it all, and they are furious…….”
This fits very nicely with the Yinon plan which you and Barrabas support and promote. Have you ever suggested to Mona that her Jewish friend might have been referring to the Yinon Plan? Look how well Israel is carrying out the Yinon Plan. The Middle East is a complete mess, cleaved on some many ethnic and religious planes that it will never recover. Greater Israel is going to be a lot easier than I thought. Jews are just so sneaky.
Craig, to really analyze your bill of particulars against Mona, I’d need to research the full context of all those quotes, which I have neither time nor inclination to do. But viewed in isolation, the quotes inspire this response from me:
Meh.
Fair enough gator, but do they inspire what you would call principled anti-Zionism?
Not particularly, but many of her other statements do. For better or worse (I think better), she has had a significant influence on my thinking.
“…….she has had a significant influence on my thinking……”
I guess I am mystified why you seem to have an open mind. When you say “not particularly”, that is an understatement. I mean I could be principled in my opposition to busing or affirmative action (there were and are principled arguments against busing), but if I say black people are lazy and/or are just content to collect welfare checks, that is still bigotry/racism. In addition, just because statements by Mona might not bother you, that doesn’t mean they are not bigoted. It doesn’t particularly bother me when I am called a cracker. That doesn’t mean the intent is not bigoted/racist. These are not perfect analogies, but they serve the purpose.
I always appreciate your honesty (and atheist as well).
Thanks.
Islam believe that killing for being gay, so also being apart of LGBT communities are sinners in their “religious” text say to kill not only them at any cost but Christians and Jews . they are violent people. A MUSLIM killed 50 people at that club with an AR-15, gun control wouldn’t have stopped it, islam teaches the to kill. He would’ve found a way.
The post lightly edited for accuracy:
“First of all, you have not made the statements that Mona has made. [It may be utterly pointless – it’s not even close to an argument – but this vacuous statement is the only thing I got right.]
Second of all, if “principled” is the key, [then I am clearly following an un]principled approach by [dishonestly conflating] Jewish [with] Zionist. It is one thing to say that you believe the one state solution is the best option. It is completely another to call Zionism an ethno-supremacist, colonialist, racist movement which effectively denies the reasons for the Zionist movement in the first place. [In other words, I literally cannot see the] difference between [political choices (i.e. the one state solution) and actual principles. In fact, my pathetic defense of Zionism – when I’m not just dishonestly conflating Zionism with Judaism – is entirely unprincipled: I claim that there are “reasons” for Zionism, but these reasons are data, not principals].
Mona calls Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians on a scale of 1-10 a seven (10 being the worst). When I posed to her on several occasions what she considered the murder of an estimated 50,000-250,000 Jews in Russia from 1917-1921, she refused to answer. [If I was a] decent and principled person, I would have [the integrity to address the morality of the actions I defend rather than cowardly trying to change the subject.] A principled person would [be able to defend his beliefs on their merits], but not M[e] because to [defend] such brutality [I must not] Acknowledge [principles but instead claim there are] reasons [- not principles -] for Zionism.
I think the idea of principle is an important point[; someday, I hope to understand it. And who knows? Maybe someday I’ll even have some. It could happen.
But for now, I don’t even understand the most basic aspects of logic:] For example, one could look at the statements by posters at Stormfront which are very similar to what Mona posts and everyone would agree that they are not based on any principle – and therefore are bigoted (obviously[, I’m an idiot. With my fallacious reasoning, if someone at Stormfront posts, “I love my Mom”, then everyone who posts, “I love my Mom” must be a bigot].
David Duke posts very similar comments about Jews as Mona [Obviously, I’m also a liar: Mona posts comments about Zionism. Am I] principled? Most (hopefully) would say not. So [my utter lack of] principle [or even understanding] is an important point to the discussion – and I have [distorted and lied too much to ever] call [my] virulent opposition to [reality] principled.
Furthermore, giving M[e] a free pass on these issues [would] only encourage what [I] just pointed out (correctly) to [everyone] at the Intercept: that I am a dishonest nincompoop]. If [I am] allowed (encouraged) to perpetuate antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories and to demonize th[ose who oppose the] Zionist movement [on principle] by c[onflating] Zionism [with] anti-Jewish bigotry, then [all can continue to laugh and mock me as the most disgusting and entertaining boil] currently festering at this site.
Thanks.”
Great job editing the work of the Grand Obfuscator (CraigSummers)!
“……My advice: play hard to get. Really hard to get……”
“Understanding the Orlando Reaction”
ramzpaul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCutG6L_PxM
If you’ve made it this far there are 694 comments at the time of this post, that’s impressive! Unfortunately a lot of good comments were drowned out due to the back and forth on many threads. Starting at the beginning and scrolling up, may a good strategy to partially filter out long drawn out arguments.
The fact of the matter is that governments in the First World do not execute people or hang them for being gay. People who attempt to do this, or who would do this are put in jail for a hate crime in the first world. There is no protection for LGBT people in third world middle eastern places like Saudi Arabia, where discrimination is not only practiced but encouraged, and people are barbarically killed quite often.
We in the United States have solved most if not all LGBT issues. Trans people are accepted. Gay marriage is now allowed. Different gender identities are encouraged.
But in middle eastern states that practice Islam, none of these things are even fathomed. Even among the absolute moderate, non-radical of muslim Islamists, they still believe being gay is a sin. Why? because the Quran tells them so. And that is wrong.
Unfortunately, many people in the US and other first world places refuse to acknowledge this, because they have grown entitled and far too comfortable to want to improve regressive nations. What we have created here is a sort of faux-tolerance of the Islamic faith by stating things such as “that’s just their religion” in an attempt to disassociate ourselves from having to engage with things we in the west would identify as anti-LGBT hate speech and hate crimes. This, is directly contradictory to those within our own borders who would slam Christians for anti-gay hate speech, and the bible passage that says a man cannot lie with another man.
It’s that simple, really.
John, apparently you did not take the time to read the article, or even skim the graphics. Since you are fixating on Muslims only as intolerant of LGBT persons, the graphics clearly point out that 42% of U.S. Muslims are accepting of LGBT persons, whereas only 28% of Christian Evangelicals are. Not only is this Christian Evangelical dogma very entrenched in the Sothern and MidWest US, it has permeated the thinking of ex-potential presidential candidates such as Rubio and the one that looked like Dracula, that very same group finances all those missionaries to Africa to encourage the “spread of Christian values”, among which seems to be encouraging the death penalty in Uganda for LGBT persons.
I’m new here and I don’t understand the obsession with Zionism. Why is it everything and anything about Israel and Palestine?!
Well, in The West, if you write critically of Israel, or Israeli policy, you are probably not going to hired by the New York Times, or The Washington Post, or any major newspaper. Glenn is highly critical of Israel in his writings. And in the eyes of many people looking for objective news on the Israel/Palestine conflict, Glenn Greenwald is one of the few sources of such news. So a faithful part of his readership are people who are interested in Israel/Palestine.
He also writes about the constitutionality of government behavior. As someone who did not grow up in the US, but was interested in their constitution, (because not only is it an amazing document, the way Americans adhere to it is the way people adhere to religious doctrine), Glenn does great analysis of whether government action is legal or not. But at the end, he’s almost unique in the sense that there are very few people who defend Palestinians with the passion and abandon that Glenn does. He doesn’t seem to care what people think about his views on Israel, and that is unique. (Now, among others, Max Blumenthal does it at Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/authors/max-blumenthal), and Philip Weiss does it at Mondoweiss.net.
Anyway, so a part of his readership wants to pat him on the back for writing about Palestinians and Zionism, and another part of his readership wants to scream and shout at him because he wrote critically about Israel. So sometimes there are shouting matches between Pro-zionists and anti-zionists, even weeks after an article is done :0
My opinion only.
Thank you for your thorough explanation. :)
Honestly, It’s a bit odd to me that people here are so focused on the Israel-Palestine issue as most people around me either don’t care much or feel wary and resentful towards Palestinians. We’re also culturally anti-Semitic which makes it very easy to bash Jews. However, people rarely think or talk about Israel or Palestine.
I used to read Mondoweiss during Gaza war. I think I should start reading it again.
I come from a somewhat similar background. Unlike Iran, there is no indigenous Jewish community where I’m from so there is no anti-Semitism. But Israel comes up in discussions of International politics, and there is no support for Israel. I can give you an example of Anti-Semitism though. I used to work for a company that exported a lot of goods and we used International Shipping Companies. The Israeli Shipping company charged lower freight rates because of the inherent bias. Shipping and was part of my responsibility and I used the Israeli line (ZIM line) because they were cheaper. And because I used them, their customer service to me was excellent. But they had difficulty getting business unless they charged much lower than European lines. So I suppose anti-Semitism is there where I’m from too, but Israel/Palestine hardly ever comes up.
Cheers.
“I’m new here.”
You’re an effin troll.
No, I’m trying to have a conversation here. You’re the one who’s harassing me.
“A conversation” to spread hasbara on everyone’s screen like the good readers spread jam on breakfast toast.
I don’t know what hasbara is but it’s got to be better than marmite, right?
Wide-eyed Samira: After flipping thru the 700 plus comments here, it seems that you have contributed quite a few of them on the topic of, in your opinion, the undue attention directed toward the Israel-Palestinian question here, that you know very little about the I-P situation, that you are Iranian, and claim to live in Iran. You also spend time pointing out the dire situation of the LGBT community in Iran. So, why are you starting this conversation all over again? Do you think some readers will fail to scroll down?
A few inconsistencies that make your claimed identity questionable: Watch Press TV — it has done a good job on the I-P question. For your information, Press TV is an Iranian TV channel available to all. Re the situation of alternative lifestyles, private and public space is distinctly defined in Iran. Behavior that is unthinkable in public is acceptable in private. As a claimed Iranian, you should know that. Iran is the second most popular destination in the world for gender reassignment operations. If alternative lifestyles were strictly not tolerated, surely this branch of medical technology would also not be tolerated. Iran also has a Jewish community that Israel has worked hard to convince to transfer to Israel. They show no signs of leaving and by all reports seem to be satisfied with their lives. I believe there is a small trickle from Israel to Iran.
Your English is too colloquial for someone who has spent all their life in Iran. Aside from Iran itself, it is easy to meet Iranians in Turkey, where many travel. Educated Iranians speak a BBC version of English. Granted, many of the Shah’s followers fled to Los Angeles in the 1980’s. Their children no doubt speak colloquial English and dream of an Iran ruled by the Shah’s son.
You do not live in Iran. You are just another version of a Zionist troll, who tries to derail discussions of Palestine, oh wide-eyed Samira.
Ah, Press TV, the vomit-inducing propaganda channel of the regime for the Westerners. I see they have been pretty successful.
>the situation of alternative lifestyles, private and public space is distinctly defined in Iran. Behavior that is unthinkable in public is acceptable in private. As a claimed Iranian, you should know that.
What the hell are you talking about? There’s NO place too private for the regime. Read this for goodness sake:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/27/iranian-students-threw-a-graduation-dance-party-it-cost-them-99-lashes-each/
> Iran is the second most popular destination in the world for gender reassignment operations. If alternative lifestyles were strictly not tolerated, surely this branch of medical technology would also not be tolerated.
Iran’s gov tolerates transgenders to some extent ( I have mentioned it in this comment section before), but only those transgenders who wish to have the complete surgery. Other transgender individuals and many homosexual people are forced to mutilate their bodies to have a little acceptance.
Of course, things always get worse for them because Iranian people are generally very intolerant towards transgender people.
>Iran also has a Jewish community that Israel has worked hard to convince to transfer to Israel. They show no signs of leaving and by all reports seem to be satisfied with their lives. I believe there is a small trickle from Israel to Iran.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? To our shame, most Iranian Jews left the country for Israel before 1941 because of rampant anti-Semitism. The rest immigrated to Israel and other countries after the revolution. Now, only a very small community of them remains.
>Your English is too colloquial for someone who has spent all their life in Iran.
I and many other Iranians consume American entertainment. Shows such as the Lost, Breaking Bad and Prison Break were very popular in Iran. That’s how we improve our English.
>You do not live in Iran. You are just another version of a Zionist troll, who tries to derail discussions of Palestine, oh wide-eyed Samira.
I understand that you may not believe me, but it’s ridiculous that I’m constantly accused of being a Zionist. You guys started asking me questions about Israel and Palestine.
I learned English the same way. Reading books and American TV.
People below have asked her questions on Israel/Palestine to prove her bonafides. And she answered them enough times without telling those people to fuck off. She has every right to ask “what’s with this zionism shit? I thought I was reading an article about gay people getting killed.” So as a new reader, her question is not off base, given the thrashing she’s been under.
“I am new here and don’t understand the obsession w/Zionism”. But you know all about Press TV and that its programs re Zionism that are intended only to lie to the West? Yet you claim to know nothing about Zionism? How do you know the programs are lying if you know nothing?
“I am new here” — you have not discussed Iran’s sex assignment surgeries here at all, as you claim.
The Guardian recently had an article on the Jewish Iranian community, favorable. Find it yourself.
English TV is not officially available in Iran. Yet, those who want can access it, as you seem to have done. Just another example of the difference between official and private space in Iran.
No one started asking you questions about the I-P situation. You came here with your own opinions, that you widely shared. And then when you were ignored and the conversation stalled, you appear as wide-eyed “I don’t know why all the emphasis on Zionism, I am new here.”
I have met too many Iranians in Turkey, you’re no Iranian living in Iran.
Of course, I know of Press TV because it’s a hated news channel in Iran. I didn’t understand the obsession of this comment section with Zionism as the topic of this article has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine.
I talked about transgenders and Shia community in one my responses to Mona.
It’s not that difficult to read the Wikipedia article about Iranian Jews. The numbers speak for themselves. As for those Jews who are interviewed by journalists, what do you expect them to say? That they lead terrible lives? Do you understand the consequences of honesty for them?
If I’m not mistaken, it was Sparrow who started asking me questions about Israel. After I answered their question, various commentators accused me of being a zionist.
Oh and I don’t know what Press TV says about Zionism but I know that its news about Iran and its description of Iranian society are nothing but lies. It’s like other Iranian channels really.
Kassandra…you made my day.
That’s a big “gotcha” moment…and Mona’s “poser” was what opened it up. Gotta say “Well done”…
Gator90:
Exactly.
The forensic team from the Orlando shooting at the gay club has reported their results. Despite earlier reports that the deaths were caused by a man with a history of domestic violence, sexual confusion and a conservative religious family who had been frustrated in his attempt to become a police officer, having access to military style weapons, the findings in fact show that the deaths were caused by “due process”:
Actually a waiting period makes sense, it would give enough time to do a proper background check, and give angry would be murderers time to cool off. But blaming the tens of thousands of gun deaths in America each year on due process? You can see how electing corporate Democrats with an “A” rating from the NRA, such as Manchin, is not the way to go if you are looking for an off-ramp to the insanity ruling America.
My rant continues…..
And the Senator was asked on “Morning Joe”: What about the the guns that are already out there?, what about the black market?
Imagine the same thinking being applied to other issues: “Senator, you say you want to restrict dangerous narcotics…why bother, the drugs are already out there, what about the black market?” Nobody asks that.
“Senator, you say you want to fight deadly diseases killing tens of thousands of Americans, but what about those who have already died? Wont they stay dead? What about the people getting the disease elsewhere?” Nobody asks that.
Because it’s stupid. Tens of thousands die every year in the US from gun violence. Should dangerous devices that have only one purpose, the one they were designed for, war, continue to be available, because they were available in the past? Should dangerous devices be legally available, because some people will get them illegally?
Talk about first world problems, let’s make a game out of playing with war toys, watch tens of thousand die, and then argue about our right to continue shooting each other.
The threads below remain intent on focusing on the evils of Islam (any fundamentalist religion is in opposition to reason in a society with as much knowledge of the world and universe as ours), but the question ought to be: Why do these people committ these acts of outrage in a country with a growing BDS movement? They may be angry, as one person noted the perpetrator of this horror had a family member tortured by the US, but don’t they know these acts are used to justify more war, more shutting down of our civil liberties and ability to ask our government to stop the bombings, apartheid, and abuse in Palestine. Why would they do this if their desire is to end it?
I don’t want to comment on your main point (because actually I’m not sure what it is) but if by any chance you are referring to one of my comments then you have misunderstood it. The Orlando killer’s family was not reported to be tortured. That was another person who was tortured and killed by the US government in Afghanistan, and whose death is subject to an ACLU litigation.
And I introduced that here, because, there have been calls for “war” over the murders in Florida, there has been the claim that Obama is on the side of terrorists. And I thought people might need the reminder that Americans have been fighting and killing and dying and torturing, in Afghanistan, and lots of other places, non-stop for many years now, and so, calls for “war” in an America in a perpetual de-facto state of war, is ridiculous.
“America is looking for a crusader”!!!! only serious demagogues need apply!!!
“The entire nation is in the cross hairs”!!!!
You might have thought that Trump has made Fox News obsolete, but Fox is still slogging away:
It’s just a reminder that Trump’s nonsense has come out of a long American tradition of “faux” news. Only now, with Trump taking it to a new level it’s starting to get called out as the racism, bigotry, anti-intellectualism that it is. And Clinton? We’ve had decades to see what her priorities are, so…Woo HOO! Won’t it be exciting to see a female overseeing the status quo!! Who will be the next prez? I’m hesitant to rule out Trump getting elected, along with many other nutters running for US congress. The watershed moment for me was Bush the younger getting elected. For me it was a stunner that so many could vote for someone who was so clearly an idiot.
Anyway, a few more Flint Michigans and there will be enough brain damage from lead poisoning, poverty, and overall bad schooling in the US to make America’s leaders seem like geniuses to their people.
Readers alert:
Mona writes:
“…….And P.S. for readers who don’t know: Gator isn’t talking about me — I’m well-known for denouncing antisemites here…….”
Gator has observed what I have also noted on numerous occasions below the line at the Intercept. Anti-Jewish bigotry flourishes especially when the Intercept publishes an anti-Israel article (which is ALL published articles on Israel at the Intercept). There is clearly a tolerance of anti-Jewish bigotry by like (politically) minded (anti-Israel) posters. That is exactly what Gator has observed on several different occasions going back several months. It’s simply a tribal reaction by political allies and it’s irrelevant that there is far more Islamophobia (anti-Muslim bigotry) on THIS thread which is not about Israel.
Additionally, Mona is simply in denial on her own complicity in encouraging anti-Jewish bigotry below the line at the Intercept. I have documented numerous statements by Mona which clearly cross the line into anti-Jewish bigotry. She has taken it upon herself to define what constitutes antisemitism rejecting any definition which includes her statements. No one should take Mona seriously on what defines anti-Jewish bigotry. She is so invested politically in opposition to Israel and Zionism as to render her credibility absolutely zero on the topic.
I’d like to see this “documentation,” because it sounds like unadulterated Bullshit. Yeah. Mona is an anti-semite, and the Pope is Muslim.
Atheist
“…….Yeah. Mona is an anti-semite, and the Pope is Muslim…….”
Some of her comments are posted to DocHollywood onb this thread (June 14, 9:54 AM). Mona is not your typical far right wing Stormfront poster. She is far more subtle in her stereotyping of Jews (and or Zionists) and many Jews (not all) would be offended (IMHO). Take a look. I appreciate your opinion which I think will be an honest assessment.
Thanks.
I couldn’t find anything by Mona at 9:54 AM on June 14. Are you talking about a different thread? Link please.
Control F: write “DocHollywood” That will take you to each of Doc’s comments one by one. It’s about midway down the thread.
I’ll just re-post it (and she has made numerous more comments which are not shown):
Mona calling Adolph Eichmann a Zionist:
“……..And altho Eichmann explicitly said, “I am a Zionist,” he didn’t mean it. Not according to the way Shalev defines “Zionism” and would prefer you to define it……To understand why Eichmann could be both a Zionist and also have committed the atrocities he did, one must understand a very critical thing about the man……..”
“……..It’s a matter of the historical record that the Third Reich did, in fact, support Zionism. Other than Nazi symbols and flags, the blue-star flag of Zionism was the only other flag permitted to fly in Nazi German……”
“……..Zionists [Jews] have grossly exploited the Holocaust as their “permission slip” to commit vicious crimes themselves, primarily against Palestinians. Enough of that. The Holocaust was an abomination, but it is not the only crime against humanity, and I now advocate that it be removed from sacred status…….” My insertion in brackets
“……Money amplifies voices. If the people First Look is hiring are able to help shape the dominant narrative, I wouldn’t even care if they were funded by a Nazi — as long as said Nazi was as laissez-faire as Pierre says he will be.…..”
Mona (even) calling Mona an anti-Semite:
“…………Ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby were the most dangerous thing to arise for Jews in many decades. He noted that once Americans realize the U.S. is sending their sons and daughters into Middle Eastern wars desired by Israel and promoted by neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby at home, there will be rage. There will be fury about the billions we send Israel and the way our foreign policy and politics are warped by the Lobby. And it has come to pass — we are seeing that with the antisemitic Trumpites. They realize it all, and they are furious…….”
Mona repeating this claim to another poster:
“…….Yes, it’s definitely ratcheting up. Almost ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me he was certain that once Americans woke up to the extent the Israel Lobby controls U.S. foreign policy — including the neocon enthusiasm for sending U.S. sons and daughter to fight Middle Eastern wars that Israel and the Israel Lobby demands — Jews will suffer……..”
According to Wikipedia,
“………In 2002, [David] Duke traveled to Eastern Europe to promote his book, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question in Russia in 2003. The book purports to “examine and document elements of ethnic supremacism that have existed in the Jewish community from historical to modern times.”[118]……”
Mona’s response (agreeing with David Duke)
“……..And about that, he has a great deal of truth on his side……”
“………When I claim Zionists are fascists, I am not calling names or waxing hyperbolic: I mean it literally, as a reasonably well-educated person would understand the term……”
“She is far more subtle in her stereotyping of Jews (and or Zionists) and many Jews (not all) would be offended (IMHO).”
Offending someone is not the same as anti-xxx!! You should know the difference – but you don’t.
Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. You should know the difference – but you don’t.
“She is subtle?!” Or, are you reading the “subtle” into it?
Thanks JayZ. You are incredibly informative.
No I am not informative at all, because I stated the obvious. Most everyone here knows that you are the Grand Obfuscator.
“…….No I am not informative at all….”
Thanks for the tip, but this was already well known.
Do you mean the tip that you are the Grand Obfuscator?
You are welcome!
Yeah, it’s bullshit. While Craig appears to mean well where Jews are concerned, he is simply unable and/or unwilling to grasp the distinction between anti-semitism and principled anti-Zionism. (I do find it interesting that, although he knows full well I am anti-Zionist and agree with most of Mona’s views, he has yet to summon the chutzpah to call me an “anti-Jewish bigot.” For some reason.)
Gator
“……..While Craig appears to mean well where Jews are concerned, he is simply unable and/or unwilling to grasp the distinction between anti-semitism and principled anti-Zionism…..”
First of all, you have not made the statements that Mona has made. Second of all, if “principled” is the key, she has hardly taken a principled approach proven by many of her statements which promote Jewish stereotypes and conspiracy theories and seeks to delegitimize the entire Zionist movement (whereas I do believe you are principled). It is one thing to say that you believe the one state solution is the best option. It is completely another to call Zionism an ethno-supremacist, colonialist, racist movement which effectively denies the reasons for the Zionist movement in the first place. That is one critical difference between apartheid South Africa and Israel.
Mona calls Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians on a scale of 1-10 a seven (10 being the worst). When I posed to her on several occasions what she considered the murder of an estimated 50,000-250,000 Jews in Russia from 1917-1921, she refused to answer. A decent and principled person would have at least acknowledged that scale of murder. A principled person would have condemned the Russian pogrom, but not Mona because to condemn such brutality directed at the Jewish minority is to acknowledge the reasons for Zionism.
I think the idea of principle is an important point. For example, one could look at the statements by posters at Stormfront which are very similar to what Mona posts and everyone would agree that they are not based on any principle – and therefore are bigoted (obviously). David Duke posts very similar comments about Jews as Mona. Is he principled? Most (hopefully) would say not. So principle is an important point to the discussion – and I have heard way too much anti-Jewish/anti-Zionist rhetoric from Mona to call her virulent opposition to the Jewish state principled.
Furthermore, by giving Mona a free pass on these issues, you are only encouraging what you just pointed out (correctly) to sillyputty about posters below the line at the Intercept. If the former law partner of Greenwald is allowed (encouraged) to perpetuate antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories and to demonize the Zionist movement by calling Zionism a racist endeavor, then you can expect the kind of anti-Jewish bigotry currently festering at this site.
Thanks.
Do you even know how deranged that sounds Craig. Do you have any idea.
Two people can state a fact, like, “there are a lot of Jews in Holloywood.” One person can look at that “fact” and say “good for the Jews. Let’s pat them on the back,” and another person can look at that same fact and see some form of treachery. Just because both are stating a fact, doesn’t mean both are stormfront. The intent of a statement is part of that statement.
Either you’re talking like a child, or you’re talking like we’re children,… or you’re just nuts, Craig.
Atheist
“……Two people can state a fact, like, “there are a lot of Jews in Holloywood.” One person can look at that “fact” and say “good for the Jews. Let’s pat them on the back,” and another person can look at that same fact and see some form of treachery. ………”
That is kind of the point I was making. Gator refers to principled anti-Zionism – which is a reasonable concept. You might sincerely believe that a (maintained) demographic majority (Jews) should not rule, or that there should be equality for all in a true democracy– Jew and Arab. You might sincerely believe that the one state solution is more equitable – and the only real solution to the conflict. All that is fine and dandy for principled anti-Zionists. However, the primary reason I brought up David Duke and the far right is that Mona’s anti-Zionist rhetoric is almost indistinguishable from that of Mr. Duke. I have been discussing the issues with Mona for several years and from what I have read from the writings by Duke (at least on what I have read), I cannot tell the difference between the two (on Jewish issues). I have said as much numerous times, and the concept is far from original. Mona is obsessed with delegitimizing the Zionist movement essentially denying the motivations for Zionism.
I really don’t see any difference between Mona and the typical poster at Stormfront or Jew Watch when it comes to Israel, Zionism and Jewish power. That is where the far left meets the far right.
Thanks.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/?comments=1#comment-243786
Pardon my suspicion but why is this article so intent on protecting Muslims? They seem to have become a serious problem in Europe. Ask the women. Is this a game? Why is Obama so intent on bringing in Muslims some of whom probably are coming here to destroy as much as they can. This is not the 1950’s when being broad minded was admired at least in academic circles. Hopefully most people who frequent this site are intelligent enough to not become anti-Muslim vigilantes. But to ignore the reality of all this immigration is unwise. Some Muslims . . . 10%? plus some who would protect their fellow Muslims . . . 30%? Most of us are not Hillary Clinton’s taking in major money from Islamic nations. Most of us do not go about with body guards. This could turn very nasty. Personally I would not be surprised if a lot of terrorism develops here by Muslims who are doing the eye for an eye. Your drones, your bombs, your sanctions . . . your collateral damage . . . our justice. Could we really blame them? My criticism of this article is that it is largely beside the point and sort of parlor talk. The point is this: Muslims are coming to America who would be justified in launching endless attacks on Americans. I mean what did we do after 9/11? Do we expect them to do otherwise? To be a lot better than us? This is the issue which needs to be addressed. And when you add in that 9/11 was not the work of Muslims at all but a trick to get some wars going — seven in all against seven Islamic nations, well then we really are in for big time karma.
@Samira, you really “don’t know of any way to prove that I [you] live in the ME.” I doubt you’d be so dumb? How about translating my calling out your BS into your native language, as a response?
Although I’m sure that’s not proof enough for you, I actually tried to do that. Unfortunately, it appears that it’s not possible to write in Arabic script in this site. Here, I try again (??? ????? ???????? :) )
I missed so much since I was last here. Yet this post grabbed my attention after I got caught up. “Samira” you said that you were located in “Iran” and when called out you stated that you couldn’t “write in Arabic script in this site.” Yet the script in Iran is Farsi, not Arabic. Of course a person in Iran would know this, yet a lying Zionist posing as “Samira from Iran” would make that ignorant mistake.
Wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_script
>The Arabic script is a writing system used for writing several languages of Asia and Africa, such as Arabic, dialects of Mandinka, Central Kurdish, Luri, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and others.
The alphabet is different between the 2 languages? Its not Arabic, its Fars,i a separate language with a separate alphabet. Enough of your deceptive excuses. Prove it by translating my response to Farsi using corresponding phonetic English characters? I have enough friends from college who have emigrated from Iran to know that they write as easily using English characters as Farsi characters.
The Alphabet is actually very similar.
What’s the use really? I don’t know you and you don’t know me and you’ve already decided that I’m lying, but here you go.
Alefba beine 2 zaban farq mikone? In arabi nist, farsiye, yani ye zabane jodagane ba alefbayi jodagane.
Are you Iranian by any chance? I haven’t heard any non-Iranian mention finglish. :)
Hey Samira, don’t worry about all these negative posts. They’ll get over it. You’re just the victim of a board that has had some posers in the past. I can tell from your posts you’re the real deal. You’re just coming from a place where the background noise is different. So everybody here thinks you’re really an Israeli, or Mossad plant. hahaha.
Stick around. It’s fun.
Thanks for going out of your way to defend me. It’s been wonderful talking to you. :)
We’re ex-Muslims right? We gotta stick together :)
Yep. As the slogan goes, we’re not alone for we are many. :D
It is possible to write Farsi, Urdu using a Latin script. Turkish used to be written using an Arabic script. Tajik was written originally using an Arabic script, then Latin, then Cyrillic under the Soviets. Further, I can switch fonts at will on my computer. As a native Iranian, you no doubt have an Arabic font on your computer as well as an English one. Don’t be shy, ride-eyed Samira.
I did actually. I translated Mark’s comment into Persian using Latin script.
It’s possible to write in Arabic script here but it just shows question marks.
@Harrold
I replied to you below.
Cheers :)
Being gay in a noticeable way, assuming there is a noticeable way, and going on a world tour, it seems to me such a person might want to especially avoid Muslim nations. I doubt Russia would be particularly dangerous as long as our gay person did not promote homosexuality. True such an one would be wise not to join certain types of Christian churches. Pope Frances seems quite okay with homosexuality–in part because the Vatican hosts a great many such persons. So becoming a Catholic at this time would be a safe course of action. From our above meanderings it seems like a good idea for Americans to be aware of how many Muslims feel or at least are supposed to feel about gays. It would also be a good idea to know that sex with pre- adolescent boys is considered fine and not against Islamic practices. Probably best not to hire Muslims to baby sit your young boys though this might read as bigotry. But just saying . . .
I thought 9/11 had already demonized Muslims beyond recall and that videos showing ISIS beheading people was like a topping on an uneatable desert. I mean now for 15 years there has been almost nothing but anti-Muslim MSM 24/7, so I am puzzled how more could be anything but boring redundancy.
Perhaps the title of this article is directed at future radical Muslims thinking about attacking gay bars and a suggestion they pick a new range of targets like Evangelical Churches or barber shops?
Given all the money Hilary has received from Saudi Arabia she can of course take a sweeter stand. I am not sure why Obama is sweet on Islam perhaps part of his job description.
I am giddy with a new toy, to wit: “trigglypuff bitch.” One K.Wesa has so designated me and, forsooth, I have fallen in love. I tweeted of my great happiness with this fine term, and was asked if I know this thing, the trigglypuff?
Well, I did not, but I now do. After seeking enlightenment from teh Google.
This is the fascinating tale of the etymology of trigglypuff.
Use it responsibly.
Here’s a poll Glen: Muslims in Britain have ZERO tolerance of homosexuality. A 2009 Gallup poll in the UK shows no tolerance for homosexuality among the UK’s Muslims. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
Be a good homosexual and group- think:
Islam=good, Christian=bad
@Gator
Yeah, what it “says” is: 1. As is true in the West, and especially the U.,S., Islamophobia is more pervasive, and far more socially acceptable, than antisemitism is, and 2. This is reflected in the amount of Islamophobia here, as opposed to antisemitism; just read this thread to see which enjoys the greater expression.
Jews in the West/U.S. are not exposed to nearly the amount of hatred and contempt from those considered socially acceptable as are Muslims. It’s not even close. Thus, it’s far more urgent to oppose attacks on Muslims.
And P.S. for readers who don’t know: Gator isn’t talking about me — I’m well-known for denouncing antisemites here.
Mona,
Your point about this thread is a very weak one; GG’s column is specifically about Muslims, not Jews, so obviously more of the Islamophobes will come out to play.
With that said, I certainly do acknowledge that bigotry toward Muslims is, at present, a substantially more significant problem in the U.S. and the West generally than anti-semitism is. But the modern decline in Western anti-semitism is due in large part to precisely the sort of social shaming that is conspicuously rare in this particular forum.
One would like to think that all types of religious, racial and ethnic bigotry would merit opposition and condemnation from people of good will.
I suppose your PS, considered in light of your main point, gives rise to an obvious question: why do you bother?
I don’t know what his point is here. All he does in this article is point out that Christianity and Judaism are homphobic as well, and that even secular people can be homophobic. Well thanks, we all know that. But it wasn’t a Christian, a Jew, or an atheist who carried out this attack in Orlando. It was a Muslim. Facts are facts.
He then goes on to draw a spurious connection to imperialism. As though this attack was a response to imperialism or American foreign policy. No, what happened here is a bit more complex. A fucked-up person, probably gay himself, murdered a bunch of people for reasons which we don’t know, but probably not unrelated to his religious upbringing and sexual repression. It’s not inaccurate to say that these killings are related to religion, and to Islam.
I don’t get the rush to defend religion. Religion does not need to be defended. It can defend itself.
Also, the issue of imperialism is completely separate from the issue of religion, and the critique of religion is completely separate from the critique of imperialism. If you insist on conflating them, you’re going to end up confused.
As Glenn Greenwald is. He proves that the Abrahamic religions are homophobic, and then he jumps to the defense of one of those religions, on the grounds that adherents of that religion have been subjected to imperialism. Total non sequitur.
The Abrahamic religions are homophobic. It’s in the Bible, it’s in the Koran. Consistent Christians and Muslims and Jews are opposed to homosexuality. Facts, are facts.
Imperialism and race are just totally separate issues. Jihadism, far from being a response to imperialism, is actually a rival imperialism. Political Islam is socially conservative. It mistreats and devalues women. It is homophobic. It attacks freedom of speech and of expression. And we on the left should not be under any illusions about it, and the need to fight it.
There can be more than one thing wrong with the world. Capitalism is a problem, imperialism is a problem, and so is conservative religion. Of all the religions, the most problematic are the Abrahamic religions, and of all the Abrahamic religions, the most problematic currently, is Islam. If you’re still in denial about that after 15 years of attacks, then you’ve got your head in the sand.
Now for the intelligent among us, who are not disposed to shrieking “Muslim!! Islam!! Muslim!!!” vis-a-vis the Orlando massacre, some intelligent reading: Inside the hate-filled mind of a mass murderer
This one statement in the article linked crystallizes the elements of hate and bigotry displayed by many of the zealots we all encounter.
“”Hate of other people is really displaced hate of oneself,” “
Anyone who is intelligent or has even the slightest shred of common sense will be pointing the finger at Islam, where it rightly belongs. You cannot preach hate, misogyny, and death to non believers and then claim Islam is a “peaceful religion” and is not to blame.
Saying Islam is peaceful is not only figuratively, literally, historically, but also mathematically incorrect.
I feel like I’m watching the saying, “It’s easier to get the people to unite through hate than to believe” come to life every day.
Damn right! We can only exploit LGBT issues to demonize Republicans, Conservatives, or Christians!
With regard to Republicans, they cannot be demonized. They have made it impossible to say anything charitable about them. The truth demonizes them because they are, well, kinda demonic. See Trump, Donald. As well as Cruz, Ted, or Santorum, Rick.
I would never argue that vile anti-gay sentiments are exclusively the province of Islam — but the massacre in Orlando was almost certainly a result of vile Islamic anti-gay teachings. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.
The shooter traveled to Saudi Arabia twice and was investigated by the FBI at least twice for statements he made in support of Islamic terrorists. Convinces me he saw himself as a strong Muslim working for Islam.
As a feminist, I’d prefer the US did not allow Taliban sympathizers, like the shooter’s father, to immigrate to the US. Their harsh, discriminatory religious views make them dangerous to be living among free Americans. It took over 30 years for this bad immigration decision to come home to roost, but when it did, the price is so high, it’s heartbreaking.
On most issues, I’m a lefty, but not when it comes to Islam. American Muslims of course have every right to practice their faith and have full rights of all Americans, but I don’t want Islam in America to grow by foreign Muslims coming here. I’m an infidel and proud of it. I’m an uppity woman and proud of it. I don’t need a mosque down the street, built to serve recent Muslim immigrants, with imams railing against the infidels. It’s hate speech in the midst of our infidel communities.
And yes, I know I’m not spoken of very highly in fundamentalist Christian churches, either. I don’t like it, as well. But that’s homegrown religious nonsense that we must deal with. Just because we already have the Westboro Baptist Church, doesn’t mean we have to welcome foreign imams to come to the Orlando mosque to preach ‘Kill The Gays.’ We need our State Dept to keep such bigots out of the country.
What you are is a bigoted, illiberal woman. Also a woman with all the comprehension of sociology and human nature of a 12-year-old.
I have a question for you Mona. Are we even allowed to criticise Islam? What is the correct way of doing that?
That’s a stupid question. Who is “we?” What constitutes “criticize?” And who and how does any allowing or disallowing?
>Who is “we?”
Everyone.
>What constitutes “criticize?”
I don’t know. You tell me.
>And who and how does any allowing or disallowing?
There are many ways of course. The classic Islamic way is beheading or various other ways of killing. The more polite way is labeling those who criticize Islam as illiberal, bigot, racist, Islamophobe…
That’s’ some serious bullshit ya got goin’ on there, “Samira.”
Really? Tell that to Theo van Gogh, Charb and Avijit Roy.
Also,I don’t know of any way to prove that I live in the ME. I actually tried to access this web page without VPN, but because of the word “LGBT”, it’s censored.
That, Samira, is called a non sequitur, which also means it constitutes additional serious bullshit.
I don’t care where you’re from. As I’ve said, it doesn’t ultimately matter. Your reasoning skills are unimpressive whoever you are.
Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. I have to say, it’s always the fat ass mentally unstable trigglypuff bitchs throwing insults at others for having a different opinion then your own.”KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF MY COMMENT SECTION, wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .
Lilith is totally in her right to her own opinion and nothing she has stated makes her a bigot.
You poor thing. See if you can follow this. Lilith has a “right” to say all she did, which included this:
But it shows that:
But thanks for this:
“Trigglypuff bitch.” That’s new one, but I like it very much and shall be shamelessly stealing it.
“..vile Islamic anti-gay teachings..”
If you have the time, I suggest you actually read the Koran, rather than just repeating what others say. Any violence against fellow ‘people of the book’ is forbidden. The only violence proscribed was against tribes warring against them. The rest is 1400 years of priestly propaganda. Judaism and Christianity have had even more time to be infested by ‘God’s interpreters’.
>Any violence against fellow ‘people of the book’ is forbidden.
Yeah? Like Jews who were killed and exiled during Muslims’ rein in Medina? And gays are not the people of the book afaik.
You should read this.
>None of this is to deny in the slightest that deeply anti-LGBT attitudes are pervasive in parts of the Muslim world: In most countries (though not all) acceptance is in the single digits. But that’s also true of equally poor parts of the Christian world, where only tiny parts of the population of largely Christian countries such as Ghana, Uganda, and Kenya believe society should accept homosexuality.
Don’t you honestly have any problem with this? Many Muslim and homophobic countries are not poor at all! I don’t understand why Glenn tries to detract from the problem of the religion by mentioning poverty.
It’s also ridiculous to mention Lebanon and ignore the fact that half of Lebanese people are not Muslim. Only 1% of Lebanese Muslims believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/)
>We all understand that this tactic is so vile, unscholarly, and anti-intellectual precisely because modern adherents to those religions interpret and apply (or ignore) those provisions in all sorts of ways.
Do they?! Because polls show something else.
>Depicting anti-LGBT hatred as the exclusive (or even predominant) province of Islam is not only defamatory toward Muslims but does a massive disservice to the millions of LGBTs who have been — and continue to be — seriously oppressed, targeted, and attacked by people who have nothing to do with Islam.
In 37 out of 57 Muslim countries, homosexual sex is illegal. In 10 countries (all which are Muslim), homosexuality can be punished by death. It’s obvious that homophobia is more prevalant and more intense among Muslims.
Glen is “detracting” from nothing. But you are correct that you don’t understand.
Not in the West.
No. They do not. It’s religious studies 101 that Christianity, Judaism and Islam contain myriad expressions of all three faiths, with great variety in interpreting the sacred texts and authoritative writings respective to each. This is beyond reasonable dispute.
>Glen is “detracting” from nothing. But you are correct that you don’t understand.
So help me to understand. Why does he mention poverty when some of the wealthiest countries in the region have the death penalty for homosexuality?
>Not in the West.
Sure and most Muslims and their top clerics don’t live in the West.
>No. They do not. It’s religious studies 101 that Christianity, Judaism and Islam contain myriad expressions of all three faiths, with great variety in interpreting the sacred texts and authoritative writings respective to each. This is beyond reasonable dispute.
And it’s a fact that ALL major Islamic sects condemn homosexuality and consider it a sin that requires punishment.
Because some of them are also very poor, and because many of the people in the rich ones are very poor. Poverty is somewhat correlated with illiberal beliefs due to lack of education, both formal and informal. Moreover, noting the role of poverty does not “detract” from anything true about the religion of Islam.
Which is irrelevant to the specific point under discussion.
Says who? Do these “major sects” have Islamic popes?
But even if true, that is yet another non sequitur from you. It renders neither logical nor true this from you: “Do they?! Because polls show something else.” As I said, that is flatly false.
>Because some of them are also very poor, and because many of the people in the rich ones are very poor. Poverty is somewhat correlated with illiberal beliefs due to lack of education, both formal and informal. Moreover, noting the role of poverty does not “detract” from anything true about the religion of Islam.
Yes, some of those countries are poor and some of them such Qatar and the UAE are absolutely not and their population is also generally well-off.
Of course, poverty is linked to lack of education and illiberal views but it can’t explain why a country like mine (Iran) with huge educated population is still one of the most homophobic countries in the world.
>Which is irrelevant to the specific point under discussion.
Why? Are we just discussing the Muslims in the US? And didn’t Mateen an American-born Muslim, had strong ties to the ME? Do you think Muslims in the US live in a bubble?
>Says who? Do these “major sects” have Islamic popes?
I know that it’s a favorite line of defense for Muslims but it’s mostly a myth. Most Muslims follow major fiqh schools such as Hanafi, Maliki and Jafari. Their “Popes” (such as Abu Hanifa) are dead of course, but they still follow their teachings and their fiqh methodology.
Muslims also have several “Vaticans”. There are, for example, Al-Azhar, Darul Uloom Deoband, the Islamic University of Madinah, Hawza of Qom and Hawza of Najaf. These are the places that Islamic thought and beliefs are discussed and taught and students of religion turn into prominent Imams and Muftis who are eventually sent to various cities and countries to head Muslim population.
All of this means that most Muslims follow sects that are inherently homophobic. The polls also confirm this. Thus, the modern adherents of Islam generally don’t interpret those verses and hadiths in a non-homophobic way.
Yes — a specific point about them is the one to which you replied with a non sequitur.
Qatar is newly rich, and some 20% of the population is still illiterate. The liberalizing influence of wealth and education does not effect great change as rapidly as that.
Poverty correlates to illiberal views. Which is why Greenwald raises it, and is also why his doing so is not a “distraction” from any truth about Islam.
But some do. And among those who do not, there is not uniformity of opinion as to the severity of the “sin,” and the appropriate punishment.
Nope. There is no “last word” for Muslims in the way there is for Roman Catholics. They splinter as much as Protestants do, because they don’t have a pope to enforce uniformity of interpretation. By contrast, there is huge diversity among Protestants (there is also some among Catholics, but that can only be abut emphasis or revolt) as to what various pieces of scripture mean. Ditto for Muslims.
What Greenwald wrote is true, and your attacks on him remain false and/or illogical. For all the reasons I have pointed out.
You know that most Muslims in the US are either immigrants or children of the immigrants. Although the US, compared to Europe, is very careful about who enters the country, it’s still obvious that these people are in contact with their motherlands. Other Muslims in the West are not as tolerant, as European countries had more lax immigration policies. All of this means that the overall beliefs of the Muslims certainly affects Muslims in the US.
>Qatar is newly rich, and some 20% of the population is still illiterate. The liberalizing influence of wealth and education does not effect great change as rapidly as that.
Really? I checked. According to the World Facebook, 97.3% Qatari population over 15 can read and write.
This also doesn’t explain why Muslims in countries such as Iran or Lebanon are still very homophobic.
>But some do. And among those who do not, there is not uniformity of opinion as to the severity of the “sin,” and the appropriate punishment.
Of course, but they’re a minority. As for the severity of the sin, let’s not kid ourselves. Homosexuality is perhaps the greatest taboo among most Muslims.
>Nope. There is no “last word” for Muslims in the way there is for Roman Catholics. They splinter as much as Protestants do, because they don’t have a pope to enforce uniformity of interpretation. By contrast, there is huge diversity among Protestants (there is also some among Catholics, but that can only be abut emphasis or revolt) as to what various pieces of scripture mean. Ditto for Muslims.
In theory, that’s true. Muslims don’t have popes, but as I explained before, in practice there are central figures that interpret and shape the religion. If today, several of these important men decided that homosexuality is acceptable, the face of the Muslim world would change in less than a year. Hell, the words of one man changed the way many Shias think about transgender individuals.
” Muslims of course have every right to practice their faith” unless it entails violating American law which inciting to a crime would. Because of Obama’s and to some extent most Democrats’ reluctance to speak frankly and to take appropriate action we seem to be asked now to overlook certain unpleasant and dangerous features of Islam such as that even moderate Muslims consider death the right punishment for pre-marital sex, adultery, gay life style, etc. Finally the Germans are telling immigrants from the Middle East that they have to obey German law. We had better do that as well. It may be the case that only about 10% could honestly agree to it. So we may have a very big problem down the Road.
On a side note, the killer Mateen’s parents were refugees from Afghanistan where the US government has been busy:
I love the way the legal system works: “Look we’re planning to do some stuff that would “normally appear to be prohibited”….Illegal wars, torture, destroy the world economy with fraudulent mortgages etc….please don’t prosecute us ok?”
Hate is a disease that is spread by cowards and acted on by fools.
Yes, this horrific act of hatred and homophobia is not rooted in one religion, and should not be used as a weapon of engendering Muslimphobia.
This mass killing is being touted by the corporate meme street media as the worst mass killing yet. However, I believe the killing of doctors and patients in hospitals, children in schools, civilians at weddings must be equally horrible. And why would we weep more for fifty people than one? Our grief may not be deeper because it is many, or because of their culture, their religion, or their lifestyle; injustice, cruelty, taking of the life of even one is a cause of deep grief to us all.
Where is the discussion about why/how our country is full of automatic weapons, we are spied on with the pretext of “protection” while no one is protected, nothing is done to inculcate peaceful communication and resolution of conflict in communities, war games and violence are fed to our youth in movies, video games, and literature regardless of their ages….
No, there is much more to these mass killings than race, religion, or homophobias.
I thank you, Mr. Greenwald, for your cogent reasoning and facts, and I look forward to more and even deeper analysis about why the policing agencies say they knew about thed perpetrators but….
They said that about 9/11, about the LA shooter, about the Boston Bombers; are they that inept and stupid or does this violence serve a purpose?
By the way, I believe Pearl Harbor was aslso one of those mishandled warnings as well as the Gulf of Tonkin.
“And why would we weep more for fifty people than one?”
it’s a good question because if only one person is killed there are forty-nine more people left to weep
While I have great respect for you Glenn when it comes to muslims you have it wrong. In every muslim predominant country on this earth, the LGBT community faces abuse and death. Their are no laws that protect homosexuals in these countries. Even in Indonesia and East Asia where you find the majority “moderate muslims” police look the other way when their families kill their own or neighbors kill each other because they are gay.
This video comes from a mosque here in the US. While I think it’s valiant you crusade for the equality of all, the people who you are crusading for don’t necessarily see eye to eye with you.
This is a mosque here in the US. How can you sit there and justify poll data with this Khutbah.
https://twitter.com/TheBucketShop
You totally convinced me. Anti-gay anuimus in Muslim culture means Western countries, especially the U.S., should bomb their nations, and slaughter them into loving gay people. We should not allow free speech rights, or due process, or any other constitutional rights to Muslim-Americans. Some of them are anti-gay, so the whole damn lot of them should shut the fuck up.
Glenn takes the opposite position, and as you say, he “has it wrong.”
Disingenuous
Accurate.
Nope, you are absolutely wrong on everything you said and judging by your shitlordish strawman rant you really do not have anything intelligent to contribute to the conversation.
In the US, we have an estimated 2.75 million muslims, 63% are immigrants from countries where maiming and killing gays is commonplace. Where as a woman you have less rights or worth then a goat. That is 1,752,500 muslims who came to this country with those beliefs. What you are left with are 997, 500 muslims who have been raised in western culture.
Let’s go ahead and say everyone of these 997,500 muslims do not believe in the punishments or bigotry of the quran and sunnah. Hell, let’s call it a even million. There are 1.6 billion muslims in the world and these 1 million peace loving muslims account for less then 1% of Islam.
We cannot as a nation continue to portray that Islam is a peaceful religion. Glenn’s entire article and polling is a bunch of cherry picked nonsense and completely irrespective to not only muslims living here in the US but globally as well.
Oh, please don’t hurt me so. You’ve been brilliant in making me see how wrong Glenn Greenwlad is on everything to do with Muslims. Don’t abandon me now!
The Internet doesn’t always offer sober, rational and well-substantiated analysis. You are a breath of fresh air. As I said before, you got him dead to rights, and I now see that we need to love bomb them, democracy drone them, keep supporting Arab tyrants, continue deposing their democratically elected leaders, and suspend civil liberties at home when it comes to those horrid Muslims.
Thank you so much. Intellectual breakthroughs such as you have shown me are so precious.
“Anti-gay anuimus in Muslim culture means Western countries, especially the U.S., should bomb their nations, and slaughter them into loving gay people. ”
K.Wesa said no such thing, and that is not a logical conclusion from anything. Your response is a mischaracterization and blatant logical fallacy.
“slaughter them into loving gay people”
nice one… might borrow that some day. kinda like slaughtering people into democracy in iraq or slaughtering them into afghani feminists
HRC sounded like an abusive boyfriend as GG described her speech on Orlando
Non-sequitur. Lame.
Typical Greenwald trash. Eric Rudolph belongs to a sect that made up about .000000001% of Christians. See most Christians follow the new testament which supercedes all the old testament garbage.
Meanwhile 50% or more of middle eastern muslims would tell you gays should be put to death and 25% would be a good muslim and do it themselves. This is because the Qu’ran is written so that everything later supercedes that which came earlier, and since Muhammed was a sexual deviant who had sex with his dead aunt and raped hundreds of children, he ended up being a syphillitic which rotted his brain and led to the book becoming more and more insane and extreme as he aged.
You seem nice.
“… most Christians follow the new testament..”
If that were true, there would be no American wars of choice, because Christians would do as the Christ commanded: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you.”
Then I would like to see a redacted Christian Old Testament, where the superseded sections have been excised. Otherwise, Christians have no compunction about cherry-picking the parts that suit them. Baptists,
Ignore that “Baptists,” part. I decided examples were superfluous, and I can’t edit my post.
The real question is….Clinton or Trump…which one’s warmongering is better for gays in India????? Supplementary question…How do we blame British colonial era law, applied in mostly Hindu India….on the source of all evil (aka Islam)???
A little journey into the pages of the ‘good’ book lands us at the law of Leviticus – the favorite book of religious homophobes of the 3 Judaic religions. If you can stomach the primitive fantasies and brutal nature of the ‘Lord of Israel’ , Leviticus is an eye-opener. Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 13 is the phrase that condemns homosexuals to death. Verses 10 (adultery),11 (sex with mother),12 (sex with daughter), 14 (sex with wife and mother-in-law), and 15 (sex with animals) all condemn the transgressors to death. That adds up to a lot of pervert politicians suffering from the wrath of Jehovah in Hebrew hell.
Just think how bad the Republican party has to be, for some people to think that Trump is their most gay friendly leader ever. New found champion of the LGBT community Donald Trump is going to stop gays being thrown off roofs or being sentenced to death in various faraway countries!!!…Clinton only helped invade Libya and Iraq, and in neither case did she stop homophobia there….So these LGBT groups are pinning their hopes on Trump!
Hillary (the Christian Crucifier) Clinton has pursued a “reckless foreign policy”….But Trump will stop Isis throwing people off buildings and will stop Muslim states from using the death penalty….
…..how exactly?
You can count on one hand the attacks of non-Muslims for religious reasons that have occurred against gays in the past 10 years. Your apologetics don’t make it otherwise.
Yes, “A Christian pastor” said he approved of the Orlando attack. That’s one. Meanwhile you could do a survey among Muslims and find a high percentage who approve.
You’re misrepresenting this, and I think you very well know it.
And for the record you’re actually not “defending Islam”, you’re attacking Christianity, the favourite pastime of Western “liberal” scum from what I can see.
Also, the anti-gay attitude in much of Africa wasn’t planted there by the few US based evangelicals who have any influence there. It’s existed for a long time. That hasn’t stopped the scum of the Western world (leftists) from trying to use that for something to “blame” the people they hate for, and of course it won’t.
And yes, it’s true that many Muslims ignore those passages that obviously don’t mesh up well with what clearly is a moral position, but it’s also true that very, very few “moderate” Muslims will say anything negative about the most fundamental people in their religion, and that IS a problem.
“Choose militaristic U.S. presidents who represent social milestones of race and gender and suddenly their militarism seems to liberals to be more tolerable and even inspiring. Pretend that the war on Afghanistan is about feminism, and aggression toward Iran is about protecting LGBTs, and watch liberals melt with appreciation.”
Actually that’s all true. It’s not that it’s being done conspiratorially by the government though. It’s that the activist types among some gay rights groups don’t mind people they think are anti-LGBT being bombed.
Perhaps you should have said “Hey gay activists; it’s not okay to support third world people being bombed just because some of them hold negative opinions about you”, but of course you won’t do that.
“Depicting anti-LGBT hatred as the exclusive (or even predominant) province of Islam is not only defamatory toward Muslims but does a massive disservice to the millions of LGBTs who have been — and continue to be — seriously oppressed…”
“Oppressed”? How exactly? Oh right… that “don’t let them eat cake” thing – lol. Yeah, that was a real case of tyrannical oppression, wasn’t it? Well no, actually it wasn’t. Further, the bakery owner actually didn’t refuse to make the cake; she just said she wouldn’t put a “pro gay marriage message” on it, which of course she was fully entitled to not do since under freedom of speech laws you would have the same right to not say something you don’t believe as to say something you do believe.
The courts got that one wrong, sorry, and sooner or later it will be corrected.
Was she a dummy? Probably. But she was still within her rights as much as someone gay being asked to make a cake that carries a message they don’t agree with.
With full recognition that you are allergic to empirical facts, here it is:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/if-islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-so-is-christianity/
You are wrong on some many levels, and perhaps bigoted on more levels, that this would not penetrate your mind, but on the off chance that you may be having a “mental clarity” day, you may learn something
What a great link! I cannot fathom why I had not seen this before!!
“Like, if you just take all of the stupid and just cook it down, and then scrape just the pure ignorance”
I spent some time at that site and did a substantial amount of editing. That was one of the articles I found and now I link it when appropriate — as it is here!
A new favorite (I’ll call it Chopra’s Equation™) goes something like:
2 + (Zebra + ?Glockenspiel divided by “A Suffusion of Yellow”) equals:
Homeopathy Works!
I know, right? Some great stuff.
Clinton is going to be the perfect status quo sitting duck for Trump’s anti-establishment attacks, isn’t she?
I was just catching up on the endorsements of Clinton, here’s one from James Kirchick:
So even if neither Clinton nor Trump want universal healthcare, affordable education, jobs programs, fewer humanitarian interventions or a less corrupt government and you’re thinking, “why bother voting?”….vote for the “Goldwater Girl” and save the Republican party!!!
stop exploiting LGBT and call it what it was – Islamic terrorism.
Can’t fix an issue if you don’t even acknowledge it
Glenn, the t-shirt challenge proposed by Gad Saad still stands: Travel in countries like Egypt, Saudi-Arabia or Syria wearing a t-shirt with the sentence “I’m a gay Jew” written on it. You won’t do it, because you very well know how that experience will be like.
Why I don’t think they where T-shirts like that in the US!
smh
Another article that touches on all the bases, well done Greenwald. Although there isn’t the usual level of snark….which considering the closeness of the tragedy, is appropriate. As is boringly usual, commenters have covered the spectrum of things that need to be said. Maybe I can point out something that I just learned, and that I find to be hilarious. In 1996, Bill Clinton’s government passed a law banning research into gun violence. That law and similar legislation, has been renewed, and is in force, to this day.
(Spoiler alert! It didn’t)
It seems someone’s, indeed many in the US government, are fans of the famous slogan: “ignorance is strength”.
In lieu of proper research into the health effects of people being able to buy machine guns at the corner store, I thought that I could help out by looking into the day to day uses of AR15s for collectors, sportsmen, hunters, self defence and such.
The AR 15 was designed to shoot through an army helmet at 500 metres, why just the other day, I was thinking “what would I do if a burglar tried to jimmy the door of my flat from 500 metres away, wearing an army helmet???”
Any way, here’s an article on some of the day to day uses of the AR 15, although admittedly:
On the other hand, despite its lack of accuracy, the AR15’s large magazine could come in handy for hunters who find themselves in a close quarters melee with a dozen or more wild game!!!
That’s funny, because I always think Glenn Greenwald is “vile, unscholarly, and anti-intellectual.” I wouldn’t trust him to evaluate religion in the light of politics if my life depended on it, and a lot of peoples lives, especially gays, do depend on it. And anyone who believes what he says is just as propogandized by a liar as the people he worries about who “demonize” Islam. His article proved nothing; in fact he proved Islam-dominated countries ARE the worst for gays around the world– why else does the Western world have to grant them political asylum to escape GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED punishments that harken back to the salem witch trials of the 1600s? Just the fact that Greenwald wrote this vapid article solely for the purpose of bashing US foreign policy makes me think he is one of the most disingenous political writers that ever lived, willing to exploit any tragedy as an opportunity to promote the egalitarian nature of anti-gay hate in order to demonize the US. Anyone who knows anything about religion isn’t going to write articles saying that Islam is no worse than Judaism or Christianity, because they aren’t even remotely as dangerous for gays anymore (even Netenyahu defends gays somewhat), especially when he is avoiding the topic of an obsessively nonviolent religion like Jainism. You just can’t trust Greenwald to evaluate information objectively. Period. He uses the world religions in the exact same way he claims the demonizers are using Islamic-based homophobia– for an ulterior motive, in his case to demonize the US. And in reality his goal is to protect the Islamic theocratic fascists who attack the US, Charlie Hebdo, or whoever else Greenwald think is deserving of violence. Do not trust this guy to evaluate religion or politics– he has no interest whatsoever in protecting Western values and political structures. This article is just the latest in a string that prove that point over and over again. #glenngreenwald Here’s a film about Jainism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYahUST8Lbg
That is flatly false. The overwhelming number of scholars of religion who have addressed it take basically that position. Because their discipline supports it.
Your extended ad hominem about Glenn Greenwald says next to nothing worth addressing.
You are wonderful at blurring the lines of reality to push your ridiculous and asinine views on Islamophobia, which is not a real thing at all. There are 10 Muslim majority countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. The LGBT communities in Saudi Arabia for example do not face the same concerns or threats as the LGBT in other countries where homosexuality is legal. You are such a delusional fraud of intellectualism.
The Hypocrite Strikes Again:
CraigSummers might be more hypocritical than you know. He has expressed concern over ISIS after slurring the Pakistani people:
Cat got your tongue, Doc? I am still waiting for an answer to my question posed to you. Do you believe that the comments by Mona cross the line into anti-Jewish hatred and bigotry? If you need to review them they are up-thread. Lets let Mona off of the hook for a moment. How about this line Doc?
“…….I mean, come on, tell us your opinion of Jewish-Arab marriages – you seem to have difficulty with that, don’t you? Zionism, like the Klu Klux Klan, like Nazism, seems to be horrified by the concept of ‘mixed marriages’. Pollution of the pure master race with inferior blood, is it?……”
Does that seem to cross the line of acceptable language directed at Jewish people? Since you read everything I write, you must have read it. It’s OK with you?
Thanks Doc. I mostly scrool thru or past Craig’s tripe, and hadn’t seen this thingie abiout Mateen’s dad vis-a-vis the Taliban. Dad Mateen imagines himself to the the president of some “provisional” Afghani government, and he’s majorly pissed (as many reasonable people are) with the Pakistani government.
The ever-shifting alliances, the byzantine and factional politics in that region are almost impossible to understand. Various interests have allied with — or hated — the Taliban at various times. Indeed, the U.S. once allied with the Taliban precursors to fight their proxy Cold War.
It’s what happens there, and has happened, since what seems like forever.
You are quoting a poll from the time Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage. This statistic is old and therefore useless.
Guess the stats (worldwide) on how religions break down on criminalizing homosexuality? It will destroy your narrative.
I always find it amusing when Christian fundamentalists like Steven Anderson accuse the LGBT community of being child molesters. Google fundamentalist Christians and child abuse, especially child sexual abuse, and you are going to get a plethora of hits.
I also think if they are going to ban gay men from giving blood, they might want to ban fundamentalist Christians from fostering and adopting children. What about that recent case with the North Newton Kansas couple that was recently brought up on severe child abuse and torture charges, after having adopted three Peruvian children and gone to town on them.
The worst of sexual child abuse issues occur in cult situations and repressed sexuality in over-zealous religious situations. Obviously the killer had sexual issues that he was acting out (he may have been sexually molested as a child, but we will never know), and surprisingly most people are lost when it comes to defining just what is healthy sexually. Oddly the “family values” people are the most clueless.
Oh Greenwald, please stop conflating Islam and Muslims. It is right that we demonise ideas, it is not right to demonise people. We lampoon the heck out of evangelical Christianity, Mormonism and orthodox Judaism which also consider homosexuals inferior. To give Islam a free pass because of its followers is actually bigotry against those followers. The soft bigotry of low expectations. The case is often made to give the ideas in Islam a free pass because of the very real anti-Muslim bigotry that exists, but I think this is misguided.
‘A 2015 Pew poll found that U.S. Muslims were more accepting of homosexuality than evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses’
Except for the dude who just killed 50 of them in cold blood.
A good analysis of how cults inside a broader religion can give rise to extreme violence is here:
Islam the Religion vs. the Wahhabi-Salafi-Takfiri Cult, by Alexander Athos, May 19, 2013, moderndiplomacy.eu
The real agenda of such cults is the expansion of political power. This agenda is also seen in every ‘religious state’ in the Middle East, from Israel to Saudi Arabia to Iran. All of these states deny the principle of separation of church and state that is essential to real democracies, and instead have a medieval-type relationship between state and religious authorities which inevitably leads to the persecution and oppression of large segments of their population.
The more extreme elements within such religious states are the sources of violent terrorism in the region and internationally; and whether it is a far-right Jewish settler group burning Palestinians in their homes or ISIS members killing nightclub patrons in Europe, their motivation is not religious in nature, but rather about gaining political power and influence.
However, the religious states themselves typically think of their extreme religious fanatics as tools of state policy – hence, Netanyahu’s Israeli government quietly supports the far-right settler movement, while the Saudi Royals covertly finance and arm ISIS, just as Pakistan gave covert support to the Taliban in Afghanistan during the 1990s.
Notice that the one country in the region NOT playing this game is Lebanon; at least there the Christians and Muslims seem to be forming a strategic alliance to prevent ISIS from gaining any control in Lebanon, one of the few countries in the region where some degree of religious tolerance and coexistence still survives.
Julia Ioffe writing today in Foreign Policy: If Islam Is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity/
So last time christian fundamentalists went out to kill some jews was when again? You cite only one recent rumour in Russia.
I get history, being a jew in Europe was pretty bad, culminating with the holocaust. 70 years ago btw. I wonder how being a jew in the muslim world is today?
You poor thing, how embarrassing. I didn’t write that — Julia Ioffe did. A Jewish woman whose Russian family fled Russia due to the late-80s antisemitic agitation you dismiss.
There is a reason for the fact that today there are almost no Jews left in the Arab world. Islamic anti-Semitism was always and still is wide spread: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4364/arab-muslim-antisemitism
Confusion overload…
The true anti semites are Israeli zionists…
Committing their atrocities in the name of Jews…
Jews, as Julia Ioffe states, were expelled in many Arab countries in 1948 and shortly thereafter. Something happened that year. Now what was that? Let me think on it, I know it will come to me. Hmmm….
In any event, what Ioffe writes of Muslims v. Christians where treatment of Jews is concerned remains true.
That’s a wonderful article you posted, glad I came to the comments section of the intercept to see a yahoo news feed.
What? I didn’t post anything from yahoo news, and neither did anyone else in comments, that I know of.
Btw, I am still giddy over this: “trigglypuff bitch.” That’s fucking awesome, and I can’t wait to use it.
DocHollywood
Greenwald tried to explain why posters don’t challenge antisemitic remarks:
“……I suspect people don’t often respond to someone spewing over anti-semitism because such individuals are often filled with hatred or trolling, making responding a waste of time – not because huge percentages of my readership secretly agree with anti-semitic bile……”
He missed the boat on that one. The reason has much more to do with tribalism and maintaining political allies on a site dedicated to opposition to Israel. You have proven in your silence that at the very least you tolerate anti-Jewish bigotry making you every bit as much of a bigot as the person spewing the anti-Jewish bigotry. Additionally, by calling me a racist you are nothing but a hypocrite.
Thanks Doc. Hope to hear from you in the future.
CraigSummers, on why posters here (supposedly) don’t challenge antisemitic remarks:
CraigSummers, you sure missed the boat on that one. You go on with your bizarre assignation of blame with this nonsense:
That nonsensical stance of yours is akin to saying, because I’ve been silent on your rants on here of late, that somehow I’m therefore tolerant of the utter bullshit that you spew here.
It doesn’t work that way, my “friend.”
Your tortured ideas are still shit – whether I comment on them or not.
“Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.” – Mahavira
“…….That nonsensical stance of yours is akin to saying, because I’ve been silent on your rants on here of late, that somehow I’m therefore tolerant of the utter bullshit that you spew here……”
Nice try. Nice to see you back sillyputty. How quickly the Intercept clientele is to call someone Islamophobic, a bigot or a racist. I see it week end and week out. It is so consistent as to give the impression that most people who comment below the line at the Intercept are really calling out the bigots – until the incredible silence that comes with anti-Jewish bigotry on this site. In fact, many just join in. It’s political and tribal sillyputty – and it is really simple to identify. And it is still bigotry.
Welcome back sillyputty. My post to DocHollywood is still up thread if you want to take a stab at it?
Thanks.
Why is it so hard for Zionists to accept that their refusal to give Arab citizens of Israel the same rights and privileges as Jewish citizens is a form of racist bigotry? This is encoded in Israeli law and proves that Israel is an apartheid state in the mold of South Africa:
http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/jewish-nationality-status-basis-institutionalized-racial-discrimination-israel
Translation: Arab and Muslim ‘citizens’ are not members of the Israeli ‘nation’, they are second-class citizens, and the Palestinians under military occupation don’t even get ‘citizen’ status. The fact that this is pointed out here regularly might upset you, but that’s hardly the only issue raised in articles published here – it’s just the one you obsess over. Any rational person can see that racist Islamophobic bigotry is involved.
I mean, come on, tell us your opinion of Jewish-Arab marriages – you seem to have difficulty with that, don’t you? Zionism, like the Klu Klux Klan, like Nazism, seems to be horrified by the concept of ‘mixed marriages’. Pollution of the pure master race with inferior blood, is it?
Now, this is what people like Trump and Ted Cruz are pushing for in the United States, the conversion of Muslims to second-class citizens; and while Clinton claims to be opposed to this, she certainly supports it in Israel, in her typical hypocritical fashion.
What we are seeing now is the cynical appropriation of ‘concern’ about LGBT rights to push this agenda, which is what this article is about.
Photosymbiosis
“…….Translation: Arab and Muslim ‘citizens’ are not members of the Israeli ‘nation’, they are second-class citizens, and the Palestinians under military occupation don’t even get ‘citizen’ status……”
First of all, the reason they don’t get citizen status is because they are not citizens of Israel. They are Palestinians who deserve self-determination and a state of their own. They also have elections of their own (remember Hamas was elected?), their own laws etc. Israel is denying the Palestinians their right to self determination. I hope it changes soon.
‘Secondly, Arabs in Israel attend the same universities, have their own political parties, serve in the knesset and sit on Israel’s highest court. They have all of the rights and privileges of Jews except land and immigration laws which favor Jews because they are a small minority world-wide. I am not denying that there is discrimination and racism in Israel toward Israeli Arabs (and visa versa). What do you really expect after a century of fighting?
“…….I mean, come on, tell us your opinion of Jewish-Arab marriages – you seem to have difficulty with that, don’t you? Zionism, like the Klu Klux Klan, like Nazism, seems to be horrified by the concept of ‘mixed marriages’. Pollution of the pure master race with inferior blood, is it?….”
You are just going off the deep end displaying incredible stupidity (and anti-Jewish bigotry) with those comments. I am not Jewish or Israeli. I am a US citizen. Where are you from Photo – Stalingrad? Great defensive stand against the Germans as you well know.
“…….Now, this is what people like Trump and Ted Cruz are pushing for in the United States, the conversion of Muslims to second-class citizens; and while Clinton claims to be opposed to this, she certainly supports it in Israel, in her typical hypocritical fashion……”
Again, you are showing your ignorance. No one wants or is advocating that Muslims be second class citizens in the US. That’s ridiculous. Hillary, Obama and most Americans support the right of Israel to remain a Jewish majority state. That is why the BDS will fail. Ironically, it was the Russians that got the ball rolling on Zionism because of severe anti-Jewish hatred and pogroms. Come to think of it, they didn’t appreciate their Muslim population in Chechnya either during the 90s either.
Thanks.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/?comments=1#comment-243786
You misapprehend the distinction between tolerance and agreement. The silence that routinely (not “supposedly”) greets anti-semitic remarks here does not necessarily indicate agreement with those remarks, but it is, quite literally, tolerance of them.
No, I don’t. At least on this comment section and among the regular posters, that is.
The fact that you seem to think that because I and/or others here don’t address it each and every time it occurs (the same measure I use regarding addressing CraigSummer’s various lunacies, of late) doesn’t mean – quite literally – that I and/or others therefore “tolerate it” as behavior that is OK.
I have gone to the bounds of absurdity and beyond pointing out the fallacies of CraigSummer’s and others rationalizations for all sorts of inhumane and unacceptable behavior, irrespective of the ‘tribe or political affiliations’ of the poster involved.
The fact that some (like our resident torture-monger, CraigSummers) literally choose to be willfully ignorant about the efficacy of torture (it isn’t) yet still promote its benefits (“for safety’s sake”) doesn’t mean I or others do.
The same goes for antisemitism, racism, ageism…
Most here aren’t willfully ignorant, and shouldn’t be labeled that way.
CraigSummers, on the other hand, is demonstrably so.
Sillyputty
Hurling ad hominems doesn’t get you off the hook. I have asked you point blank about certain bigotries without a response – exactly like DocHollywood. It’s simply a tribal response – a concentration camp guard kind of mentality below the line at the Intercept.
Thanks.
I don’t think I labeled anyone as ignorant, let alone willfully so.
“Tolerate” has a few dictionary definitions; I think the relevant one is “to allow without opposition or hindrance” or “to put up with.”
When some fuckstick makes an anti-semitic remark here and the people who read it say nothing, they are allowing the remark to stand without opposition or hindrance. They are putting up with it. Which is their right, of course. But that’s what they are doing.
Gator, really, the handful of antisemitic commenters here are not the biggest ugliness in these comments. As you are well aware, I’ve denounced multiple of the antisemites and in several cases have lobbied to get them banned. But I also know that those who scroll right on by them are not doing anything wrong.
Frankly, I’m nearly as disgusted with your proclamation of some months ago that you feel warm and fuzzy toward Craig Summers because he “sticks up for Jews” or however it was you put it, as I am with the antisemites. Craig is the embodiment of foul rightwing authoritarianism, including on the issue of torture. So Gator, I don’t think his love for one minority — Jews — is commendable. Indeed, it’s in the service of his awful authoritarianism.
I was very disappointed to see you suggest anything otherwise and question the moral soundness of your having done it.
Mona, as to Craig, I believe my exact words were: “Any gentile who cares that much about Jews can’t be all bad.” I was mostly kidding, and you read a lot more into it than was intended. I do think his love for Jews is sorta cute, though. :-)
I doubt that any GG commenter other than yourself has expressed disagreement with Craig more than I have.
Of course any individual who reads an anti-semitic comment has the right to ignore it, and I would never suggest that the exercise of that right makes one a bad person. But the fact remains that, in the aggregate, anti-Muslim comments and anti-semitic comments are treated differently here, with the latter far more likely to be (forgive me Sillyputty) tolerated. And that says, well, something.
@Mona
Hooray for some Free Speech!
You are good when Semites such as Gator90 proclaim a “birthright” to tell the “goi” to “STFU” regarding Jewish things. (it’s who he is – i’m not asking for him to banned)
You fall on your sword for Jewish propagandists who spew intense hatred for all Palestinians and then you double-down on their right to free speech following a charge of hypocrisy.
Mona, you apply a double standard regarding free speech.
Your emotions are quite evident as your declare who is and who is not an “actual antisemite”; an assertion as empty as it is rabid.
You seem to believe your Catholic upbringing and religious studies degree (from a Catholic U., if I remember) provide you with a superior view of people’s behavior throughout history. (Who knows more about judging who is fit for punishment than a Catholic)
You’ve railed against me for saying the centuries-old practice of forcing Jews to wear a Yellow Star was, in my opinion, analogous to modern-day BDS campaigns. I posited, why wouldn’t Europe reject a people who follow the Old Testament (by definition, there were no modern Jews in 17th century).
That the Jonah-punk had no idea the Nazis did not invent the Yellow Star says something about the problem modern, decent, Jews face. A not insignificant number of Jews still practice the old ways. Those folks wield a not insignificant amount of power in Israel. Just look at the impact AIPAC has in this country; there are a number of people who are angered rightly by what is perceived as meddling by a foreign theocratic state.
Your feelings of “wishing intolerable pain upon” a commenter, who said something you deemed antisemitic, seems to differ from your response to a Jewish person’s proclaimed hatred for a group (but then you went through the Catholic heavy duty wash-cycle of life).
Act like the lawyer you are and ignore offending speech. If that is beyond your current skill-set then, please, self-ban; for the good of the board.
Wow Mona. This is classic rank tribalism – and putting pressure on a poster to conform to your standards of what constitutes bigotry and what doesn’t. Gator is not defending me Mona. He is defending against bigotry – clear, easy to identify anti-Jewish hatred which is pervasive on this site. That is what liberals do Mona. I cannot recall even once where he has agreed with me on any issue at the Intercept.
“…….I was very disappointed to see you suggest anything otherwise and question the moral soundness of your having done it……”
My God, this reminds me so much of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. Is this Nurse Ratched speaking? In other words, get in line gator. We accept you as long as you tow the party line. Speak about authoritarians.
While you have called out some antisemitic commentators to your credit, you are not the ultimate decider of what is hate speech. You are not the one that defines antisemitic speech, Mona. Sorry, but the fox can’t guard the chicken coup.
Yes, and gator is 100% right. I have given sillyputty and DocHollywood ample opportunities to respond to antisemitic comments on this site. Neither has the guts to answer.
I didn’t say you did. However, your label of “tolerant acquiescence” because of the lack of denouncement of (in your mind) antisemitic statements made in this comment section is an unfair broad-brushing of the actual circumstances here.
It’s OK then for you to tolerate CraigSummers blatant advocacy for torturing another human being? If you have denounced him for this already, then I missed it, but then again, you haven’t done so repeatedly, at least in this thread. Does that make you tolerant or willfully ignorant?
When some fuckstick makes an over-broad comment that is essentially a special pleading (my group, clique, etc is being maligned without push-back) but then conveniently ignores one of the most consistently amoral posters here (CraigSummers) it seems quite hypocritical.
Everyone has chips on their shoulder; that’s’ the human condition. Also a part of that, unfortunately, is the ongoing, reductive laments by people, like you, who claim deferential treatment simply because of the group or clique you claim an affinity to.
Groups of people have no more rights than “people” do, do they? And not realizing that simple fact is one of the largest impediments to human advancement.
“United we stand, divided we fall.” – Aesop
As I told Mona, I doubt that any GG commenter other than her has expressed disagreement with Craig Summers more than I have. I have argued with Craig countless times. Your contention that I “ignore” him is just wildly inaccurate.
I don’t know what you mean by “deferential treatment.” All I’m doing is observing something that should be self-evident, namely, that the collective failure to oppose a particular type of bigotry while vigorously opposing others creates the impression that the one type is acceptable. How could it not?
How is that you get to make the claim that you don’t have to argue each and every time against unconscionable acts portrayed here (CraigSummers torture-mongering, for example) while at the same time saying, hypocritically, that other folks here have to argue – each and every time – against what you consider to be antisemitic comments?
While I see that CraigSummers supplied quotes of you berating him for his stance on torture, I also note that you “tolerated” and therefore “allowed without opposition” (your reasoning) this stance on torture because you haven’t pushed back against this inhumane stance in each and every case.
So until you push-back against CraigSummers’ torturer-mongering each and every time, by your logic you’ll rightly be considered just as complicit in allowing unconscionable behavior to foment and grow as you claim the rest of us are with regards to your take on what’s antisemitic.
The quotes Craig supplied made you look pretty silly, Silly. I assume that’s why you resort to pretending I’ve said things that I’ve never said or even implied.
You make the assertion that others acquiesce by their silence with regards to not speaking up against antisemitism each and every time you think it appears here.
To “allow without opposition or hindrance” or “to put up with” such behavior is unacceptable to you, you implied.
I make the assertion that you are a self-serving hypocrite in this regard because you don’t even follow your own “guidelines” for calling out others on their vile commentary each and every time it appears.
By your silence in this thread you’ve “allowed without opposition” and “put up with” CraigSummers torture advocacy – what makes you better than everyone else?
I suppose if CraigSummers torture advocacy were what you considered to be antisemitic (it’s anti-human, you nitwit) you’d speak up then – each and every time?
“He does not believe who does not live according to his belief.” ~Thomas Fuller
sillyputty
“…….It’s OK then for you to tolerate CraigSummers blatant advocacy for torturing another human being? If you have denounced him for this already, then I missed it, but then again, you haven’t done so repeatedly, at least in this thread. Does that make you tolerant or willfully ignorant?……”
Gator90 ? CraigSummers
Dec. 21 2014, 8:56 a.m.
Craig – while I am appalled by your position that torture is acceptable in some circumstances, and though I think your apparent belief that torture was/is efficacious in preventing terror attacks is irrational and contrary to all known evidence, I respect your candor in openly referring to the techniques you support as “torture.” Many who support the techniques lack the balls to use the word…….”
Again, sillyputty, I have offered you on several different occasions to respond to antisemitic comments and you have declined (as far as I know) to do so. Even yesterday,l I suggested you look up thread and comment. You have always declined. I will say it again: you are weak in character if you fear fracturing political alliances.
“…….Everyone has chips on their shoulder; that’s’ the human condition. Also a part of that, unfortunately, is the ongoing, reductive laments by people, like you, who claim deferential treatment simply because of the group or clique you claim an affinity to…….”
Differential treatment by someone Jewish who opposes anti-Jewish hate speech? Great point……
“Differential treatment by someone Jewish who opposes anti-Jewish hate speech?”
Learn to read. I used the word “deferential” not “differential.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/?comments=1#comment-243786
Slinging phrases like “goi” is kosher, so …
Check.
To the extent it matters, I believe I can honestly say I’ve never used that word in my life other than in jest.
“Pretend that the war on Afghanistan is about feminism, and aggression toward Iran is about protecting LGBTs, and watch liberals melt with appreciation.”
Uh, Glenn, I know of not one liberal/progressive who is daft enough to think that sentence has any meaning beyond you attempting to bash liberals and progressives. I’m calling you out on that bit of rank pettifoggery. What liberal here thinks we’re in Afghanistan for women’s rights? That’s some comedy gold, dude! I know YOU don’t care about women’s rights. That’s manifestly clear.
I also love how you took a swipe at Obama and Clinton. But then that’s how it is with the Puritopian set. They’re always hating on the liberals without acknowledging that there’s vociferous OPPOSITION that needs to be overcome. You seem to think things are accomplished in a vacuum.
Do you see what’s in the photo you posted with the article? It’s likely a liberal holding those signs. And women don’t want stupid stuff done in our name. So just stop with the blame game unless YOU have better solutions that are based on real world models.
Joe offers this non sequitur:
Yes. Those 500+ children that Israel slaughtered in Gaza two summers ago? Boy hey, if they’d grown up some would have discovered themselves to be gay, and if allowed in, might have had a great time clubbing in Tel Aviv.
But they’re not going to grow up to be or do anything. They were slaughtered by their oppressor. (Hot damn, tho, those gay clubs in Tel AViv!!)
That’s among the reasons that queer Palestinians are outraged by pinkwashing, of the sort Joe pulls: Eight questions Palestinian queers are tired of hearing
“……Yes. Those 500+ children that Israel slaughtered in Gaza two summers ago? Boy hey, if they’d grown up some would have discovered themselves to be gay, and if allowed in, might have had a great time clubbing in Tel Aviv……”
Completely irrelevant to his point and another good example of whataboutery Mona.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/18/brazil-is-engulfed-by-ruling-class-corruption-and-a-dangerous-subversion-of-democracy/?comments=1#comment-212423
Wow what a wonderful summer of logic. Being a target of discrimination and violence because of ones sexual identification vs ones race is “completely irrelevant.”
“Indeed, there are LGBT Muslims all over the world who — just like all other LGBTs — struggle to meld their identities and religious convictions and navigate various personal conflicts.”
All over the world?
Like in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or any other country where being homosexual openly is flirting with death?
This entire article is a straw man not worthy of a child.
“Depicting anti-LGBT hatred as the exclusive (or even predominant) province of Islam”
No one is doing that. What we are doing is pointing out facts. Surveys of the Muslim world show that Muslims are overwhelmingly in favour of banning homosexual activity. Not to mention that homosexuality carries a death sentence in 10 countries, none of which are run by Christians, Jews or Buddhists.
You don’t really believe that.
Articles that deficient don’t inspire comments, nor do they generate some of the intelligent discussion that has been going on all over the Internet as a result of its publication, including some of the discussion right here in comments.
The substantive points you offer have already been raised and argued a number of times, here and elsewhere.
No, it is called hyperbole.
The main argument IS a straw man. He cooks up a claim that no one is making. I haven’t read a single person, left or right, who claims that homophobia is ‘exclusive’ to Islam.
“The substantive points you offer have already been raised and argued a number of times”
Oh, I see. The experts have spoken. No need for anyone else to contribute. So much for ‘progressives’ and their commitment to dialogue, inclusion and diversity.
Well Jim, you have no standing to accuse anyone of trafficking in straw men. Greenwald wrote this:
That his concluding paragraph addresses “depicting” anti-LGBT animus as exclusively the province of Islam is not his saying that anyone literally says that only Islam has doctrines that are anti-gay. But many surely do carry on as if that were so. Hence his use of the word “uniquely.”
Perhaps I wasn’t sufficiently clear: If you read thru the comments, you will see that that discussion has been done. Your arguments have been raised over and over, here and elsewhere.
That’s not what they’re saying Jim, but that’s how they’re behaving. They weren’t talking about the White race being a problem, after Dylan Roof shooting. But Muslims and Islam being a particular problem, when a far greater number of preachers in the US teach about homosexuality being an abomination, it just appears that the priorities of the discussion is either screwed up, or Islamophobic.
Since you talked about being gay in Islamic countries, let me talk about it a little more.
In my country, homosexual sex between men is punished by death. The law is a little more lenient towards women but generally speaking, if you get caught, no one is going to treat you by the book. You’ll receive the worst treatment possible by everyone, your family, the police, the judge, the prison guards and the prisoners.
The greatest wish most LGBT people that I know have is finding someone to love. The problem is that we don’t have any safe place to gather. Some very small groups in big cities have discreet parties and gatherings but they are extremely dangerous.
Most people try to find someone online. The problem is that you don’t know who you’re really talking to. Is it an undercover police? Is it a blackmailer? Is it a creep? Is it a man pretending to be a woman? Is it one of your friends trying to out you?
Even if you’re lucky enough to find someone, maintaining the relationship is very difficult. Many of these relationships are LDR. Both parties are generally under the pressure to marry and have kids. Women especially are vulnerable to this as they are expected to marry sooner than men and they are less likely to become independent. As a result, most LGBT people end up marrying someone they don’t love.
Oh and the loneliness. It eats at you. You feel unloved and unwanted. You see your friends and family members find love and marry but you’re stuck in a world that hates you for being you. You also can’t trust anyone. The risk is simply too high.
The fear is also unbearable. The fear when you an unknown number calls you and threatens you. When you hear that a gay party was raided or a some of your friends were arrested. When you read about hanging of some pervert men. Some nights you can’t sleep because you don’t know if they’re coming for you or not.
There’s also the fear of being outed to your family and friends and colleagues. Why is she looking at you like that? Does she suspect something? What did he mean by commenting on your lack of interest in men? What did she mean when she complimented your good taste in clothing? Should you change your job again? Your home? Should you run away?
This is what it’s like to be gay in my country.
I think the central issue is that the kind of social persecution you describe is not limited to Islamic countries that do not have democratic rule; many Christian-majority African countries have similar policies. See the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014, as one example: (wiki)
Does this mean that immigration to the United States should be banned for all Christians from African countries that persecute homosexuals? How about all Muslims from Middle Eastern countries that persecute homosexuals? Both of those notions are equally ridiculous.
Indeed, one might say that homosexuals from countries in which they are presecuted deserve asylum status in the US, regardless of religion, as they are victims of human rights abuses – and such countries should not be considered “US allies and partners” as Saudi Arabia is.
I think it’s stupid to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US. That was not my point. The point that I have been trying to make since yesterday is that Islam and Muslims have a serious problem with homosexuality and that Islam doesn’t need to be demonized, it’s already a terrible and horrifying religion.
The situation of LGBT people in ALL Muslim countries even those that are wealthy and relatively educated is bad. It’s dishonest to minimize the sufferings that we go through to protect Muslims.
There are different agendas Samira. Glenn’s immediate attention is the protection of all kinds of minorities, primarily in the US, including Gays and Muslims. If we’re supposed to talk honestly about how the world treats Gays and other minorities, then all Governments have to be at war with each other. Everybody is a minority, in every country.
What’s your solution Samira, in a world where the US is best friends with Saudi Arabia?
>If we’re supposed to talk honestly about how the world treats Gays and other minorities, then all Governments have to be at war with each other. Everybody is a minority, in every country.
Why? You’re not politicians as far as I know. Glenn certainly isn’t. Your words and your honesty won’t start wars.
>What’s your solution Samira, in a world where the US is best friends with Saudi Arabia?
A Solution for what? I don’t approve of the US foreign policy and I don’t think the US chooses its allies based on their human rights record.
“. . .Islam doesn’t need to be demonized, it’s already a terrible and horrifying religion.”
“. . .Christianity doesn’t need to be demonized, it’s already a terrible and horrifying religion.”
“. . .Judaism doesn’t need to be demonized, it’s already a terrible and horrifying religion.”
“. . .Atheism doesn’t need to be demonized, it’s already a terrible and horrifying philosophy.”
“. . .Human beings don’t need to be demonized, they’re already a terrible and horrifying species.”
Thank goodness I am a ten-foot-tall blue-skinned alien from Betelgeuse. You humans with your religious intolerances and your nuclear weapons are going to end up wiping yourselves out if you go on like this, you know.
Yeah, let’s pretend that the bloody hadiths and verses don’t exist. That’s the best possible solution to the rise of Islamism and Salafism among Muslims.
Come on, anyone can find some pretty bloodthirsty and twisted lines in the Christian Bible, if you want to interpret it that way, such as justification for human sacrifice – “you shall not suffer a witch to live”, etc.
In any case, the U.S. Constitution specifies freedom of religion and separation of church and state; anyone who tries to overthrow these fundamental rules is an enemy of democracy and a traitor to the nation, period. You can call that my religion, if you like, and yes, I’m intolerant as all hell on such issues. We didn’t fight the damn Nazis for nothing, after all.
Yeah, Christianity is awful too and it should be criticised but fortunately, most Christians around the world don’t believe in many parts of the Bible.
I’m for freedom of religion but it doesn’t mean that religion should be protected from criticism.
“Yeah, Christianity is awful too and it should be criticised but fortunately, most Christians around the world don’t believe in many parts of the Bible.”
How do you know this?
Also you mentioned death by hanging from a crane in your country. I thought only SA did that?
And what about Iran and the lifting of sanctions by the US? I mean…do you think that they will become more open minded when trading with the rest of the world? They also are looking forward to tourism I understand and I wonder what that might change?
I think KSA beheads people.
Sanctions are yet to be lifted and I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Bloody hadiths?
I don’t know what this is…can you please explain it?
I’ll give you some examples:
>Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
That the Messenger of Allah said: “Whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lut then kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to.”
>It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (?) said concerning those who do the action of the people of Lut:
“Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.”
>Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that The Messenger of Allah said, “He who changes his religion (i.e. apostates) kill him.” Related by Al-Bukhari.
>Abu Hurairah narrated that The Messenger of Allah said:
“The child is for the bed, and for the fornicator is the stone.”
>It was narrated from Ibn`Umar:
The Prophet stoned two Jews, and I was among those who stoned them. I saw (the man) trying to shield (the woman) from the stones.”
So with your aberrance of these hadiths, would you also be against the zionist jewish settlers that have targeted and killed Palestinians along with stealing their land, destroying their olive groves, farms, livelihoods to live a life of self sustaining peace…to include the USG arming them to do so?
I explained my position on the Israel-Palestine situation. I’m against senseless violence no matter who perpetrates it .
“Choose militaristic U.S. presidents who represent social milestones of race and gender and suddenly their militarism seems to liberals to be more tolerable and even inspiring.”
Glenn, you are razor-sharp. Isn’t this the essence of identity politics when we lend ourselves only to a strong personal issue, while failing to develop an ethic on others? This is how the Dem Party left the working-class and the labor movement. I’m not blaming. Minorities, women, and other sectors needed their focus, and obviously still do. But hopefully we can become big-minded and big-hearted enough to think pluralistically and truly stand with one another on ALL issues. I don’t have to agree with someone to make room for their existence and their well-being.
With some important caveats, I’ve never been a big fan of identity politics. Also with some important caveats, I’m more partial to the trend toward intersectionality.
Interesting how the author has to compare evangelical Christians (a small subset of Christians) to Muslims in general to make his point. There is an implicit dishonesty here. The author doesn’t seem to understand the difference between criticism of ideas and ideology (ala Sam Harris) and anti-Muslim bigotry (ala Trump). Sad.
Just as our “War on a Tactic” is misleading and open-ended, the new and improved label “War on Islamic Extremism” is misleading as well. The Press should correct that false label.
The longest war in American history is actually a “War Against Theocracy” – which is the polar opposite of religious freedom. Theocrats don’t respect the individual rights of their fellow citizens to have a different religious interpretation or no religion at all. Since we no longer declare war against nations, this enemy’s “label” can be both foreign and domestic – just fill in the blank.
Under the U.S. Constitution domestic enemy suspects are still governed by the Bill of Rights and constitutional due process.
Cherry-picking with Zorba and Samira
Once when I was a kid – this’ll show you – I was mad on cherries. I had no money, so I couldn’t buy many at a time, and when I’d eaten all I could buy I still wanted more. Day and night I thought of nothing but cherries. I foamed at the mouth; it was torture! But one day I got mad, or ashamed, I don’t know which. Anyway, I just felt cherries were doing what they liked with me and it was ludicrous. So what did I do? I got up one night, searched my father’s pockets and found a silver mejidie [coin] and pinched it. I was up early the next morning, went to a market gardener and bought a basket o’ cherries. I settled down in a ditch and began eating. I stuffed and stuffed till I was all swollen out. My stomach began to ache and I was sick. Yes, boss, I was thoroughly sick, and from that day to this I’ve never wanted a cherry. I couldn’t bear the sight of them. I was saved. I could say to any cherry: I don’t need you any more.
Guys, are you arguing over my IP address?!
I know my IP address doesn’t show my real location as I’m using a proxy to access this website. You can publish my IP address as long as it doesn’t show my true location in the ME. :D
No.
No. I am proving to those with a brain that TI sockpuppets like Mona are crazy and stupid. They already have your IP address. If it is a static address and they are profiling you, then they can be in serious trouble in some countries if they publish it. Courts mostly in Europe are trying to solve issues with dynamic IP addresses not static IPs.
Greenwald brought the IP address subject to humiliate you by portraying you as liar. His typical tactic to ignore the main point of a comment whenever his views are proved to be irrational. Most of those so called commenters are his sockpuppets using different names to attack the same person who disagrees with them.
Only a crazy and stupid individual would say she “debunks” somebody after reading regulations that clearly state static IP addresses are protected under personal data and after reading laws that make it clear that doxing under certain circumstances are illegal.
I don’t know what they’re doing and I really don’t mind it.
I’m just trying to relay my personal experience with being gay and living among Muslims as I’ve seen many people on both sides talk about us without really acknowledging that we are real people and that they can reach us and ask about our opinions on these matters. However, They don’t bother with that. They just use us to further their own agendas.
I and many people like me do feel betrayed by liberals. I constantly feel that Muslims suffering (which is real and should be addressed) is prioritized over ours.
I rarely see people that I respect talk about the hellish circumstances of our lives which is the direct result of the religion. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for them to hold Muslims accountable for what they do to us.
“I’m just trying to relay my personal experience with being gay and living among Muslims as I’ve seen many people on both sides talk about us without really acknowledging that we are real people and that they can reach us and ask about our opinions on these matters. However, They don’t bother with that. They just use us to further their own agendas.”
How can they find you without being able to trace you (IP address) or whatever?
You seem to know a lot about US policy but not much on Israel…
You seem to know about Christian beliefs/nonbeliefs worldwide but no mention of Jewish. (I find it interesting how the zionist trolls and advocates here rally around you to give you support…esp when you don’t know much about them.)
I find your American slang flow just as an American would speak…(i.e. “Yeah”, “Oops”, “Guys”, “Take Care”, and a British one thrown in “Bloody”.) When you mention your bad English as a second lanuage.
You mention crane hangings (which do take place in SA)…then say they do “beheadings”, excluding the fact that they do crane hangings.
You mentioned not reading comments…then again you mention reading comments.
All in all…in fairness to you…you contradict yourself many times. You don’t fool Mona, Nuf, Candace, Sulai,…and now I am one of their numbers. I feel you are a plant to further an agenda of the zionists and their continuing deception to fool the majority in the US. You haven’t convinced me that your cause is true…
I believe you are American/Israeli.
>How can they find you without being able to trace you (IP address) or whatever?
I don’t know enough about computers but it generally happens through our friends. One careless person ruins the lives of everyone in contact with them.
I’m also very outspoken about LGBT and women issues.
>You seem to know a lot about US policy but not much on Israel…
It’s difficult to escape knowing about the US policy when most media constantly talk about it. My knowledge of it is pretty shallow, though. As for Israel’s policy, I try to learn more about it, but my knowledge of it is patchy at best.
Notice that I didn’t discuss either the US or Israel policy because I try to not to talk about stuff I don’t know enough about. You’re the one who kept grilling me about Isreal and Palestine and I answered you as best as I could.
>You seem to know about Christian beliefs/nonbeliefs worldwide but no mention of Jewish.
I don’t know much about either of them, but Christianity is the largest religion in the world (I think?) while Jews are actually a very small population. It’s natural not to talk about Judaism as much as Christianity.
>I find it interesting how the zionist trolls and advocates here rally around you to give you support
I don’t know anyone here.
>I find your American slang flow just as an American would speak…(i.e. “Yeah”, “Oops”, “Guys”, “Take Care”, and a British one thrown in “Bloody”.) When you mention your bad English as a second lanuage.
People learn Engish all over the world. Otherwise, it’d be very difficult to use the Internet, watch movies, read books, etc.
>You mention crane hangings (which do take place in SA)…then say they do “beheadings”, excluding the fact that they do crane hangings.
I didn’t know about the crane hangings in the KSA. How does that make me a troll?!
>You mentioned not reading comments…then again you mention reading comments.
Where? I said I don’t usually read the comment section of this site.
>All in all…in fairness to you…you contradict yourself many times…
I have tried to be as honest and as candid as possible and I find it disappointing that you guys repeatedly accuse me of being a troll.
” I find it disappointing that you guys repeatedly accuse me of being a troll.”
Imagine how we feel …
Tell me, How can I prove to you or anyone else that I’m not lying?
Proof is in the words with conviction…
If you are really oppressed…then you would with a resounding voice…condemn the oppression of Palestinians by Israel/USG. They have suffered the most daunting oppression for so long and the only words you had for them was how they treat one another. (THAT is not coming from an oppressed comrade…but from and Israeli SOP)
Fight your battles at home…it is the same battles the citizens of the US has fought and died for. Fight for change in your country as we do here in ours if you are the real deal.
As for me…I don’t need anymore proof. Zionists are now trying to exploit the Gay community to further their agendas. If you are so oppressed then why don’t you emigrate to Israel where they have the biggest Democracy that protects persons like yourself?
This was comment:
>Well, I’m not an expert on the issue but I dislike the way Israel treats Palestinians. I’m also no fan of the way many Palestinians treat each other, women, minorities, etc and unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any realistic solution for the horrible situation there.
I don’t know more about the situation to comment on it.
I didn’t know this site is only for Americans. As for fighting for my rights in my country, I’m doing my best but it’s a tad difficult as I could end up dead for even talking about these issues.
We are banned from even visitng the Israel and immigration in general is very difficult.
“you guys”
I’ve had enuf…!
here is a window of the agenda…
“I think it’s stupid to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US.” …Samira stated.
***recall the plan that has made exodus of Muslims & Africans to the EU…(Soros funded). How convenient to exploit the Gay community so as to cause a political emigration to empty out the ME for the NWO. This person is probably one of Mona’s zionist thorns that has been banned already.*** (Orlando false flag is just another sick USG/Israeli treachery to rob Muslims of their land, homes, and lives. btw…the name Samira originates from Iran.
I don’t even understand what you’re saying but yeah, very clever of you, I’m Iranian.
Iran stands for the rights of Palestinians….across the board…they always have. So if you are Iranian then you would too.
Israel wants the total control of Iran, its resources et al. This is no secret as to why they deceivingly cause false flags in cahoots with USG to force a war, to force a deception like they have with ISIS and many other CIA organizations. You are playing a part that now I’m convinced of. The Iranians I have met on Social Media are open about Palestinian oppression…and they are very knowledgeable about politics around the world. The ones I know have a broad access to the Internet without needing a hidden IP address. You mentioned that your country has boycotted Israel for a long time (even though you say you haven’t seen BDS in action). Iran is that country…the one left that stands with their integrity. And I give them praise for that.
You know NOTHING about my country. One of the most popular chants during the green revolution was “No to Gaza, No to Lebanon, My life for Iran”. Many people feel extreme resentment towards Palestinians because our gov spends our money and resources to help them and fund terrorist groups without our consent.
Internet censorship in my country is a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran
Iran has integrity?! It’s one of the most corrupted and violent regimes in the world. Do you know about our political prisoners? about how women, children and those who belong to religious minorities are treated as second-class citizens? Do you know about the unbearable situation of LGBT people in Iran?
You accuse Israel of pinkwashing for having a better record of LGBT rights than other countries in the region, yet you conveniently close your eyes to all the atrocities committed by Iran because they stand with Palestine. SHAME ON YOU.
Shame on Iran for helping the helpless in Yemen…the ones being bombed by the USG/SA/GB…helping them bring back their democracy from the USG coup. Shame on Iran for helping the underdog…the ones who won’t bow to US/Israel dictates. Shame on Iran for sending medical supplies to bombed out Yemeni’s, their hospitals, homes, and infrastructure…to include the help to Syrians. Iran has more integrity than any western government who are all sold out to Israel. Iran doesn’t have a deficit…which none of us here can ever possibly imagine.
No shame on me…I call it as I see it. And I won’t direct that same shame toward you.
If you believe that, you’re incredibly naive. Iran is not helping them, it’s working to further its own agenda at any cost.
If Iran had any genuine interest in helping people , it would’ve helped its own people. If it had any interest in democracy, it would have allowed its people to elect whomever they wish instead of killing them.
Apparently Iranian’s lives is of less value than Yemenis and Palestinians.
“Most of those so called commenters are his sockpuppets using different names to attack the same person who disagrees with them.” How would you know that unless you were able to access other commentators IP addresses? It seems much more likely that you are trying to “humiliate” Glenn and Mona by personally attacking them, since you don’t like what they have say you and lack the intellectual capacity to make valid counter arguments.
Trolls like “Joe” are an energy sink. He’s not the first, and won’t be the last, to google and find some article about a statue somewhere, and snip a bit and announce: “See! The law says what I say it does.” (His “style” is very similar to a troll who cited as “law” a bill that never passed out of a congressional committee. Every time that one posted, I simply reminded readers about that stupidity — so he went away, at least under that moniker.)
It’s idiocy, and not worth the time to substantively challenge.
Hey sockpuppet!
You said it is not illegal. My answer: legal in some countries, but not everywhere. Example UK
You said doxing is not illegal. My answer: a serious crime is some circumstances. Example 18 US 119
So WTF are you talking about now?
Of course I can access others IP addresses. How do you think I know most of you are sockpuppets? Like you! Greenwald used his knowledge of Samira’s IP to question her integrity without even addressing the key points of her comment. But surprisingly I am the one trying to humiliate him! Sockpuppetery to its finest! !
Mona the so called Lawyer said publishing IP addresses is not illegal. That might be true in Brazil, but in the UK publishing a static IP without the owner’s consent is a violation of Data Protection Act. So what exactly did she debunk? Again, if it is not illegal I dare them to publish mine and the UK courts will decide.
You are troll spewing bullshit.
Even if the law was as you say it is in the UK — and it is not — the UK has no jurisdiction over a U.S. corporation such as First Look Media, the owner of The Intercept. (And, for relevant purposes, the U.S. will not enforce foreign judgments based on actions that are not illegal in the United States.)
Moreover, you do not have access to my IP address. Or anyone else’s here. You are a troll, trying to disrupt intelligent conversation with a constant spewing of insults and bullshit.
“Of course I can access others IP addresses. How do you think I know most of you are sockpuppets?”
Excellent question I think a voice told you but you didn’t listen until you snorted a line of meth. Then that voice was yelling it at you so you shared it with all of us.
Interesting take. WaPo published this: Florida Catholic bishop: ‘It is religion, including our own,’ that targets LGBT people
From Mona the “lawyer”:
“It is not illegal to publish an IP address”
Maybe she is a lousy lawyer unaware of how diverse media laws can be, specially when dealing with a huge global network such as the Internet. So we should not blame her for not being familiar with how other countries deal with privacy in the Internet. This is from the UK Office of Information Commissioner:
“Some IP addresses are static…they can be linked to a particular computer which may be linked to an individual user. Where a link is established and profiles are created based on static IP addresses, the addresses…would be personal information and covered by the Act ( Personal Data Act)”
This from the “lawyer” again:
“Even doxing isn’t illegal”
18 US Code 119
Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person….with the INTENT to threaten, intimidate…that covered person…shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both…
That so called lawyer or rather TI sockpuppet is full of shit. She does not even know the laws in the country she is in. The home address of that drone operator next door is public information. Why don’t you publish that informatiom to the world since doxing is not illegal? You guys call them murderers, let us know their names and where they live.
I’m wasting no more time debunking your nonsense. Publishing an IP address is not illegal, and neither is doxing.
Bye-bye.
Debunk??
You cannot debunk a regulation and a law that are on your face. You are incapable of debunking anything. That is why you have been called crazy and stupid several times.
You are shining here and only here because you are TI sockpuppet. Outside TI you are a crazy and stupid. I know you guys have my IP address and it is a static one. I dare you guys to publish it and see how UK courts will deal with The Intercept. You guys should not have any problems as the “lawyer” says is not illegal.
“Joe” it seems like inside of TI “you are a crazy and stupid.” Yet your fascination with “sockpuppet[s]” is curiously revealing. After you are done ragging on TI you can switch over to another website that acts as a surrogate for your desire for personal intimacy and leave having given birth to another crusty and lonely “sockpuppet.”
When did an Evangelical Shoot 100 gay people in an hour? I know there has and still is terrible abuse in some places by some people who also use the Christian religion as an excuse.
But the MODE, LEVEL and PROCLAIMED ALLEGIANCE mean this was not just a hate crime against Gay people. I think you missed the key point here. This is not about ALL MUSLIMS, even most of the Muslims who would accept Sharia etc. are never going to commit Terror. This is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. And guess what, I didn’t see 100 gay people attacked, I saw 100 Americans attacked. PERIOD.
This idea that Gay people are a special class that can’t be victims of terror like “normal people” goes against the whole idea of mainstream acceptance.
This was a TERROR attack, inspired by a GLOBAL movement that blends religion and political military action.
No one is using LGBT people to attack Muslims. We are angry at the murder of fellow human beings by RADICAL Islamic Terrorists. RADICAL being an indication to literate people that it is an extreme faction not the core religion.
You mentioned Shariah.
What, in your understanding, it is?
Also, there’s nothing Islamic about terrorism.
He was a terrorist who identified himself as a Muslim, but was apparently not in the inner state of islam when he committed his final acts.
“Imagine that! No Religion! No Islam too!”
The World Health Organization declares Islam a public health hazard
https://thevpost.com/2016/06/13/the-world-health-organization-declares-islam-a-public-health-hazard/
Christian bakeries are persecuted by the gay lobby with the power of a politically correct state and get hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. A christian dude calls 13 gay bakeries and orders a cake with a message against gay marriage, gets 13 fuck you’s with various levels of bile, the legal system is silent. Equality before the law? Fuck no!
While the christian-gay cake apocalypse is in full swing, muslims kill gays legally all over the world and just killed 50 in one day in Orlando.
But it was the christian’s fault, I swear! The christians! I fucking hate them!
Christians get fined 130000$ for refusing to bake a cake with gay marriage on it. Then the gay lobby phones christian businesses to get them to refuse service and use the repressive politically correct state to bankrupt them.
Muslims kill gays legally all over the world and recently killed 50 in Orlando.
If there is hate between gays and Christians, it’s from gays towards Christians. The other way it’s more like disgust for a lifestyle of de facto poligamy and thpervesion of the family.
Anybody who compares Christians to muslims in this matter is a buffoon.
What he did is illegal in the U.S.
Moreover, killing one person is akin to killing the entire humanity, for we all have the same essence.
We Muslims are all LGBT while we mourn the loss of these innocent lives.
I’m honestly curious, Sufi. Do you reject all Hadiths and historical resources that don’t agree with your beliefs? Shia and Sunnis do this to some extent but they also accept some of the more controversial parts of their resources despite not going well with modern world values, as they have a certain methodology in accepting and rejecting hadiths.
Generally speaking, traditional Sunni Muslims base their religion on Hadith. They examine the Quran in light of Hadith instead of examining Hadith in light of the Quran.
To me, the Quran is the primary source, while all other sources are secondary and are less authentic.
The order of authenticity is: 1) The Quran 2) Living Model of the Quran, traces of which have come to us in the form of prayers, fasting, etc., 3) Hadith, 4) Biography of the Prophet (S).
If one starts off with the Quran and then examine other sources in its light, we reach different conclusions on many issues than if we go the other way around and examine the Quran in light of other sources.
But the Quran must be examined in light of its own textual context as well as its historical context.
The Medinan portions are heavily influenced by the Semitic culture of the day. So we should not take them so literally, while we can draw universal and timeless principles from them and come up with solutions that are appropriate for our times and fit within international laws, norms and treaties.
But, for me, I adhere to a form of Sufi Islam, and our focus is to groom the self so that it reflects the higher.
This doesn’t mean I have all the answers. There are still things that I don’t fully understand.
In any case, you can find more about our path at http://www.zahrapublications.com
There are two eBooks on Academy of Self Knowledge (ASK) self-paced courses that detail the path, especially course one on sufi map of the self.
Or you can read other eBooks on the self (Cosmology of the Self, The Journey of the Self) that are listed on that website.
If you are a Shia, you may find the eBook, Son of Karbala, by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri useful.
Shaykh Kabir Helminski is another Sufi teacher who is associated with us.
Personally, I adhere to the doctrine of Transcendent Unity of Religions. Google it. I have listed several books in another post that you might find useful.
Interesting. Thank you for your explanation.
Your analysis is flawed. The relevant inquiry is not whether U.S. Muslims are more accepting of LGBT than some other religions. After all, its the extremists who perpetrate these acts of terror. The real question is are Muslims more likely to commit acts of terror against LGBT and other people who offend their religious sensibilities. I submit that while many Christians are not accepting of the LGBT community, they are far less likely to inflict violence. Take a look at this and tell me what these countries have in common.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
Photosymbiosis writes:
“…….Nevertheless, examination of the Saudi-American support for ISIS as a proxy force to overthrow Assad and make room for a oil/gas pipeline to Europe from the Gulf Arab zone – that’s not allowed in the U.S. corporate media, so this aspect will be played down, as it was in the San Bernadino shooting case……”
How many times have you posted that the US supports ISIS without providing a single source for your claim? Now you are just adding more conspiracy theories about oil. Jesus Photo, do you ever provide evidence for your posts? Any?
I got your response below. Thanks.
Interesting article. You may or may not agree with it:
“Muslims Are Not Terrorists: A Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam”, at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html
Something interesting on this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-14/meet-noor-zahi-salman-orlando-shooters-mysterious-second-wife-knew-his-plans-may-be-
However, this is again not an indication of anything; no more than a British Catholic visiting the Vatican is indicative of ties to the Irish Republican Army. Nevertheless, it would not be surprising to see U.S. politicians call for all American Muslims who go on pilgrimage to Mecca to be put under surveillance, would it?
Nevertheless, examination of the Saudi-American support for ISIS as a proxy force to overthrow Assad and make room for a oil/gas pipeline to Europe from the Gulf Arab zone – that’s not allowed in the U.S. corporate media, so this aspect will be played down, as it was in the San Bernadino shooting case.
But it does point to a problem with Saudi Arabia’s control of the religious centers of Islam, similar in style to Italy’s control of the Vatican in the medieval European era, when religous wars raged across Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
See also this interesting article:
>However, this is again not an indication of anything; no more than a British Catholic visiting the Vatican is indicative of ties to the Irish Republican Army.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that anyone who visits Mecca is an extremist for sure, but the trip is expensive and KSA doesn’t have much to offer besides its religious sites.
Well, the trip to the Vatican is expensive as well, and the Vatican also doesn’t have much to offer besides its religious sites.
So what’s your point?
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The Vatican is in Italy and people usually visit both.
The Vatican is a beautiful city and full of artistic masterpieces.
AFIK, people who visit the Vatican usually don’t commit to a difficult pilgrimage.
I bet a lot of people who go to Mecca also visit Egypt’s pyramids and other artistic masterpieces, which are fairly close. And if you want a difficult pilgrimage, try the Buddhist or Hindu pilgrimages to Mount Kailash.
Again, you are not making your point clear.
What?! No, they’re in two different continents.
My point is you need to be really religious to go to Mecca not once but twice.
So everyone who goes to Mecca twice should be put on a terrorist watch list? If, say, 10% of the roughly 3 million Muslims in America have gone to Mecca, (the world average), that’s 300,000 people.
How many Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11? I can think of about half a dozen.
So demonizing Islam is basically nonsense, just a political hate game. Tracking Muslims, even if they’ve gone to Mecca twice, will do nothing to stop terrorism.
Where did I say any of that?! I just wrote that going twice to Mecca probably means the guy was really religious.
She’s right. Going on pilgrimage is kind of a big deal to Muslims. You’re going there out of perceived religious duty, or because you’re seeking absolution. It can be a Muslim version of a “Confession,” but directly with God, instead of through a priest.
“this is again not an indication of anything; no more than a British Catholic visiting the Vatican is indicative of ties to the Irish Republican Army”
it indicates he was religious which allows for a religious motive for the shooting. (muslims are required to make the pilgrimage once in their lives while catholics can choose to go to the vatican or disney world instead)
I think this event is the equivalent of the killer pledging allegiance to the Irish Republic Army before killing people in a gay bar in London.
Most people would not blame the entire Catholic faith for such an event, would they? Well, perhaps in the 19th century, but not in the 20th:
“…….Nevertheless, examination of the Saudi-American support for ISIS as a proxy force to overthrow Assad and make room for a oil/gas pipeline to Europe from the Gulf Arab zone – that’s not allowed in the U.S. corporate media, so this aspect will be played down, as it was in the San Bernadino shooting case……”
How many times have you posted that the US supports ISIS without providing a single source for your claim? Now you are just adding more conspiracy theories about oil. Jesus Photo, do you ever provide evidence for your posts?
Jesus that is rich coming from the guy who rarely if ever links to any “evidence” for his posts, and never ever bothers to learn how to blockquote.
Does the level of cognitive dissonance you operate under ever cause you migraines? It would any normal person. Well any normal person that wasn’t a sociopath.
Oh please, you dishonest lying spin-troller, I’ve posted this about a dozen times:
https://levantreport.com/tag/isis/
There are about a dozen evidenciary links in there, including everything from DIA reports to profiles of captured weapons from ISIS arsenals. And your channeling of that idiot Donald Rumsfeld’s line “This has nothing to do with oil” on Iraq is also amusing. . .
“. . . without providing a single source for your claim” – your dishonesty is off the charts. Do you just randomly fling shit in every direction, hoping some of it will stick? The Karl Rove “Turd Blossom” strategy, is it?
What next? Are you going to tell everyone how there really were WMDs in Iraq in 2003?
“……..There are about a dozen evidenciary links in there, including everything from DIA reports to profiles of captured weapons from ISIS arsenals…..”
The captured weapons don’t mean anything. ISIS captured the weapons in Iraq when they took over Sunni controlled areas. The US didn’t give any weapons to ISIS. According to the Fiscal Times:
“……One of the earliest major setbacks in the war against ISIS came last June when the U.S.-backed Iraqi army was routed by Islamic militants in the northern Iraq city of Mosul. Government forces retreated from the Islamic jihadists’ assault. They left behind a trove of costly military hardware, including U.S.-made armored Humvees, trucks, rockets, machine guns and even a helicopter…….”
That is why they have US military equipment.
“…….THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS HABITUALLY DOWNPLAYED the early role of the CIA in coordinating the flow of arms to armed rebels in Syria in furtherance of the US policy of overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad……”
That has nothing to do with oil, you link means exactly what it says – armed rebels (NOT ISIS). Find a source or a statement which specifically states that the US supports ISIS. You haven’t yet.
It’s a long read. I will get to it in the near future and get back to you. I read enough where there is some interesting US policies in arming the “rebels”..
Thanks.
“It’s also true that parts of Islamic doctrine contain all sorts of horrible views on LGBTs, women, and other issues. But exactly the same is true of both the Christian Bible and Jewish Talmud. When it comes to Jews and Christians, people instinctively understand how bigoted and deceitful it is to cherry-pick particularly offensive excerpts from their holy books and use them to demonize all contemporary Christians and Jews.”
But no one has said that everyone bearing the label “Muslim” supports anti-gay violence, or even has anti-gay views. Find me an example of someone saying that. What we are saying is that the influence of the anti-gay theology (the story of Lot, etc.), and especially Muhammad’s explicit command to kill those who have gay sex and it’s integration into Islamic jurisprudence, is what is chiefly responsible for the disproportionate and persistent anti-gay violence in the Muslim world. Not every single person has to be involved for this to be true.
Also, I don’t think neo-Nazis picking passages from the Talmud to demonize Jews is a good analogy to people citing anti-gay passages in the Koran, Hadiths, and Sunnah. Those Talmudic passages bear little or no relation to how Jews actually deal with gentiles; most Jews probably aren’t even familiar with them. The anti-gay parts of Islam are however are recognized and applied almost universally in the Muslim world. The story of lot isn’t some obscure passage, and the Islamic sexual ethic is something which actually informs most Muslims’ opinions, attitudes and behaviors.
I can’t for the life of me understand why (secular!) liberals are so invested in Islam and religion in general being benign. I guess it’s because religious affiliation is often an identity label which people apply to themselves, and since we’re egalitarian we want everyone to be equal, so therefore it seems prejudiced to identify some group’s religions as being better or worse than others. The key here is to understand that you have to separate religious beliefs from religious people. That isn’t hard because often times religious affiliation *only* an identity label, like with nominal Christians/Muslims etc.
Liberals probably are so invested, but most writers here and most commenters having an affinity with them, do not identify as “liberals.” “Liberal” for some time, at least in the U.S., means something rather gross. (Indeed, my circle was recently tweeting this classic quite a bit.)
One label that does totally fit Glenn Greenwald — and which I ardently embrace — is “civil libertarian.” Civil liberties are greatly imperiled by demonization campaigns against minorities of any stripe, religious, sexual or ethnic. Historical examples of this truth are legion.
I don’t think you speak for a “we,” do you?
It certainly isn’t, and shows up throughout conservative Christianity. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if many Muslims had a poorly informed understanding of what that story meant to and in the culture that produced it. Christians seldom do. Neither do atheist critics often do much better.
me = anti-theists/new atheists, what I write is broadly representative of commonly held views among our group.
I really hope you’re not taking that “It’s really about inhospitality” tack with the myth of Lot. I know you think you’re helping, but take it from a queer person, you’re not.
1. My intention is to “help” in the sense that the truth is helpful. 2. Your status as a queer is irrelevant to this particular point.
What do you know about hermeneutics? Exegesis? Or higher biblical criticism? Knowledge and application of such academic/intellectual tools are necessary to understanding sacred texts, including the Hebrew bible’s Lot myth.
Sure, the different Christian sects argue about the correct hermeneutics and exegesis all the time. This wasn’t one of the things they argued about until recently, and most still agree on the established (and obvious) interpretation. And of course, it wasn’t a change in interpretation of the Bible which advanced the status of LGBT people. It was a secular discourse on rights and appeals to modern, secular ideals of equality, informed by modern scientific understandings of the nature of sexual orientation. All the reinterpretation came in response to this, from people who want to have their cake and eat it too – to salvage what they wanted from Christianity and discard what they don’t. My point is that if you’re going to discard/reinterpret what you don’t like, let’s just discard the whole thing and be done with it.
That is not true. But more importantly, this isn’t to do with what various Christians argue about — except to the extent that they are scholars steeped in the appropriate disciplines.
The story of Lot really is about the sin of failing to provide hospitality. Have you ever considered why it was that horse thieves were hanged in the American Old West? I mean, it’s just a horse.
Ponder on that. The reason inhospitably was a serious breach of custom in the ancient Middle East has everything to do with the potentially fatal consequences for travelers who need it in the environment of that world.
Picking one random academic site, this is the scholarly consensus, my emphasis:
About the horses: Stealing a man’s horse in the Old West could kill him. Short of that, it was often essential to one’s livelihood.
Applying contemporary notions of the value of horses — or of hospitality — to older, other cultures who dealt with a far different world, is a great intellectual error.
So that part where the Sodomites demanded to rape the angels and Lot offered his daughters instead, was all about hospitality?
Anyway, the basic point is that the Sodomites where depraved, and to an ancient Hebrew that meant being inhospitable or violating other rules of decorum, as well as going after “strange flesh”.
At any rate, this is all kind of irrelevant to Islam because the Koran is even more explicit about what the sin of Sodom is.
Whether that is true or not, your ignorance on this subject is reflective of your general ignorance abut religion in general, and about Islam in particular.
The part about raping the angels is the one that indicates that it’s predatory homosexuality that is prohibited in the Quran.
It remains a minority opinion at this time, but who knows what will happen in the future.
The Quran also mentions other sins of those people that need to be taken into consideration when trying to understand the whole Lot story.
I’m not posting this reply to extend the discussion. I’m tired now.
It’s pretty hilarious to watch gay-hating conservative xenophobes trying to use this event to promote their political agenda, and tying themselves in knots to do so. And on this:
Sure, that took about 30 seconds:
“A backward religion which does not tolerate the rights of gays is the problem. . .Until Islam is tolerant of gay rights, we cannot tolerate Islam.”
That should be explicit enough for you; any person bearing the label ‘Muslim’ cannot be tolerated, says that pundit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641118/KATIE-HOPKINS-won-t-Left-admit-inconvenient-truth-Islam-hates-love.html
Whip up hatred, use it to build political support – same old neo-Nazi game, isn’t it?
Maybe I’m reading the quote wrong, but it seems to say “Islam”, not “Muslims”. Poorly worded because Islam cannot become tolerant of gay rights, as the mainstays of Islamic doctrine were determined long ago.
Islam hasn’t stopped manifesting itself on the human plane yet.
It’s still evolving and unfolding in very diverse ways.
Yes, there are Muslims whose islams (and there are many as it is not monolithic) are static, but it’s quite possible that they’ll be left behind in the dust.
When someone says, “Islam is …” or “Islam says …”, in reality what they are saying (including you and I) is “Islam, as I understand, is…” or “Islam, as I understand it, says…”
When you “manifesting on the human plane”, I think what you mean is that here on the human plane people are putting words in the mouth of a 7th century man who claimed his knowledge transcending the human plane. What I’m suggesting is that this is a futile and needless exploit. Let ‘s just admit that yes, Muhammad said that if men have sex with other men, they are to be put to death. And he was wrong. He was wrong because he didn’t transcend the human plane. He was schlub just like you and I, his perspective limited by his time and place and his reasoning as prone to error. So he was wrong and we don’t have to follow what he said.
You are entitled to the conclusions you’ve drawn from your own research.
I don’t believe for a moment that he ever said that. I categorically reject any source that attribute it to him.
No, you misunderstood what I said by reading your own thoughts into it.
I have suggested a long list of sources for you if you wish to understand what some Muslims, who have an experiential understanding of their islams, say about their paths.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
To expand on Harold’s point:
Can you name a predominantly Christian country where homsexuality is illegal or there is a death penalty for being homosexual. Its legal to be homosexual in Israel. Now, what about Muslim countries….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
How do you know this? How many Muslims have you discussed this with? You think the average Muslim knows about the story of Lot? You think the average Muslim has ever heard of or discussed Sodom and Gomorrah? You think the average Muslim lives in an enlightened society where they discuss the rights of Gay people, or they even discuss homosexuality in any intellectual capacity? You think the average Muslim is walking around with the knowledge of what to do about homosexuality, other than whatever freedoms the culture they live in allow?
Your knowledge of the average Muslim is pretty dismal. I don’t mean to imply that the average Muslim is nice to Gays. They’re not. But in most Muslim countries the anti-Gay attitudes come from the existing norms in their societies and cultures. And most Muslim countries do not follow Sharia law. There are mixtures of Civil law, British Common Law and traditional laws and Muslim laws.
Secular liberals are not “invested” in Islam. They’re just saying Islamophobia is not a great idea.
>Secular liberals are not “invested” in Islam. They’re just saying Islamophobia is not a great idea.
I think the problem is their definition of Islamophobia. For example, is it Islamophobic to criticize Islam or Muslims? Is it Islamophobic to draw cartoons or write satires about their religious figures?
No, it’s not Islamophobic to criticize Islam, or satirize Islam. Drawing cartoons of Muhammad is not necessarily Islamophobic, but can be.
Here’s the thing Samira. Where I’m from Muslims are 90% of the population, and while there is no overt government action against religious minorities, it is not a pleasant experience to be a religious minority, because there is no overt government protection for minorities. In North America, living as a religious minority, or as an atheist, or as a Gay person, can be a pleasant experience, because there is active governmental protection of minorities, and because there is active societal protection of minorities, like Muslims, by people like Mona. So if you’re a minority, and there are stereotypes about your, like “Muslims are terrorists,” and then this thing happens, people like Harold only pile on. They don’t help the situation. The average Muslim just wants to order a sandwich, and drop their kids off to school. But people like Harold, who think themselves to be liberals, view all Muslims with suspicion. If his views are not countered, living as a minority in the West, will not remain a pleasant experience.
This kind of protection is afforded to everyone, not just Muslims, but to Gays, Blacks, Mexicans or whoever can be stereotyped. That’s what makes living in The West a pleasant experience.
Of course, I’m against stereotypes. I’m against saying all Muslims are like this or that but I’m also against protecting religions and religious people from criticism. I think we can find a middle ground between harassing Muslims and treating them as fragile and breakable people.
In the last few years, I have watched many of my friends gravitate towards likes of Harris. Why does it happen? Because almost every time we talk about our issues, we are attacked by some vocal liberals and accused of being informants, racists, Islamophobes, etc. This is a widespread problem for us, both in my own country and in European and North American countries.
I don’t know if you’ve watched Sarah Haider’s Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique but it’s really worth the watch, imo. Many other ex-Muslims that I know share her concerns.
Look, if you’re a part of a majority, that makes the lives of minorities unbearable, by all means, self-criticize, all you want. You’re not in any real danger of being an outcast. You’re only in danger of having a heated discussion with friends and family, as I’ve had, when discussing the treatment of religious minorities in my country. But I was not ostracized. Some people thought my views were radical, and others agreed with me. But I was never in any danger, as I was part of the Sunni Muslim majority.
But in this part of the world, Muslims are a minority and can be subject to prejudicial behavior. Discussion of Muslims in this part of the world has to be a little more careful, as there is always a danger of mass hysteria against them. People are physically assaulted for looking Muslim. That is not the situation where you’re from, and so by all means, have a robust and critical discussions of Islam. Over here, many Muslims speak with accents, and dress and look like foreigners. There has to be more protection for them here, than there needs to be, where you’re from.
I’m from a Shia country. In my country, we have small groups that tend to discuss these issues (mostly online of course), but even among them, it’s very unpopular to criticise the religion. We’re always in danger.
I understand that being a minority puts one at risk, I just don’t think that it’s an excuse to pretend that Islam is a generally tolreant religion. As I said before, we can find a middle ground solution that doesn’t cause harm to Muslims.
Nobody is pretending that. Certainly, Glenn is not pretending that. But it also serves no good to say Islam is any more anti-gay, than any other religion. Muslim societies are most definitely more anti-gay than the west. But so is any poor and uneducated country. You think Hindus in India are nice to gays? There is no part of their scripture that I’m aware of that condemns homosexuality. But anti-gay attitudes are on the rise there, as religious purity is becoming more important to Indians. You think the Chinese are nice to gays? There is nothing in Buddhism that preaches against Homosexuality.
What some of us are saying is that, it’s not just the religion, but it’s society itself. Islam, where you’re from, not only oppresses Gays, but it oppresses, apparently, open conversation about religion, government, politics etc. In my opinion, the society itself is repressive, and Islam is used to justify the repression. So yes, let’s get rid of Islam, by all means. But it’s more than Islam that’s the problem. It’s society itself.
>Muslim societies are most definitely more anti-gay than the west. But so is any poor and uneducated country.
Is Iran a poor and uneducated country? I don’t think so.
>You think Hindus in India are nice to gays? There is no part of their scripture that I’m aware of that condemns homosexuality.
As far as I know, most religious groups strongly oppose LGBT rights in India and I don’t know enough about their scripture and beliefs to have a strong opinion on it but India is a better place to live than many other Muslim countries for LGBT people.
>What some of us are saying is that it’s not just the religion, but it’s society itself.
Of course, religion is not the only factor here but it stops most conversations about LGBT rights. Whenever I start talking about these issues, I hear about how god and this or that Imam has forbidden homosexuality. After that, no argument works anymore. You can fight mortal men but it’s very difficult to fight saints and deities.
>In my opinion, the society itself is repressive, and Islam is used to justify the repression. So yes, let’s get rid of Islam, by all means. But it’s more than Islam that’s the problem. It’s society itself.
The society itself used to be much better but religion infected and corrupted it. We are a perfect example of how a previously secular country can regress under the influence of religion.
No, you’re right. It’s definitely easy for me to write what I’m writing and have the views that I have. And it’s definitely a different reality for you.
I don’t know what to tell you, other than I’m sympathetic with Glenn’s position. Without people like Glenn, Donald Trump wouldn’t just be talking about banning Muslims from entering the US, he’d be talking about expelling, or interning Muslims in camps, and the Media would go along with it. So, even though I understand your position, I have to agree with Glenn on his stance.
I don’t agree with you either but thank you for speaking sincerely to me.
If you’re so concerned about minorities, you should be concerned about LGBT people in Muslim communities, ex-Muslims etc. They’re minorities within a minority.
But why do you think there is government protection of minorities and a civil society? Secularism, plain and simple.
“But people like Harold, who think themselves to be liberals, view all Muslims with suspicion.”
well scroll up a little and I said:
“But no one has said that everyone bearing the label “Muslim” supports anti-gay violence, or even has anti-gay views”
It really irritates me when people try to strawman my arguments as “all Muslims are terrorists”. Truth be told, I’m not even sure that many right-wingers believe literally all Muslims are terrorists.
“How do you know this?”
Opinion polling of the Muslim world (look at the one in the article), a familiarity with the pronouncements of clerics on the matter as well as the majority consensus of Muslim scholars.
Now you’re right, I don’t know how literate the average Muslim is vis-à-vis their religion. But keep in mind, not everyone has to be a scholar to absorb religious doctrines. How many Christians aren’t well-versed in Bible, yet are homophobic and generally familiar with Christian doctrine on the matter? So the “existing norms in their societies and cultures” can be informed by religion without everyone being an expert.
It seems to me some liberals, including secular ones (which baffles me) are very, very invested in proving the benevolence of Islam, and religion in general. When religious people behave badly, liberals will often say they “used religion as an excuse”, as if people can’t genuinely be inspired by religion to do bad things. Liberals are so very insistent on the equality of religions. All religions have to be equally benign and equally dangerous. Acting as if different religions have different teachings (or really, that religions have teachings at all) is like foul play to them. Which seems crazy to me – can you imagine a Wiccan or a Unitarian carrying out this attack?
When did Glenn ever tout the benevolence of Islam or religion in general. Never is the answer.
I may have some sympathies with you regarding the idea that all religions are not equally dangerous or benign. But I disagree with the Sam Harris notion that Islam is uniquely dangerous. Were the Japanese not using their religion to conquer other lands. Were they not using Chinese heads for sword practice?
You’re looking at things today without looking at the whole picture, without looking at economic situations and education. I grew up as a Muslim in a Muslim majority country, and I can guarantee you there were never any real discussions on homosexuality, not because they weren’t around, but because in my society, every single one of them was in the closet. Do I attribute this built in persecution to Islam alone? No. It’s also due to the backwards/uneducated culture I come from. Not just gays, but women, and religious minorities are also second class citizens. And it’s not just because of Islam. Islam is a nice scapegoat, but its really because of the general backwardness of the culture itself.
Glenn accuses those of us who critique Islam, and Islam specifically instead repeating the usual platitudes about “extremism”, “fundamentalism” etc, of being bigots, racists, imperialists, warmongers, tribalists. The title of this article even implies that our critiques are all made up (“demonizing”).
When Harris says “uniquely dangerous” I don’t think he means Islam is the only religion to inspire violence. Or if he does he’s deluded. Yes, the Japanese during the imperial phase of their history promulgated an ideology wherein the nation and the emperor were divine, and the armies on a divine mission. Obviously that ideology was deadly. It’s virtually extinct today. I think Harris wants to highlight the political and expansionist qualities of Islam, which other religions don’t necessarily have. Think dar al Islam vs dar al harb.
As for the backwardness of the culture, why do you think that was? What was holding your culture back, in your opinion? How did heterosexuality become established as the only sexual or amorous activity that could speak its name?
That’s relic of the past, according to many Muslim scholars.
Real Sufis try to live in the Dar al-Ehsan (Abode of Selfless Action).
I’m not going to google “dar al Islam vs dar al harb” right now because I don’t know what it is and it is irrelevant. All I know is that when I was young, I knew I was Muslim, because my mother told me so. She said, “this is good, this is bad.” She never told me that I was part of some expansionist policy. In fact, a lot of these things about Islam, I did not know until I researched them, after Islam became a “problem” religion. This idea that every Muslim knows about what the hell a “caliphate” is and is working towards such a place or idea, is a myth. I took religion classes in school, that was mandatory for Muslims, and there they taught us what the different verses in Arabic in the prayers that we had to recite, meant. I was told, I wasn’t supposed to drink, or eat pork. Everything else I know about Islam, I had to do personal research to find out, specifically as I was leaning towards atheism. The rest of my friends who were religious, couldn’t be bothered to know the details of their religion. I only started studying it as I stopped believing in it.
There is no pope in Islam. All Muslims don’t believe in the same things. Some practice traditional rituals and behavior that are patently anti-Islamic.
Why is my country backward? Because the politicians are looting the country. And because the powers that be like it that way. The great powers like it when they can deal with a corrupt govt. because then they can get their way. A democratically elected government that actually worked for the people, would resist many requests from the great Western powers. So these countries like the status quo. It’s not their fault, but if there are popular uprisings, the Western powers would most definitely not like this unknown quantity. They’d rather deal with the traitorous/corrupt/torturing bastards that run my country, because these people are easy to manipulate. So nothing will every change. And that’s the world as I know it. And not much I can do about it.
The Sam Harris idea about monolithic Muslim ideology of Calphates, and conquest, and expansion, is bunk. Shias and Sunnis are killing each other, and I don’t even know why. I couldn’t tell you what the hell it means that I’m Sunni, and somebody is a Shia. Nobody ever told me, as the minority Shia population in my country has never been a political issue (now it’s turning into one).
That’s the Islam I grew up with. It was part of the culture. I couldn’t even tell the difference between what was part of the culture, and what was part of Islam. It was all intertwined. But I hated my religion, and I hated my culture, and I hated nationalism, because I thought those things were being used politically to keep down minority populations. I had teachers who were part of the religious minority, and it bothered me to no end that some of them had to be politically silent. So I hated everything about my religion and my culture and my politics. That’s all I know. I don’t know anything about any expansionist Islamic policies.
I don’t know how old you are but the Internet is changing all of that both with good and bad results. It’s created an active atheist community in most Muslim countries even in those where apostasy carries a death sentence and it’s also informed many Muslims about these finer points of Islam and that has made them more religious and even radicalized them.
Absolutely agree with you. The Internet is creating more atheists and fundamentalists at the same time.
In your opinion, which side has been more successful? In my country, the seculars are far more effective than the religious folks.
Well, I think that the religious folks are not really gaining in numbers, they’ve always been about 5% that vote for the religious party, and that number is unchanged. But the fanatics now have the ability to grab the headlines through violence. They didn’t do that when I was growing up. And the internet is partly to blame. But from what I remember, almost everybody I knew, hated the religious party. Because they were always trying to tell everybody what to do and how to behave. Nobody liked that, even religious people. But yes, their violence is now in the newspapers. So, I don’t know who’s more effective.
I have heard in many Muslim countries, people generally have become more religious, more women wear the hijab and going to mosques have become more common. However, all I have is anecdotal evidence.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israel-spin-doctors-move-exploit-orlando-massacre
Ugh. This quixotically trying to co-opt religion is dishonest and counterproductive. Let’s just all admit we are following our own reasoning, in morality as everything else instead of taking divine revelation as infallible and eternal, and move on. You’re not fooling anyone, least of all the orthodox religious crowd.
whoops, meant to put that reply under the “Here is what LGBT Muslims Want You To Know After The Orlando Shooting”.
That’s an exceptionally blinkered — but common — interpretation of the kind of material you just read. Religious adherents “co-opt” nothing when they practice a faith within their own understanding of it.
Like all human beliefs, religions change and evolve (or, depending on your perspective, devolve). Religion is dynamic — constantly changing, and being changed by, humans.
I don’t think you get the idea behind a religion like Islam. The alleged revelation given in the Koran and Hadiths is supposed to be the final and perfect word on every matter to which it speaks. We humans may get all kinds of errant ideas in our heads, but a supreme intelligence which transcends our limited human perspective gave us this revelation to set us straight. That’s why innovations are frowned upon within Islamic discourse, big time – because they don’t want to corrupt the eternal truth. There isn’t supposed to evolution. If there is it’s in spite of the weight established doctrine, not because of it. Islam is not a Rorschach painting. And on this particular matter, the doctrine is so well-established and has such a firm foundation in the scriptures, it’s hard to imagine pro-queer innovations ever making much headway within the global Muslim community; certainly not with the clerics or other intellectuals. Better to just tear down the whole edifice and establish secularism, I think.
What you present is your understanding of what Islam is.
There are other perspectives and ways to look at Islam.
Suggested Reading to Broaden and Deepen Your Knowledge:
1. “Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, Revised and Expanded: Essays by Western Muslim Scholars” by Joseph E. B. Lumbard and Seyyed Hossein Nasr
2. “Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
3. “Sufi Essays” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
4. “Ideals and Realities of Islam” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
5. “Islam and the Plight of Modern Man” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
6. “Traditional Islam in the Modern World” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
7. “A Young Muslim’s Guide to the Modern World” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
8. “Islam in the Modern World” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
9. “The Heart of Islam” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
10. “The Message of the Qur’an” by Muhammad Asad
11. “Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi” by William Chittick [Rumi’s poetry is essentially considered a commentary on the Qur’an]
12. “Sufism: A Beginner’s Guide” by William Chittick
13. “Vision of Islam” by William Chittick
14. “Understanding Islam: A New Translation with Selected Letters” by Frithjof Schuon
15. “Dimensions of Islam” by Frithjof Shuon
16. “The Elements of Islam” by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
17. Various Qur’an Commentaries by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
18. “Inner Meaning of Worship in Islam” by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
19. “Living Islam – East & West” by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
20. “Witnessing Perfection” by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
21. “The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books The Complete Collection” by Dr. Dr. Abou El Fadl
22. Various writings of Shaykh Kabir Helminski
23. eBooks at http://www.zahrapublications.com
24. “The Great Theft — Wrestling Islam from the Extremists” by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl
25. “Introduction to Sufi Doctrine” by Titus Burckhardt
26. “What is Sufism” by William Chittick
27. “The Elements of Sufism” by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
28. “The Underlying Religion” Edited by Martin Lings
29. “Universal Dimensions of Islam” Edited by Patrick Laude
30. “The Elements of Islam” by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri
31. “What is Sufism?” by Martin Lings
32. “Divine Love: Islamic Literature and the Path to God” by William Chittick
33. “The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books” by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl
34. “Reasoning with God”, by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl
That entire comment, like most that you’ve written here, betrays an ignorance of religion in general, and Islam in particular, generally found only among religious fundamentalists and their atheist counterparts.
Name calling will get you nowhere my dear.
I called you no names. I accurately stated:
The electronic infifada? Really? How are gays treated in Gaza or The West Bank? How are gays treated in Tel Aviv?
Electronic Intifada is a highly reliable news source.
Pinkwashing doesn’t go over well here.
“Pinkwashing” is a intellectually bankrupt word used only to obscure the reality that gay rights are utterly nonexistent in Gaza and the West Bank and that 97% of the population deeply oppose homosexuality. At the same time Tel Aviv has an annual gay pride parade.
Good article. Lets not fool ourselves into believing that Muslims have any monopoly on homophobia. Yes, being gay is a crime in many Muslim countries and may even carry the death penalty. But you know what? Try being openly gay in just about any country in Central or South America- Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras etc. See you long you last. Chances are you will be killed or badly beaten sooner or later. And those happen to be Christian countries. Look, people, hatred and violence towards gays is commonplace in many parts of the world and among people of all religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.
Here Is What LGBT Muslims Want You To Know After The Orlando Shooting
I tried to choose one of these personal reflections for an excerpt, but they’re all worth reading. Please have a look.
Very interesting read but queer Muslims are a minority within a minority as most LGBT people from Muslim families leave the faith.
This tragedy is forcing the Western Muslims to re-examine the nonsense that has been written in the Islamic sources on LGBT over the past 1400 years.
Sadly, it’s usually a tragedy that does that.
But this level of self-reflection and self-critique is not possible in those countries in which the Muslims are majorities.
As I have stated before, it’s best done in the West, because of the freedoms it allows.
Challenging the orthodoxies in the Muslim majority countries usually have severe consequences.
But if the West does want the Muslims to change, a good starting point will be for it to pressure its darling, SA, which has had a lot of influence on Muslims’ thinking around the world, whose school of thought have penetrated many forms of Islam, including some Sufi ones; though since the evil acts of 911, SA’s ideological influence has been challenged more than prior to 911.
Yes, I am a strong proponent of civil liberties such as are codified in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, many Muslims — and they are not alone in this — around the world see America’s sermonizing about the virtues of human rights as sheer hypocrisy, and too often entirely self-serving. Our support for the Saudis is just one reason why.
Readers: I’m not going to respond to Craig Summer’s endless stream of bullshit claims, including those about me and what I’ve supposedly said or what I purportedly believe. He’s not trustworthy but he is prolific, and I’m not helping him pollute the board by feeding him. He’s desperate for my attention, and practically hanging his dick out the window to get it — not gonna work.
If I deem any request to explain anything Craig posts to or about me to be made in good faith, I will explain. But not otherwise.
As I’ve often suggested several times, he should be ignored. Of course, everyone is free to do as they please, but that really is the best option for protecting the integrity of the comments section conversation.
Personally, I prefer a wide range of opinion – especially when it is informed by substantiated fact. I am not threatened by those whose opinions conflict with my own. Of course I am not committed to the goal of endlessly echoing the opinions of Glenn Greenwald specifically, or those of the intercept’s staff in general.
“Personally, I prefer a wide range of opinion – especially when it is informed by substantiated fact. ”
good one, Doug. You made me chuckle.
Enquiring minds and all …
Yes, as do I. And I’m rather fanatical about the desirability of documenting fact claims.
Craig’s mere “different opinions, ” however, are not why I usually ignore him and recommend the same to others. But then, you knew that.
“…….Craig’s mere “different opinions, ” however, are not why I usually ignore him and recommend the same to others……”
That is a “mere” lie Mona and you know it.
This site (as much as any) discourages a wide range of opinions. That is exactly what they fear the most.
Sufi Muslim
“…….But this level of self-reflection and self-critique is not possible in those countries in which the Muslims are majorities……”
Mona
“……Unfortunately, many Muslims — and they are not alone in this — around the world see America’s sermonizing about the virtues of human rights as sheer hypocrisy, and too often entirely self-serving……”
Resorting to whataboutery to deflect from an alternate opinion that she doesn’t want to hear. This is classic Mona.
There I fixed it for you in the interests of accuracy.
As a little test, find and provide 5 links from your comment history where you’ve actually linked (as in provided a hyperlink embedded into your comment) to “factual support” (I’ll let readers determine the quality of the source or whether it supports your assertion) for one of your many many opinions.
Thanks in advance. I’ll wait.
As a little test, try responding to one of my posts instead of playing your cute game. Or are you frightened?
Thanks rr
@ Craig
You can’t be serious, me frightened of you or your opinions. I state mine under my real name with all the consequences that implies. That’s why I support my opinions with linked sources and facts.
I’ve never (or possibly at best once or twice) seen you link to a single source for any claim you’ve made. Ever. Do you even know how to link? You certainly don’t know how to blockquote that’s well established and something the average 6th grader is capable of doing. So it necessarily follows that since you don’t link to any sources for your inane opinions, and since I find 6th graders more enlightened than you on most topics, I really don’t feel compelled to “respond” to much of your inane arguments or insights because it is a pointless waste of my time, not fear.
I’ve not it in the past, with proof, and with a wide variety of better and more coherent sources and logic, and by all appearances it does nothing to change your opinions even in the face of better facts and reasoning. That leads me to one of two immutable conclusions–a) you’re either too ideologically rigid to engage on any topic, or b) you are being paid to post the drivel you pass off as your deep thoughts.
So hears a challenge–first time you type one of your many opinions that rests on some factual predicate or assertion, and you actually link to proof of your factual assertion, I’ll go ahead and offer linked counter-proof if I believe your “facts” are inaccurate, and if not address the merits of whatever you argument you make from “facts” I agree with. And not until then, because I don’t find you to be an honest interlocutor in any way shape or form and I’ve been reading your crap since the day you littered this site with your stupid whataboutery, non-sequiturs and unsourced factual assertions.
Bottom line you are generally beneath me to engage absent changing how you conduct yourself here.
“I’ve done it in the past . . .” not I”ve “not it in past
“So here’s a challenge-. . .” not “hears a challenge . . .”
Sorry for typos.
Readers: It was Mona who made the initial contact with this post to Maise with her interpretation of my posting history telling her to ignore me. She has done this on numerous occasions over the past several months:
Mona writes (below):
“…….Craig has said he’s voting for Donald Trump. His history in Glenn’s comment space has revealed him to be a deeply depraved authoritarian, who defends torture, and embraces it as an affirmative good. He has no use for the U.S. Fourth Amendment, and there is nothing the government can claim the right to do in violation of it that he will not defend.
Craig, like most Zionists, defines “radical left” to mean anyone who insists on documenting the gross human rights violations of the United States and Israel. Such people could be laissez-faire free market fundamentalists, and in CraigWorld, they are either Nazis or “leftists.”
He’s beyond reason, and I highly recommend not replying to him. Doing so only induces him to post more fallacy-laden screeds and accusations. Along with his constant whataboutery, often entailing lists of all the incidents and issues this site’s journalists do not write about.
Everyone is obviously free to do as they please, but ignoring Craig truly is the best option……..”
Who is stalking who again (which she also accused me of doing as well)?
Thanks.
Readers:
“Let me inform you that I know a great deal about the sociology of religion and hold a BA in this secular discipline” Mona
“As people have noted from the start of the Internet, one of the great things about it: you get to be whoever and whatever you want” Greenwald
Both of those statements are true. Since I am known to people here — who I am and my past professional relationship with Glenn Greenwald — I couldn’t successfully lie about my background even if I were inclined to do so.
Mona claims:
“…….Regardless of what you claim, it is possible to determine where you are posting from……”
The Intercept giving personal data to Mona?
Of course they do! Duh!! Many commenters here are part of TI. Some of them use different names to praise TI. TI believes they are the only one who can decipher a commenter’s IP address. Many people can, but it is illegal to publish it.
Greenwald probably told Mona Samira’s ip address confirming that she is not located in the Middle East.
Of course she will never acknowledge it and she will never write it here because it is illegal for TI to share that information to a third party.
Even if I am wrong and Greenwald did not even check her ip address. Do you think it was just a coincidence that he raised doubts about who Samira is where she is located? He was just helping his supporters to attack her integrity regardless of the pertinence of her views with regard to the article.
It’s common sense. You are still here so they can say they allow dissenting voices. As you have probably noticed as soon as those who challenge TI irrational views reach a high number they disappear usually after the same commenters complain about “pollution” in the section.
You are an unhinged troll. It’s not illegal to publish someone’s IP address. Even doxing isn’t illegal. Just usually immoral.
You are the lawyer, right?
You are referring to the Internet, a global network. So what you do online in Brazil legally can be illegal in the UK. An IP can become “personal data” when used to profile an individual. That means that IP address would fall under special privacy protection in England for instance. TI and many similar websites routinely profile their visitors to detect hackers, spammers….
Shocking that an “unhinged troll” knows better than a “lawyer”.
But again as Greenwald just wrote:
“As people have noted from the start of the internet, one of the great things about it: you get to be whoever and whatever you want.”
It is not illegal to publish an IP address. And your blithering does not demonstrate otherwise.
Since you’re such tight pals with Craig Summers, go right ahead and ask him who I am and what my professional background is. From time to time he prattles on about my purported “duty to disclose” it.
DocHollywood
“…….I am so bigoted against “brownies” – yes, I have really used that racial slur against Muslims…..”
Yes I did…..sarcastically. I have posed a question to you twice about comments Mona made about Zionist and Jews. You continue to refuse to respond which suggest that you are an anti-Jewish bigot. Do you believe the comments below cross the line into antisemitism?
Mona calling Adolph Eichmann a Zionist:
“……..And altho Eichmann explicitly said, “I am a Zionist,” he didn’t mean it. Not according to the way Shalev defines “Zionism” and would prefer you to define it……To understand why Eichmann could be both a Zionist and also have committed the atrocities he did, one must understand a very critical thing about the man……..”
“……..It’s a matter of the historical record that the Third Reich did, in fact, support Zionism. Other than Nazi symbols and flags, the blue-star flag of Zionism was the only other flag permitted to fly in Nazi German……”
“……..Zionists [Jews] have grossly exploited the Holocaust as their “permission slip” to commit vicious crimes themselves, primarily against Palestinians. Enough of that. The Holocaust was an abomination, but it is not the only crime against humanity, and I now advocate that it be removed from sacred status…….” My insertion in brackets
“……Money amplifies voices. If the people First Look is hiring are able to help shape the dominant narrative, I wouldn’t even care if they were funded by a Nazi — as long as said Nazi was as laissez-faire as Pierre says he will be.…..”
Mona (even) calling Mona an anti-Semite:
“…………Ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby were the most dangerous thing to arise for Jews in many decades. He noted that once Americans realize the U.S. is sending their sons and daughters into Middle Eastern wars desired by Israel and promoted by neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby at home, there will be rage. There will be fury about the billions we send Israel and the way our foreign policy and politics are warped by the Lobby. And it has come to pass — we are seeing that with the antisemitic Trumpites. They realize it all, and they are furious…….”
Mona repeating this claim to another poster:
“…….Yes, it’s definitely ratcheting up. Almost ten years ago, a Jewish friend told me he was certain that once Americans woke up to the extent the Israel Lobby controls U.S. foreign policy — including the neocon enthusiasm for sending U.S. sons and daughter to fight Middle Eastern wars that Israel and the Israel Lobby demands — Jews will suffer……..”
According to Wikipedia,
“………In 2002, [David] Duke traveled to Eastern Europe to promote his book, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question in Russia in 2003. The book purports to “examine and document elements of ethnic supremacism that have existed in the Jewish community from historical to modern times.”[118]……”
Mona’s response (agreeing with David Duke)
“……..And about that, he has a great deal of truth on his side……”
“………When I claim Zionists are fascists, I am not calling names or waxing hyperbolic: I mean it literally, as a reasonably well-educated person would understand the term……”
There you go Doc. Any of it cross the line in your honest opinion?
Dude you went into a Zionist rage! The world isn’t constantly trying to victimize you…you are a victim of your ideology.
So your argument seems to be that Yes, Islam hates gays, but hey, so do the other monotheisms.
So that’s ok then, can’t criticise Islam.
It must be embarrassing to be religious.
Jeopardy;Saddams two dead sons are used as rhyme answer.
Isn’t that cute.Spit on the dead you scum.
I think you are a little mixed up on who are the scum, dahoit.
“cherry-pick”
we ALL do it. no exceptions. we choose according to taste and we’re limited to what’s within reach
We all also fart. So?
Animus and anima, please, Glenn but a great article. Omar Mateen apparently was a year-long customer at the Pulse bar. His supposed ‘allegiances’ include both ISIL and Hizbollah, suggesting that he had no clue as to what these represented. The Pulse simply was his hangout. This mass-shooting by a deserving American citizen was just that. A crazed guy who easily, way too easily got his weapons and killed. There is nothing Islamic or anti-gay about this.
“nothing islamic or antigay about this”.
I guess thats the valium you need to get through the day. wake up Dave
Samira
Okay, please, everyone. Stop being antagonistic to Samira. I understand that her view of this article has irked everybody. But it is highly probable, she is a lonely gay person in a Middle Eastern country, with absolutely nobody to grieve with, over this horrendous tragedy in Orlando. She has come here for a conversation, and to understand Glenn’s position, and to argue with it, if need be. I don’t see why she can’t be angry at Glenn, or Islam, misplaced emotions or not. I absolutely believe her story. She has provided nuanced details about family and government attitudes towards gays that I recognize to be true. It’s highly unlikely somebody posing would be aware of such details.
A tragedy has occurred in Orladon against Gay people. I don’t see why it’s unreasonable for a lone Gay person in the Middle East, to be angry at religion, Glenn, or the whole damn world. She’s here for a conversation. Please, let’s try to give her one.
Samira, I’m sure you don’t need me to defend you. But I couldn’t help myself. I hope you’ll forgive me.
I agree with you…
To Samira, I also came here to find some kind of way to sort through many things. It was initially difficult. But I want to say…in that difficulty and adversity it will birth a search for the better of self and the better of understanding. I found it…and so will you. It is nice to meet you.
Thank you. :)
I have been reading Intercept for some time now and I agree with many of Glenn’s views, but I just can’t agree with this article about Islam. It’s in contrast with my own personal experience.
What does that mean? “contrast?” Everyone’s personal experience “contrasts” with everything else.
If you mean to say Glenn’s article is contrary to your personal experience, that is false. Nothing that he wrote could be that.
What three do you especially agree with?
English is not my native language. I’m sorry for making mistakes.
>What three do you especially agree with?
Is it an inquisition now? I like his views about whistleblowing, massive surveillance, and many of his views on American foreign policy. I also admire his courage to work with Snowden.
Perhaps I’m unduly suspicious, but we do see a lot of new commenters here (and elsewhere) claiming: “Glenn Greenwald, I have admired you so much, but now that you’ve writtten X you’ve lost all my respect.” These comments are usually bullshit, but it’s possible for that reaction to be sincere.
I don’t know about other commenters here as I usually don’t read the comment section, but It’s rather odd to assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with one particular point is a liar.
Mona,
As much as I appreciate, as a reader of the intercept, your comments and opinions, you seem overly critical in this comment.
If, assuming Samira’s assertions are correct about living somewhere in the ME, her “personal experiences” could indeed contrast with the data in the article. The Pew study was conducted almost 2 years ago; the sample is ~35,000 adults in the US. If Samira’s personal experiences are embedded in the streets and cities of a ME country, it’s possible that her personal experience could differ from the Pew results. Her personal experience is based on living amongst a population whose characteristics may differ markedly from that sampled by Pew.
Looking at the numbers in support of same-sex marriage, 44% of US Christians in the sample support it, while 42% of US Muslims in the sample support it. This difference may or may not be statistically significant. Is it not plausible that the % of Christians and Muslims supporting gay marriage living in the ME might differ from the numbers above?
That’s true. Your reasoning changed my mind and I retract my statement.
What are your views about Israel and Palestine? I ask in sincerity.
Well, I’m not an expert on the issue but I dislike the way Israel treats Palestinians. I’m also no fan of the way many Palestinians treat each other, women, minorities, etc and unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any realistic solution for the horrible situation there.
Why don’t you believe there is a realistic solution…do you mean hope or do you mean a possible outcome?
sorry…correction
Why don’t you believe there is NO realistic solution…
I mean there’s no way Isreal would give in to Palestinian demands and there’s no way issues such as the right to return (which I support) wouldn’t seriously threaten Isreal.
How do you feel about the UN Security Council Resolution 242:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]
The preamble[3] refers to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security.”
Operative Paragraph One “Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”[4]
And what are your thoughts concerning BDS Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Israel?
The Resolution sounds good, but I don’t think it’ll ever happen. Palestinians simply lack the power to force Israel’s hand.
As for BDS, I respect everyone’s choice to act according to their conscience but I have never seen BDS in action and my own country has boycotted Israel for a very long time.
Thank you for replying…I’ve got to go for now…I wish you a nice day.
Nice talking to you. Take care. :)
Your prose is totally not ESL.
As Glenn noted, IPs are a dead giveaway. Nice try …
I don’t think my English is that good but thanks for the compliment.
“I don’t think my English is that good but thanks for the compliment.”
And about that IP address …
Go back to my reply to Glenn, please.
“Go back to my reply to Glenn, please.”
Go back under your bridge.
I do understand your impulse here, and I had the same initial thought, but I really don’t think she’s the real deal. She has not “provided nuanced detail” about anything.
(One thing to keep in mind is that unless a commenter is using Tor or some other system that alters one’s ISP address, anyone with access to the administrative tools here can determine where she’s posting from. So, unless one is using Tor, there isn’t the privacy commenting here that a lot of people assume.)
But as I said below, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether Samira is who and what she says she is. As you imply, her persona is “true” in the sense that such individuals actually do exist.
She’s already said that she’s using Tor or proxy servers.
The nuanced detail I’m talking about is that she has loving parents, who she suspects will kill her if they knew about her sexuality. Why provide the “loving parents” bit, unless it’s something that’s an absolute tragedy to her that she cannot confide in them. She has said that she is more afraid of her family than of her govt.; a govt. that practices Sharia law. That is a nuanced detail, that I doubt anybody brought up in The West is aware of.
Please, just answer her questions, and engage her without having a preconceived notion that she has some sort of anti-Muslim, anti-Glenn agenda. If you’re correct, then that’s great. If you’re incorrect, you’re keeping a lonely Gay person in the Middle East from venting. And that would be a tragedy.
First, about that you’d be wrong. Second I did n’t say she isn’t actually from a family of Muslims. But is she posting from some sharia-ruled Muslim country?
Doubtful.
Really? So everybody is aware that a Gay person in the Middle East is more afraid of what their parents would do to them, than a government that can execute them? This is common knowledge, is it?
In my reply to one of Glenn’s comments, I explained that here, almost everyone uses tools such as Tor because we can’t access most websites without them.
Regardless of what you claim, it is possible to determine where you are posting from.
That’s alright then. :)
This coming from the person who has repeatedly refused to supply substantiation for her own claims.
You are an insane, homophobic, authoritarian troll. Failure to take seriously your exceptionally stupid questions does not constitute either refusal or inability to substantiate claims.
Every insult is a feather in my cap as they represent your abject failure to counter my claim that you are a cowardly, lying hypocrite who has chronically failed to provide substantiation of her own claims while faulting others for doing the same.
<blockquote.Every insult is a feather in my cap
I’m not insulting you. You actually are an authoritarian homophobe. Of course it’s a “feather in your cap.” You don’t feel it’s bad to be a homophobe.
?
Ok, here’s my counter: 42.
But seriously Karl, you can accuse lotsa folk on the Internet of not substantiating their claims, but when lobbing that one at me you beclown yourself. No one with a few days experience reading me is going to believe that. I’m quite well known for documenting my claims, possibly even ad nauseum.
Yet as late as yesterday you repeatedly failed to provide substantiation for your claim that “Fifty people were killed, and more than another 50 wounded. Because they were LGBT.” when challenged. Go figure.
Thank you for your kind words.
I don’t mind people doubting me, but you’re right that I’m grieving and I’m alone. I actually talked to many people about this shooting but I just received harsh words and little sympathy. They mostly didn’t care or thought that “the perverts” had it coming.
Hey, I know your position. You’re not going to get any sympathy from your contemporaries, that’s for sure. When I was in high-school, I knew absolutely nothing about Gays, other than they were perverts. I never read a single article in the local newspapers, never saw a single tv show, or news report on the subject of homosexuality. All homosexuality was to me, until I was 18 was jokes with my class-friends. So I know exactly what situation you’re facing. You’re facing somebody like myself, when I was in high-school. And that person has no earthly idea, what’s going on in your mind. And I am sorry about that. Just hang on tight on this board. Sooner or later people will come around. Most people here are pretty decent. And Mona is lovely, once you get to know her a little bit.
Thank you for this article. I was making this very point on pages yesterday, although not as eloquently and thoughtfully.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
The best thing about islam is that everyone now loves homosexuals and women.
Many insisted that religion could never be a unifying force for good, yet here we are. Of course, hatred, like horniness, needs some strange, so this may be about the wandering eye and boredom more than anything else. The fidelity of hatred seems fickle at best.
Hey muslims–can you start loudly agitating against pot, explicit sex in mainstream films, universal income, democracy, an open and decentralized internet, people who work less than 80 hours a week, alternative energy–I’ll post a complete list later because this sucker is going to be pretty long. Seriously, we have a short window here where we could really move things forward. Our hatred of muslims could bring about the next enlightenment.
Who is next? Who will make us love muslims?
the next group that gets in our way. maybe the chinks
You are spinning these stats, Glenn, and it’s beneath you. A majority of American Muslims believe homosexuality should not be allowed. A majority of Evangelicals believe the same thing. BOTH OF THOSE MAJORITIES ARE HEINOUSLY, DANGEROUSLY WRONG! We must face that. If it is my job to hold the hands of these idiots and talk them through their personal growth process then I demand the right to speak my own personal truth without concern for being politically incorrect. We have had 2000 years of violent stupidity, already. It’s time for it to end.
I’m not gay, but I am an atheist. The Quran says I should be killed. I have no patience, whatsoever, for followers of a ancient religious text that states that I do not deserve to live who have not firmly, categorically and repeatedly refuted those words in the most severe fashion.
We have coddled and supported oppressive kingdoms and dictatorships to serve the interests of capitalist pigs in the military-industrial complex. That support has led to a rise in the popularity of religious fundamentalists. What we should have been saying to the leaders of those countries was, “I’m sorry, you think gays and atheists deserve to die? Ok, take your oil and shove it.”
A similar thing should have been said to Germany about their policies toward Jews. Why are we so afraid to confront the nonsense that is used to justify the murder of innocents?
Please quote the Quranic verses that you think are saying this, and let’s analyze them.
“Spin” does not mean what you think it does. Accurate polling data about attitudes toward gay rights among various Western cohorts does not constitute “spin.”
As for the rest of your bilge, it’s mostly just more ill-informed assertions and undemonstrated spewing. And quite misanthropic at that.
Religion informs, and is informed by, politics. It is not this discrete human manifestation standing all alone, unaffected by the rest of culture and events. It is a huge part of what human beings do.
You hold a kindergarten-level understanding of religion and its place in the human species.
Technically Joe, even for apostates like myself (and apostates are worse in Islam than your garden variety atheist, trust me), there is no punishment recommended by the Quran. It is recognized that I will be damned to hell. However, under Sharia law, yeah… I can be executed.
Look, I agree with your general view, that religion is coddled to much, and we’re expected to respect “beliefs” as opposed to intellectual arguments. The point of Glenn’s article is that pointing at Islam as the culprit does gay people no good, who receive their hate from every conceivable quarter. That’s all he’s saying.
I understand your passion, against religion, or against Islam. But you’re getting carried away. This article is not about you, and your intellectual war against religion, which by all means should continue. This article is about homophobia, and how Islam is not the sole cause of it, and how repeatedly saying so is not useful.
It’s not that simple and obvious. The word, Kufr, as I understand it, is very much dependent upon a person’s level of consciousness. That is, it is a deliberate effort by one to cover one’s self from the light within.
Life, as I see it, is about grooming the self so that it reflects the higher. And this effort transcends religious and non-religious boundaries.
I know of those who call themselves atheists, and I find them to reflect the higher to the extent that they do.
I have much more in common with them than with those religious people who tend to be arrogant and lacking in love.
I just wish all Muslims, or all religious people rather, were like you Sufi. Then there would be no passion to atheism necessary. Our passion for non-belief, comes from watching the crazy things some religious people do and say, rightly or wrongly.
Cheers :)
“Top 7 ways to tell if Someone is lying about being a ‘Salafi Jihadi’”, by Dr. Juan Cole.
Excerpt:
1. Salafi Jihadis don’t drink alcohol.
2. Salafi Jihadis don’t hang out in bars.
3. Salafi Jihadis don’t, in particular, frequent gay bars.
4. Salafi Jihadis don’t text potential hook-ups using a gay dating app.
5. Salafi Jihadis aren’t usually clean shaven.
6. Salafi Jihadis belong to a fringe interpretation of Sunni Islam and despise Shiites; they don’t typically claim to have an affiliation with a Shiite group such as Hizbullah, which is fighting ISIL in Syria. (Here “typically” means, like, “ever.”)
7. Salafi Jihadis don’t express a hope that non-Muslim police will assault their wives. In fact, they wouldn’t want men other than close relatives to so much as see their wives unveiled.
…
To put all this on Muslims and Islam in general is frankly absurd.
The whole article (it’s short and concise) is at http://www.juancole.com/2016/06/someone-salafi-jihadi.html
——
I do, however, believe that traditional Muslim scholars need to do a lot of self-reflection and self-critique on the issue of same-sex relationships. There’s a lot of horrible things that have been written over the past 1400 odd years.
I agree to some extent with you. He was obviously not a Salafist. I also doubt that he was politically motivated, but the role of religion here seems obvious to me.
It’s likely that he grew up in a traditionally Muslim family and that’s where he got his messed-up ideas about homosexuality that turned him into a self-hating gay man.
I have yet to read the article. I just replied to your comment.
Of course, I don’t believe that religion is the sole factor, but from personal experience, it’s the most influential one. I think the degree to which Muslims demonize homosexuality (I have repeatedly heard from Muslims that incest with parents and siblings is much more natural than homosexuality ) makes it very difficult for young LGBT people to have a healthy attitude towards sexuality.
I understand and sympathize.
Generally speaking, we need to understand the human self and its cosmology first.
http://www.zahrapublications.com/#sufismAndIslamicPsychologyAndPhilosophy
Thank you for. I’ll look into these books.
I confess that my knowledge of Islam is mostly focused on Sunni and Shia teachings and beliefs, but Ibn Arabi who you quoted in one of your previous comments was one of my favorite poets when I was younger. Many of his views are simply beautiful and wonderful.
Also, look into Rumi. This is one of our Sufi teachers:
http://sufism.org
I’m aware of another Sufi teacher whose own daughter is a lesbian.
I love Rumi. His poems are in my own native language. He is passion and love and wonder.
The problem with your sort of analysis is its crabbed view of religion and the role it plays in human culture and history. It’s not a walled-off, self-contained phenomenon.
All three Peoples of the Book have a history of hating and not tolerating same-sex sexual activity, formally codified first in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. But even there, that reflects as much the cultural consensus of that period as it does anything else. Which is to say, religious norms tend to be those assumed as “clearly right” by the society in which they are brewed.
Same-sex sexual activity has, historically, and across many cultures, been rejected and penalized. Humans are programmed by evolution to fear and reject the Other and divergence from the majority’s norms. This had some adaptive value, but we’ve clearly seen how it also is maladaptive in a world grown much smaller and where greatly diverse peoples all live together or closer together.
Religions, like everything in human culture, change. Sometimes for good, sometimes for not. Sometimes in many different directions.
Religion informs, and is informed by, everything else human that is going on.
I agree with most of what you wrote but, but I still believe that currently and on an individual level, most religions are harmful and some are more dangerous than others.
As are those non-religious paths that are interpreted, applied and practiced through the lower self (aka consciousness), which reflects qualities such as selfishness, anger, vengeance, hatred, seeing otherness, doing unto others what one doesn’t want done unto one, injustice, arrogance, desire for power and control, ignorance, self-ego, self-pride, etc.
I think the problem with most religions is that they generally prescribe moral rules. I believe it corrupts our innate ability to think about moral issues and judge for ourselves. After I became irreligious, this was what bothered me most about the years I spent believing in a religion.
Oops! I wrote my name Sufi instead of Samira! Sorry.
Whether most religions are harmful would depend on many things, such as the values and metrics used by the person making that assessment. Some manifestations of some religions are dangerous — Scientology comes to mind. (It’s “Fair Game” doctrine” has been behind some very vicious, life-destroying actions. Yet, Kirstie Alley and others really seem to have kicked addictions with Scientology.)
There are so many Islams in the world it’s just not intelligible to say that “it” is dangerous. Of course, theocracy is dangerous. And there’s far too much of that in Muslim countries.
I explained why I view most religions as dangerous. I don’t like a system of thought that orders its followers to believe in certain moral rules. I’m aware that there are religions that don’t do this and I’m probably okay with them.
Cole is a CIA idiot.Quoting him as intelligent or correct is a waste of intellect.
This was blowback,pure and simple,but not a tale to MSM liking,as their tale of terror suffers from truth.Yeah,he might have been a self hating homosexual,but that was not the prime directive.
And as far as religious texts,I’ve never seen Christian or Muslim ones that denote their supremacy over the less worthy,as the Talmud does,and its current believers utter.
And yes,many avowed Christians are not Christian in the slightest.
That’s as deranged as a great deal else that you spit out. Including all the antisemitic shit.
Cole has been outed repeatedly as a CIA asset,and for you to defend the pos milquetoast asshole reveals your lack of mental acuity.
Have a nice day.:)
Excellent, excellent knitting of the issues. As always.
First of all it is shameful that LGBT community supports Clinton.
Can LGBT community free itself from identity politics and denounce Hillary the warmonger who creates enemies of US government.
LGBT community must reject generalization of any religion as evil. If they don’t be ready of diving LGBT community and spur internal conflict.
Killer is a killer no mater SLGBT or Muslim/Christian/ Hindu/Buddhist or atheist or cop or teacher.
Those questions are related to brainwashing method and medial propaganda that was use to unleash evil within killer .
A Mickey Mouse club fanatic may be conditioned to kill Donald Duck lovers. Should we arrest corpse of Disney for evil deeds. For other evils deeds yes.
But fact are hidden in the plain sight.
The killer was an American. American! And he did what Americans do well, killing innocent people in mass killings, as well as Saudis or Russian ISIL members.
Why it is so hard to utter in THE media that killer was American, born and raised in these USA for Christ sake.
He was bread and butter American boy and young man. Allegedly he was even an atheist and did not go to church or mosque.
Do we have atheist terrorist conspiracy here? Should we not let atheists in until they accept Christ like in many Islamic states require to accept Muslim prophet.
What about his being employed in British run mercenary army called security company, with 600,000 mercenaries all over the world including 50,000 in the US paid by Dept. of Homeland Security? not interested?
Why sympathizer of ISIL was on DHS payroll running around with guns, three times interrupted by polite inquiry by FBI: Are you a terrorist? No. I am gun lover not a fighter, you dirty infidel. No suspicions there like in case of Boston bombers.
How come at 2 am there was 20 dead and at 5 am 50 just after SWAT moved in with a swarm of bullets?
I would like to see where all those SWAT bullets ended up?
All of that in context of Miami FBI busy to entrap, frame poor, hungry and homeless color people into conducting fake terrorist attacks while lock and load fanatic heavily armed and dangerous maniac was looking for victims undisturbed by FBI.
Is that multi-billion mercenary company pulling string to suppress the investigation with assistance of corrupted politicians?
These are interesting questions we must ask to really know what’s going on.
Russian Isil members?whoa dere.You mean Zionist ISUS members?
What’s more interesting to me are the groups that the poll shows are overwhelmingly supportive–Buddhist, Hindu, atheist and agnostic. What is different about them that makes them more humane? What similarities do they share?
Mr. Greenwald
“………Despite all this data, the standard group of hateful polemicists who literally seem to devote their lives to exploiting every news event to attack Islam wasted no time yesterday — before any facts were known, while the bodies were literally still in the club — squeezing the horrific slaughter in Orlando to depict Muslims as uniquely hateful of LGBTs………”
“……….The opportunity to exploit LGBT suffering to fuel the standard anti-Muslim agenda was far too attractive to resist, no matter how many facts negate it. Try to tell LGBT citizens who grew up in North America, or South America, or Europe, that anti-gay hatred is an exclusive attribute of Islam and the scorn you’ll provoke……..”
“…….Depicting anti-LGBT hatred as the exclusive (or even predominant) province of Islam is not only defamatory toward Muslims but does a massive disservice to the millions of LGBTs who have been — and continue to be — seriously oppressed, targeted, and attacked by people who have nothing to do with Islam…….”
This is all just hype on your part. No one (with half a brain) has said that anti-LGBT animus is “unique” to Islam. That’s ridiculous. Most religions are openly opposed to homosexuality. That goes without say. The areas in the world where homosexual acts are illegal is dominantly in the greater Middle East and Africa – including North Africa which is mostly Muslim. Indeed, the ten countries in the world where homosexuality is a capital crime are Muslim majority countries (Somalia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan). You conveniently left that out of the debate. It is also not just by coincidence that some of the most brutal Islamic campaigns to gain power are also located in these same countries.
You were very quick to point out that Uganda – a Christian country – criminalized homosexuality leading to severe recriminations against LGBT in that country:
“……..That includes Uganda, where they tried to implement the death penalty for homosexuals. The law that was passed, criminalizing homosexuality, has led to severe increases in violent attacks against LGBTs…….”
And you better believe that where the death penalty prevails (i.e., state sanctioned murder) that there are violent reprisals against gay people. And that is 10 Muslim-majority states, Mr. Greenwald. I’m not denying that anti-gay bigotry is prevalent throughout the world, but the most severe mistreatment of the LGBT community is in the greater Middle East and Africa in mostly Muslim majority countries. You can’t pinkwash that.
You also can’t “pink wash” the hard fact that three US “mainstream” presidential candidates attended an Evangelical forum sponsored by US Evangelical advocates of instituting the death penalty against gays–two of them form governors, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee, and one of them a sitting US Senator, Ted Cruz.
Some kind of link on that would be nice
“Some kind of link on that would be nice”
I hear ya, pal. An empty, toasted, bun is still empty.
Perhaps you were meant to be vegetarian.
Your arguments have never had any meat, so …
It seems as though you forgot, perhaps conveniently, about the rampant homophobic killing that take place in South and Central America very frequently. Being openly gay in many parts of Latin America is a good way to get one killed, due to the pervasive culture of machismo that exists. But of course you forgot to mention that because they are Christian.
I appreciate your point, Art. I never indicated or inferred that LGBT hate is confined to Islam. No one can change the perceptions of bigoted individuals. If the killings in South America are church sanctioned, the church officials should be arrested and thrown in jail. However, that is not the same as state sanctioned murder as in the case of the 10 Muslim majority countries that still have capital punishment on the books for gays.
Thanks.
Good lord, it is like watching children argue.
It is no defence to your beating of your wife to point out that your neighbour beats his wife too.
The most dangerous countries in which to be homosexual are Islamic countries, period. South America does NOT come close.
We have ample time to blame machismo latin culture as well. But a smart person (apparently not in abundance here) would PRIORITIZE. Tackle the biggest problems first.
It’s going to be a long hot summer.
How did you know the craig would post a lengthy, heated comment, immediately following your own?
I wonder if Silverlock could actually be Elijah?
Keep slathering lipstick on that pig Glenn…. it may turn into a Yorkie.
To ignore the ever present thread of Islamic terror in attacks across the world is the true exploitation.
Mr Greenwald is so hateful toward Mr. Trump that he would put more Americans at risk, telling us it’s our imagination…
Every day there are new attacks… acid at a train station in Britain.. 5 young boys scarred for LIFE… one blind…. random act by angry Muslim.
On and on and on it goes… and in our zeal to afford ALL people the same rights… ours must be curtailed so we can protect ourselves from Islamists.
So if we want to see REAL exploitation… look at this hit piece by a man whose interests are purely partisan…. he hates Republicans and Donald Trump and he would sacrifice my children, my family, my rights, my privacy… I”m already frisked at the airport because of the RIGHTS of peaceful Muslims.
\
How about this… I’m not having anymore CULTURAL STEW… it’s toxic and dangerous to my health.
ship em OUT>>>.keep em out… and the ones already here? .. shut them up 5 times a day… the noise is making me want to shoot one of them.
Thank you, Mr. Greenwald, for sharing your eloquent and logical thoughts.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
Then tell me again how Islamists are really into helping lgbt.
I guess I’m officially part of the olds now. I say this because of how the facts of the American political landscape have changed in the last 15 years, and right under my nose. Alliances have formed where I would never have expected them.
When I was coming of age and first finding my own opinions, there were but two fonts of unabashedly pro-gay sentiment: gay culture itself, for the obvious reasons of self-expression and liberty, and the irreligious/intellectual crowd, whose arguments worked to undermine Christian confidence in the sin of homosexuality, and whose political leanings tended to prioritize personal freedoms, of which sexual orientation was a front-runner. I still remember chatting with the youth leader of TU’s campus Methodist church, a very groovy dude all around, and telling him that even if the philosophical and scientific objections to Christianity all came to naught- say if the earth really were so young, or if DNA were shown to be made of otherworldly pixie dust- then I would still reject it on moral grounds, as it can’t be the case that a good God would design creatures to love one another in a way that he then declared perverse. I was proud to stand up for those who were sometimes too circumspect to do it themselves and help take potshots at the Christian Right, whenever they suggested or outright averred that the sexual tolerance of the West was responsible for this or that national tragedy, like 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.
Fast-forward to today, where the scene is quite a bit more complicated. Thanks to an originally feminist notion of intersectionality- the coming-together of maximally many types of historically marginalized groups of people under a big tent of oppression- it is now mildly uncouth to draw connections between anti-gay sentiment and religious belief, but only to the extent that the religion in question has a spot under that tent. This is why it is being roundly said at the moment that the Orlando massacre has nothing to do with Islam, but at the same time it is not hard to find a blogger or opinion-maker online who wants to blame the carnage on the Westboro Baptist Church and Christian homophobia somehow.
Part of me is very unsure of just how this uneasy alliance of strange bedfellows will play out; a group whose scripture enjoins the devout to throw sexual deviants off cliffs making common cause with these accidental cliff-divers is an experiment for sure, but maybe it’s no more of an experiment than is the juxtaposition of any other pair of intersectional allies, like gender feminists who insist that gender isn’t innate, and trans persons, many of whom insist that they were born that way. But another part of me wonders whether this isn’t also kind of the point, groups whose very fragmentedness is imagined to be the work of a sinister, oppressive force deliberately trying to divide and conquer them, and with such low odds, the only rational strategy is to try to overlook the divisions in favor of stoking fury at the common foe, insisting back and forth that the enemy of one’s enemy is a friend, and to keep the struggle alive.
Needless to say, all of this makes me wish for a the good old version of progressive politics from 2005, where it was as simple as watching an Evolution versus Creationism debate and knowing where you belong. Things are so much more, well, intersectional now.
Dear People of the word…..
Do you know the truth about….. Islam?
Or do you think it’s about
Bombing planes and killing innocent people…..?
Forget about the lies…..
I’ am here to tell you how it really is…..
You deserve to know the truth
About this beautiful way of life…..
People of the world
Islam is all about peace
Terrorism it doesn’t teach
Its all about love and family and charity
And praying to one God
This is Islam
It’s something you should know…..
I know it’s really helped me grow
It does away with greed, filth, arrogance
And teaches us morality
A perfect way to live…..
So don’t believe all you see and hear
Too many people wear a title of a Muslim…..
But they don’t practice Islam…..
People of the world
Islam is all about peace
Terrorism it doesn’t teach
Its all about love and family and charity
And praying to one God
This is Islam
And it teaches us the creator’s made this life for us a test…..
And if we follow truth and do good deeds, He’ll reward us in the Next…..
If we remember God & teach each other the truth and patience in His way
Together we can live…..in peace…..
This is Islam
Lyrics by Yusuf Islam
Please Google Islamic research foundation and visit the FAQ section for answers to the questions you may have about Islam.
I am sure that you will find that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, justice, kindness, charity, love and worshiping one God.
and buggering small boys…[Germany, France]
and sexual emergencies in swimming pools and dark alleys [Sweden Germany]
and marrying pre pubescent girls [everywhere]
and screaming from the rooftops 5 times a day… to the chagrin of charitable Christian neighbors.
and acid thrown in the face of passengers on trains…. that’s when they can’t get bombs, guns, or box cutters
please add to the list of abominations
ugh…i’m so tired of hearing about Islam and how peaceful it is…despite the fact it seems to produce terrorists and people stuck in ancient backwards thinking.
There is a huge difference between disapproving of certain acts and even calling them immoral, and believing that immoral people should die. You might disapprove of nudity, but you are not calling for killing nudists.
Islam – the ideology – IS the problem. Muhammad gave the open ended command that gay people should die and it is standard Sharia Law.
Mona: “ignoring Craig truly is the best option”
@ DOC HOLLYWOOD — don’t listen to her.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Discussing politics with CraigSummers could lead to support for torture and authoritarianism, belief that war is the best form of diplomacy, drones terrorize the terrorists, and colonialism made the world a better place – and may complicate pregnancy.
Are these really the kinds of things you believe Craig? You sure you belong in the 21st century? Your ideas seem more congruent with the leader of a 15th century Barbarian horde. I’m not sure your brain has evolved for peaceful, civilized living.
That’s the attitude of somebody who is currently on the winning side. These same ideas applied against you and yours, by a more powerful opponent, may not seem as palatable and cool, and edgy.
It’s just a joke Atheist in response to Mona’s perpetual use of “readers alerts” for people who disagree with the propaganda of the Intercept.
Glad to hear it.
Yes, why bash Muslims alone when a blanket condemnation of all religious faiths can be written in blood with the aid of a single PEW poll? After all, the real lesson to be taken away from the PEW pole cited is that all major religious institutions have traditionally harbored a binary concept of gender, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female, that are both grounded in a person’s physical anatomy. Such condemnations seem so much more reasonable when they are dressed up in the cloak of religious tolerance (e.g. the defense of Islam). More generally, post structuralism has now become the leveraged intellectual mean by which the underlying assumptions of many religious and societal norms are now being systematically undermined in exclusive service to a small minority whose idiosyncratic preferences have traditionally resulted in their marginalization. To this end, the reader is presented with a false binary that forces him to choose between the lesser of two evils while accepting as fact that the broader assumption that the aforementioned binary concept of gender itself is fundamentally flawed. Now that the rules of the game have been established, let’s examine the degree to which opinion polls can be trusted to serve such ends.
Since PEW polls are so often deemed to be reliable by the author, let’s review what a 2014 Pew poll revealed when it asked if “Civilian suicide bombings can be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies.”
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/
Clearly a statistically significant percentage of Muslims polled agreed that suicide bombings can be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Although the percentage of Muslims who answered in the affirmative varied from country to country, the broader assumption that Muslim culture itself gives rise to such violent beliefs remains unchallenged as every culture polled revealed a certain degree of religious tolerance for the practice of targeting civilian populations with suicide bombings in defense of the faith.
If, in advancing his defense of Islam, the author chooses to summarily dismiss as patently false the base assumption that Muslim culture itself gives rise to the violent belief that the practice of mortally targeting civilian populations with suicidal actions in defense of the faith is justifiable, then Logic demands that base assumption of the poll cited should also be called into question.
In short, PEW polls are intentionally structured in a way that allow for the uncritical acceptance of radical ideas that, by the very nature of their presentation, are intended surreptitiously undermine traditional adherence to religious and societal norms.
Of course that binary concept of gender is flawed. Realize that and think for a while, and you should understand that the intent of the article is well described in its title, and that your objections to it are primarily in the defense of your defective understanding of people.
Well done mike (AKA Mona). You have deftly avoided the main thrust of my commentary with the intention of not addressing the glaring contradiction in Glenn Greenwald’s logic.
In regard to your claim that the binary concept of gender is flawed… The mere presence of anomalous data in any scientific model does not, in and of itself, negate the theory’s validity and/or applicability. The gender identity of the overwhelming majority of human beings (99 + percent) conform to the aforementioned binary model.
Mona would be surprised to learn that we are the same person. You are a few centuries behind on the meaning of gender. I do not think anybody can give a precise definition yet, but it certainly is not what you think. But never mind; when knowledge and understanding go forward, no matter how roughly, there are always those who continue to claim that the earth is flat.
Actually you have it backwards. When you are dealing with numbers in the billions, small percentages (wrong though yours might be) are significant. Then it is your theory that is invalid.
Hillary Clinton calls for not demonizing Muslims… while she demonizes Republicans.
Trump says he’s not demonizing Muslims… while he demonizes Democrats.
Meanwhile in the reality of targeting and profiling Muslims, Clinton speaks of “broader watch lists” and more bombing, and Trump apparently calls for shoot ’em-ups and even more insulting immigration protocols than enacted by the current deporter-in-chief, who has already ousted more people from the country than any other POTUS (not that many in journalism seem to care).
Perhaps the ones behaving devilishly are actually the encompassing establishment that has put on this puppet show, a show that is guaranteed to push everything further into authoritarianism, corruption, corporatism, imperialism, and obeisance to the military-industrial complex.
You’re not imagining it – it really does look suspiciously like Trump and Clinton are offered as nominees precisely because they are so polarizing, so the American people remain divided and don’t look up to see it’s the ruling class that’s urinating on them and not the guy across the way with a different sign on his lawn.
And Trump conveniently makes Clinton the corporatist warmonger look less sociopathic to her audience, just as Clinton makes Trump the boorish salesman seem less phony to his.
It is not unreasonable to think this is by design, to make *Hillary’s eventual coronation* look somewhat believable. Add to this all the dog-whistle politics and theater (that never threatens the elite), and the circus is on! Remember, Trump and the Clintons are friends, just as George W. Bush and John Kerry were in the same elite secret society. It’s all a scam.
Hating the establishment is manifestly unnecessary and draining, and hardly peaceful. Simply refusing to conform to either side of its puppetry, and aiming now for a systemic, visionary replacement, is positive and optimistic in my opinion. Go for the greater good and not the lesser evil, as Dr. Stein says. And this is not because this is easy, but because it is hard – the system as it is relies on complacency and taking one of two sides of the same coin.
Or maybe because they got the most votes. Of the fifteen or so other Republicans, several were much more acceptable to those who hold power. The democratic establishment has gotten what it wants as it almost always does. So, one for two, and your understanding of it is flawed.
I think you are grasping sander straws.
The reason Obomba deportations are kept on the down low is that the demoncrats would lose minority votes,or at least Latino ones.
Trump and the HB are polar opposites,He is an American nationalist,and she is a globalist ziowhore.
Yes,they know each other,but when he said that bit about going to her parties as a form of payback,he crossed her line of hypocrisy and is now not on the guest list.
Everyone says he has great balls of fire!
hey Glenn,
Your insights are like a breath of fresh air.
i love you bro!
Islam must be demonized. Christianity must be demonized. Judaism must be demonized. Hatred of LGBT people only comes from religion. Always. Every time. Stop defending religious beliefs, Glenn. You know better.
Ultimately, demonizing is hating. “Hate someone else to stop the hate!” is absurd, but it’s what you’re saying. It seems a popular view, though, from just about every perspective or platform, left, right, whatever…
Religion is a state of mind, not a individual or group of individuals. Religion should be demonized, just as much as Nazism is rightfully demonized.
Religion is discriminatory, trying to convince its followers they are better persons then non-followers. In fact, religion demonize unbelievers, and have been responsible for massive loss of life throughout the ages.
“Hatred of LGBT people only comes from religion. Always.”
I’m not so sure. If you look at the history of homosexuality, it used to be categorized along with paraphilias, before the political movement. And there are plenty of those disorders that are frowned upon regardless of what any holy book or preacher says. Now, you could argue that social changes have made homosexuality less deviant, and thus less pathological, but otherwise it’s like the others there. Of course, I’m not saying that just because something is considered a mental illness it’s evil or that every attraction is a disorder, my point was just that enforcement of social norms isn’t strictly a religious thing.
I know you are upset and have good reason to be–I recognize that and I have my days, too–but when you read what Greenwald has written, it may surprise you a little because overall religious people have become more accepting of homosexuality in bigger percentages than would be expected. It surprised me. Also: “Both China and Russia are overwhelmingly non-religious and also vehemently anti-gay.” (from above)
Religion, like weapons should not be put in the hands of the foolish or demented because they will always find a foolish and demented way to use them.
Maybe the link isn’t causal… the more likely someone is to believe a religion the more likely they are to believe in non-substantiated facts, thus the more likely they are to believe that LGBT people are bad. I don’t know if the root problem is that people have religion, but it seems more likely that people just don’t think critically and logically, leading to anti-LGBT mindsets. You could take away religion, but I’m not sure it would take away people who hate people who aren’t like them.
However, it would be important to note that nobody (outside of russia and china) is being indoctrinated by the Kremlin or Chinese government (non-religious power structures) to hate LGBT people.
I could use the same argument in the reverse. Those who focus on the facts and think critically and logically have never had experiences that can’t be substantiated by scientists or the facts. They live in a small world. A great big world outside of “the facts” exists.
It can limit the person to the Age of Reason, which is becoming passe´–and leaving us like all “ages” do. And if a person who solely relies on the facts has allowed no other experiences in their life, such as the siddhi powers that some spiritual people exhibit or a million other things, then they are devoid of any such experiences; they are ignorant of a whole other world.
Scientific and historic facts are constantly being disproven. The laws of physics and nature, cause and effect, magnetism, and the rhythm of the tides are constant, however, but not all types of science is constant–a difference exists
Scientists who are on cutting edges, and who understand most things the average person doesn’t get and that not everything can be explained factually as it limits one’s world if one doesn’t include the non-factual. DNA was discovered through creative imagination and play.
Fifty years ago scientists did chemical experiments where they found energy was lost and couldn’t be accounted for (energy being neither created nor destroyed in chemical conversions)–and they were asking themselves if there were other dimensions. Many spiritual people have known about other dimensions since before the beginning of time.
Einstein believed in God (he knew the universe was vast and yet oddly ordered, just not always on human terms), just not a personal God (I incline more that way, but each to his own), and I’ve experienced spiritual siddhi powers from others, and many other things–some people become frightened by it, others can’t embrace it because of their limited view. So much else is out there than what many limited minds can comprehend at this point in time. Hopefully that is evolving into a new age.
Fact: Atheism makes it impossible to commit heinous acts. There was never an atheist who murdered people throughout history. Once you lose religion, you become a humanist overnight. When has an atheist EVER taken a life or been inhumane? Never. Religion makes you either a murderer or an accomplice. Bob Davis all the way.
obviously you are not that informed. Have you ever heard of Stalin? Responsible for the death of millions of people. He was an atheist. What about Mao? Same deal. They may not have been on the same level as Hitler, but they certainly committed evil acts.
Where does it come from in Russia and China Bob (As CEK has also noted)?
I think, like most hatreds, it comes from politics and demagogues. If I have political ambition and I’m Joseph McCarthy, I’ll galvanize people against the godless communists. If I’m Pat Robertson, and I need a little more money for my African diamond investments, I’ll demonize Gays. If I’m Donald Trump, I’ll demonize Muslims. If I’m David Duke, I’ll demonize Jews. It’s all in the politics Bob. And it’s all a matter of how bad a demagogue, against what group, society is willing to accept.
And I think, Glenn’s point about religious people in general, becoming more accepting of Gays, perfectly refutes, that it’s just religion alone that’s the culprit. It’s society. It’s politics. It’s demagogues. It’s all of us who put up with this shit, that’s to blame.
Hatred is a reflection of the lower self.
Here’s ibn Arabi:
This should be our striving regardless of our religious or non-religious path.
So he was a possibly gay, allegedly wife-beating Muslim Democrat and ex-G4S security worker with a mental imbalance unnoticed by several tests? Well, this certainly is a cut-and-dried case for expanding oppressive actions by the government! Consulting either Hillary or Donald about this just adds insult to injury. The community has suffered enough without having to listen to either of them try to appear wise.
Reposted from the thread under Trevor’s original post, because that one is growing stale:
= = = = =
I can’t say I’m pleased to discover that others are beginning to raise the same questions about police response as I have, but I’m at least a little relieved:
i heard the firing of the guns when the police made entry. I say there must have been a thousand rounds. I cannot imagine such a barrage would not hit a lot of people directly or by ricochet.
Well, as I’ve been saying from the beginning, (and raising little interest or response), if the story we are being told is accurate, of of two think most likely happened:
(a) Most of the victims were shot in the short time surrounding the initial encounter with police outside the club — three officers who didn’t pursue the suspect.
(b) Most of the victims were shot during the raid three hours later, in which case it’s hard to believe that 100 people were shot by a single gunman, while he was under assault by a SWAT team. So autopsies, ballistics and identification of the rounds that hit the victims will be revealing, if we are given that information.
if we are given that information.
makes sense to me.
and i hear his ex/wife drove him to case a place.
@Doug S. –
You’re not the only one wondering about the police response. I posted questions about it — maybe on Trevor’s thread – I’m not sure.
Do try to keep us informed. It would be nice to make SOME sense of what happened and right now I have more questions than anything.
Here’s an honest question Glenn, how many have to die until you change your mind?
I am not sure how to put this point of tragic irony in context. But on another forum a poster asked what modern day day Muslim dominate country can a person come out openly as gay. Don’t know why, but I started searching on how gay people were treated during Saddam’s regime versus our liberated and democratic allies in Iraq. I came up with this (not an extensive search):
“A new report by the BBC looks at the “deteriorating conditions for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people” in Iraq. In fact, all the LGBT Iraqis the team interviewed said that “life was easier for them when Saddam Hussein was in power, from 1979 to 2003. Some spoke fondly of an underground gay culture that flourished before the war in Baghdad.” Recent stories of violence include an Iraqi LGBT leader being gunned down and Iraqi militias gluing anuses of gay men and inducing diarrhea to cause death. “Homosexuality was generally tolerated under Saddam,” Hali, founder of Iraqi LGBT, said in 2007, adding, “Life in Iraq now is hell for all LGBT people; no one can be openly gay and alive.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/06/49426/iraq-gays-better/
It seems that the Assad regime from what I can tell while not in any way gay-tolerate, is not even close to the genocidal war ISIS and our Iraq allies are engaged in against gay people.
I guess one can note that the secular tyranny’s we destroyed seemed to be some of the most tolerant of gays (another groups also–Assad and Saddam’s protection of Christians, and with Kaddafi protection of Black African migrant workers from what I read).
Maybe the irony is that we complain about Muslim hatred toward gays, and yet the US has supported and even created and armed those groups. Obama (and Hillary) will condemn ISIS yet were not concerned that in taking down Assad, ISIS (or Nusrat Front) would fill the vacuum and bring their horrors with them. (I think Obama and the neocons are under that delusion that the Saudis can control ISIS if they take over Syria.)
Of course Saddam was a gay icon. I mean look at that mustache. Sure he enacted the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, prostitution, but he didn’t mean it… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Iraq#Ba.27athist_era
Thank god the Bush invasion stopped the oppression.
The results of intentional destruction of Muslim and Arab society are ongoing and will continue interminably until all are afforded the same level of security from harm.
And America is increasingly at risk from harm.
Yankee come home.
I think Glenn defends Islam to the point where he leaves out that the 10 countries in the world that support the death penalty for homosexuality are Muslim majority. I can’t imagine leaving out such an important statistic when it comes to LGBT rights. – CraigSummers
The post lightly edited for accuracy:
“I am so bigoted against “brownies” – yes, I have really used that racial slur against Muslims – that I leave out the really important statistic in my claim: the 10 countries with a death penalty for homosexuality aren’t functioning democracies representatively elected from their Muslim majorities. I can’t imagine an honest person leaving out such an important fact.”
Well, Glenn, this is a great article in many ways. It was well researched and documented. And that video of the social experiment where the fellows got folks to think Bible verses weren’t was a great vid.
As a human, it pains me to see other humans demonized and used violence against. Why don’t we turn away from this?
As a Christian it pains me to hear of pastors bashing LGBT people. Didn’t Jesus preach something called LOVE??? It’s not just Evangelicals finding such issues problematic. My own Episcopal Church is under sanction by the Worldwide Anglican Communion over its stance allowing same-sex marriages and trying to fully integrate LGBT folks into Church life. Our Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Curry, said that the sanction was painful news indeed. BTW, Bishop Curry is our first African-American Presiding Bishop!
Anyway, we need to find ways to bring folks out of such bigotry:
http://observergal.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-path-of-love.html
Whenever I see someone throw this line out in support of “unconditional” love, I realize that they haven’t got a clue what Christianity is all about. Ask yourself these simple questions:
1. If Christ intended that we love everyone for who they are, then why did he encourage Mary Magdalene et al to “sin no more”?
2. Why did Christ say, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
3. Why did Christ identify himself as the fulfillment of Judaic law (as espoused by Moses et al).
Christ, like other great religious figures, understood that the most subtle aspects of the human psyche could only be sensed by those who possess the presence of mind to perceive them. From a Christian perspective, sin is defined as any thought or action that, by its very nature, dispossesses man of his presence of mind. Another way of saying the same thing is: Conscience can only inform ones actions if one has the presence of mind to sense its stirrings. The bible says, “Be still and know that I am God.” Apropos of the foregoing, Judeo-Christian tradition understands that “the law” embodies the moral aspects of the Creator’s nature. Thus it is believed that those who successfully endeavor to keep God’s law are doing his will. If, in keeping the law, one learns to refrain from engaging in behaviors that cloud conscious awareness of the present moment, then that individual is understood to be righteous as the will of the Creator is informing his actions in each moment of time.
All major religious traditions understand that stillness of mind is a necessary precondition to recognizing that which is omnipresent and eternal in the human psyche (see: samadhi and/or turiya). It is in this context that the ritual of baptism can be understood to be the complete immersion of ones conscious awareness in the eternal which results in pure serenity of beingness (eternal bliss).
Go away, troll, shoooo!
Well that’s not very Christian of you sister…
Some mainstream sources — generally credible on this sort of thing — are reporting that Omar Mateen had same-sex attractions, and went to gay bars many times.
@Mona –
Couldn’t get the link to work. Anyone else have success or has anyone else had a problem.
Would be interested to check it out…
Oops.
Yes. For those who haven’t followed it, the link is to a Palm Beach Post story. The PBP is, indeed, a generally reliable and careful outlet and would be extremely unlikely to publish potentially explosive material like this without careful fact checking and source vetting.
And the PBP in turn links to this in the LA Times: Orlando gunman had used gay dating app and visited LGBT nightclub on other occasions, witnesses say
When I said, at the beginning of this horror show, that heads full of preconceived notions were going to be exploding all over the place, I didn’t know the half of it.
From the linked LA Times piece:
Emphasis mine.
If LA times says it,doesn’t mean its true,or even close to truth.A given from serial liars.
These violently opposed groups;The ones that work for US vs the ones that work for the Saudis,but all trying for the same regime change.
Funny dat.
Possible self hating gay?Yeah,but it still is blowback,despite MSM obfuscation because it helps Trump and doesn’t fit their narrative.
Thanks! That was quite an interesting article.
Thanks also to Doug S. – will have to check out that link next.
Well, well, well… it turns out that Omar Mateen’s alleged murderous actions were not fueled by homophobia after all… a spurned lover perhaps?
Thank you for the article.
Oh and nice try liberal white trash. White Christians make up more of the total population, so you screw proportionality when your statistics as your kind usually does (because we all know what race and religion you REALLY only have beef with).
Ah liberal white trash only care about attacks of gay people if it’s a “white christian.” And then we hear all talks about “systemic homophobia” and “tackling homophobia in Christian groups” and “making links between the general mainstream Christian views with gays.” As soon as it’s a (non-white because it has to deal really with race) Muslim then it’s “don’t judge all Muslims by a few” and “don’t perpetuate Islamophobia” and “don’t stigmatize all Muslims as gay haters.”
Not everyone is a gay fan. Some are. Some aren’t. But the whitewashing and mental gymnastics based upon what (race) religion is in question is so cringe worthy to watch, it isn’t even funny. Simply put, you’re a loser.
Glenn Greenwald makes the strongest case yet that RELIGION is a problem. Congratulations. Sam Harris finally convinced you
Then how do you explain this? Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque – WFTV 9 Orlando Report – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ
Elsewhere, I’ve stated that many traditional Muslim scholars have dug a lot of holes over the past 1400 years, and this is one of the huge ones.
These holes are primarily in those parts of the Shariah that deal with certain laws and punishments, called Hudud.
(Shariah includes the outer forms and methods of spiritual rituals, and many other things, while the laws that are often criticized constitute a small portion)
Many traditional Muslims, based on this opinions of traditional scholars of the past and present, do believe that homosexuals must be killled.
Needless to say that I’m horrified at this idiot, and I’m glad that Islam, as understood by most traditional Muslims, is being criticized for this, and that there are those Muslims who are challenging the authenticity of these views.
It’s high time there’s a debate on the issues of LGBT and Islam.
Hopefully, it’ll be done in a scholarly and sober manner.
Glenn,
the reason for the relatively tolerant views of the US Muslim population is because the US Muslim population is tiny. Muslims comprise just less than 1% of the population, and many are relatively recent African American converts, some of whom have roots in America going back over a hundred years. The rest are immigrants and their descendants, with the immigration rate of 100,000 Muslims per year being a very small addition to the over 300 million residents of America.
The point here is that the relatively small numbers prevent large concentrations of Muslim immigrants—Muslim enclaves, if you will—from accumulating, and with them, the regressive ideas from their cultures gaining a hold. They are forced to integrate in society.
An interesting contrast here is Britain, a country with somewhat similar cultural values to America. However, in Britain, the open immigration policy has resulted in over 5% of the population being Muslim. More seriously, there are a number of cities where the Muslim population exceeds 10%, with some neighborhoods and towns being nearly totally Muslim. This is where you find the Anjem Choudry’s of the world, and where it is not safe to walk if you are a Jew or a woman dressed in “revealing” Western clothing.
Compared to the sunny opinion polls you present, in Britain, a recent 2016 ICM poll revealed that more than half of British Muslims feel that homosexuality should be illegal, with a 2009 Gallup poll showing not a _single_ British Muslim thought homosexuality was “morally acceptable” in a sample of over 500. This is especially interesting in that less than 5% of the British public in general believes homosexuality to be immoral, far more tolerant than in America.
In short, a recipe for an integrated, tolerant, Muslim community in a Western country is a careful restriction and control of Muslim immigration. One of the lessons of the European experiment is that the multicultural approach has mostly been a failure, particularly when it comes to Muslims. The migrant crisis will exacerbate these issues, with the horrid sex attacks in Germany and their censorship showing a particularly cynical side of the technocratic elite.
Looking at this from America, personally, I’m just happy the Atlantic is much wider than the Mediterranean.
“Glenn,
the reason for the relatively tolerant views of the US Muslim population is because the US Muslim population is tiny.”
——-
Let’s leave open the possibility that a religion is what human beings believe and live, and that, through interactions with the non Muslims, these Muslims have managed to figure out an interpretation of Islam that is very accepting and loving towards the non Muslims, without having to disavow their religion’s primary source.
Ask Shaykh Google about the doctrine of transcendent unity of religions and see what a few Muslim scholars have said.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
Also, look up Shaykh Kabir Helminski.
Haha, Glenn using LGBT and liberal Muslims to further his agenda, but Murtaza Hussein had no problem calling Maajid Nawaz a “porch monkey”.
I’m so glad this shit isn’t flying anymore, even on the left.
What’s Glenn’s agenda? I know you Sam Harris bots get your information from sources in other dimensions, but try to write a sentence with gleanable information.
He has a well-intentioned but stupid belief that any criticism of religion is criticism of the practitioners of religion; that because neo-cons will mention illiberalism in the Middle East, anyone discussing these issues is inherently a neo-con; that the solution is to convince ourselves Islamism isn’t really that bad. Again, I’m willing to buy his intentions are pure, but the result is a conversation which ignores the obviousness of religious influence in religious violence, to attribute everything to PURELY various awful western foreign policy decisions when it’s usually part of a much larger puzzle, turns left-wing writers like Charlie Hebdo into far-right fascists by virtue of not being the right kind of secularist (save me the “they’re racist!!” spiel, read it 50 times by now), and the end result is a completely incoherent conversation from the left about the beauty of the hijab and the irrelevance of Islam to radical Islamist violence. Even a moron can see through this. Toss in some old fashioned xenophobia and lies, you’ve created an opening for demogogues like Trump (or Milo) to fill in the void, given credibility by their willingness to point out the obvious.
I don’t care about Harris too much tbh, though I do quite like Maajid Nawaz.
Okay, so maybe I’m wrong to call you a Harrisbot. Personally, I don’t know anything about Nawaz, other than he is in the Harris camp. I lost all interest in him when I found that out.
Glenn does not believe that criticism of religion means criticism of the adherents. But a lot of atheists don’t seem to have a clear understanding of “religious violence,” when they throw that term around. According to Harris, Palestinian violence is “religious violence.” And that’s horseshit.
Harris loves talking about how great the Jains are. Why don’t you go to a village full of Jains, and kick them out of their homes and kill their children, because your god told you their village belongs to you, and let’s see how you like Jains. Most violence in the world is about property, whether it’s land, oil, water or any other resource. And to summon up a defense to outside violence, one can resort to ancestry, tradition, religion, nationalism, or whatever suits the purposes of resistance. The Sam Harris acolytes, divorce the politics of the violence and blame religion as the call to arms. It’s an uninformed world view. And all Glenn does is try to inform the context. The idea that Glenn defends Islam or any religion is crazy. It’s an incomplete understanding of what he writes about.
Atheist
I think Glenn defends Islam to the point where he leaves out that the 10 countries in the world that support the death penalty for homosexuality are Muslim majority. I can’t imagine leaving out such an important statistic when it comes to LGBT rights.
Why is that relevant information in an article about whether this particular event was an act of Islamic terrorism, or the views of Islam on homosexuality?
This was an act of homophobia, just like many other acts of homophobia carried out by all sorts of religions and ideologies. That was the point of this article.
There is a lot worse information about homophobia in Islam, than the 10 countries that you’re so interested in. This article is not about that.
“…….This was an act of homophobia, just like many other acts of homophobia carried out by all sorts of religions and ideologies. That was the point of this article……”
I diagree to a certain extent, atheist. In my opinion, this article is really about claiming Islam is no different than any other religion toward LGBT. Most religions oppose homosexuality. That’s obvious. Greenwald pointedly used Uganda as an argument about Christian attitudes towards LGBT (and how the reaction to making homosexuality illegal caused an upsurge in violence) and he also linked to Muslim attitudes toward LGBT in polls collected across the Middle East. I just pointed out that the only 10 countries in the world where LGBT is a capital crime is in Muslim majority countries. That’s all.
I agree that this was likely a hate crime and an act of terror i.e., there was a political component to the murder by Mateen.
I think Craig defends the Holocaust to the point where the world is held at (gun point ) imprisonment, violence, silence, and BDS when trying to get to the truth of it all. Yes, land theft of Palestine, condoning murder of children and their mothers, fathers, and their elders to meet their ends of total genocide by his zionist invaders. I can’t imagine leaving out such an important statistic when it comes to Palestinian rights and the rights of the world citizens to search out and demand the truth. Truth does not demand silence but liberates and causes light to shine on the lies that have been twisted like a wicker chair to meet the agenda of its liars…that uses hatred, racism, violence and every kind of in-your-face-excuse to keep the wheels of destruction rolling. The zionists are the anit-semites who exploited Jews in WWII and used treachery and extortion to fulfill their plots for domination in a land that was living in peace. They have perfected the agenda of the Father of Propaganda, Edward Bernays, by using and abusing the power of repetitive shame, corporate gain, political power, domestic Law, control of the ME (by constantly using Islam as their imagined enemy), pinkwashing…and the list is endless. It will take the Jews of Conscience to bring it all down…as they are also the targets of the bigger picture…again. And as for the Christians who go along with all of this, using the Book to further ‘their’ zionist reasonings and demands…are also the white washed tombs that speak out hypocrisy. From the Roman Empire up to this day they continue. Haters of peace and the Prince of Peace. Haters of humanity and the Prince of Humanity. Haters and Exploiters of the earth and all that is in it.
Actually, this “shit” is spreading. Many, many LGBT leaders, people and allies poured out after the Orlando atrocity to condemn Islamophobia.
LGBT opposition to pinkwashing has never been more robust.
How about in the 10 countries where homosexuality is still punishable by death? All these countries are dominantly Muslim. Are you going to “pinkwash” their support for gay rights, Mona?
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/18/brazil-is-engulfed-by-ruling-class-corruption-and-a-dangerous-subversion-of-democracy/?comments=1#comment-212423
All tragedies bring out an attempt to support agendas unrelated. This is no different. The Muslim faith is being wrongly blamed for this evil act by Trump and others to cause fear of Muslims. The Administration and Clinton are using this time to blame all guns for the misuse of one. Both strategies are stupid and should fail.
I don’t want by any means minimise the scale of this horror nor deny that homophobia is a rampant plague in our societies, driven mainly by primitive religious beliefs all round (plenty in the Quran but also plenty in the Bible, by the way: e.g. “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” Lev. 20:13), nor deny that all kind of religious fundamentalism is barbaric.
But is the homophobia/religion link the core thing behind the Orlando tragedy, or is the scale of the massacre dictating our approach to the nature of it? And same about those who are now using this to fuel the anti-Islam hate speech: what about the white guy in LA who was about to do the same, the only difference being that we was caught before he could act? Conveniently put on the side and forgotten?
This man in Orlando was completely unstable mentally: to empower his insane self he pledged alliance to all kind of disconnected extremist groups, in total pathological self-delusion. Yesterday his madness decided that he was to target LGBT; in his state I tend to think that this insane nutter on another day could have as easily gone for any other target of choice.
Also, had this guy – driven by the same madness – accessed the club and knifed two people before being outpowered and arrested, we would know nothing about it and he would be classified as another mentally ill person in the nth accident of this kind, whose combination of insanity and background drove him to do what he did, homophobia being a complementary factor.
To what extent can we really attach a targeted ideological drive to a mad person? I feel homophobia has to do with this tragedy as much as IS had to do with Mon Monis in the Sydney siege or killing kids has to do with the Sandy Hook shooting. What makes once again the difference to the ultimate scale of the event is the fact that totally insane people are given access to powerful military weaponry, and that to me is the core of the matter.
Once you allow mad people and their mad delusions (be that Islamic/Christian/any fundamentalism, homophobia, racism, etc.) to have access to automatic guns the way the US does, then anyone – regardless – becomes a potential target of mass shootings.
Of course there is a lot to be said about terrorism, religious extremism, ISIS, widespread institutional homophobia and continuing religious influence to secularity in the 21st century, etc. but for me that’s not the matter on the table here.
Mr. Greenwald
“…….Never mind that the suspect, Omar Mateen, showed no signs of religious fanaticism, was (according to numerous close sources) suffering from mental illness, had a history of wife-beating, worked for a major defense/mercenary contractor, had no known connection to extremist groups until his 911 call citing ISIS, and was obsessed with joining the NYPD…….”
This is just more classic ludicrous Intercept reporting, Mr Greenwald. No one whitewashes the crimes of radical Islam quite like you. It is either the fault of the west, the terrorist is mentally ill, or he is mentally deficient (the hapless Muslim defense). It seems to make little difference to you that homosexuality is still punishable by death in 10 countries in the world – all Muslim majority. It doesn’t seem to matter that Ahmadinejad at Columbia University denied there were any homosexuals in Iran at all. They must have hung the last two in 2005. Most religions oppose homosexuality but Islam is by far the worst.
At any rate, your statistics are deceptive and incomplete. You broke out evangelicals (fundamentalist Christians) from other Christians, but not for Muslims. You did not break out which members of any particular religion supported the death penalty for homosexuals. No one is denying that many Muslims accept homosexuality, but fundamentalists (like the Muslim Brotherhood) oppose gays far more strongly than other Muslims just as fundamentalist Christians oppose gays far more strongly than other Christians. The (fundamentalist) Muslim Brotherhood was elected to power in Egypt by a majority of the people. What does that say about support for the LGBT community in Egypt? Saudi Arabia still has the death penalty for gays among the many human rights issues in that country. In other words, your statistics are completely meaningless.
Additionally, this is the fourth article from the Intercept covering the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack that the massacre is not reported as a terrorist attack even though the terrorist pledged his allegiance to the Islamic state. That gives the murders a political element. It seems that you are pulling the “hapless” Muslim defense for Mr. Mateen ignoring other lines of evidence for political purposes. Domestic violence is irrelevant (although certainly well known in misogynistic Islamic majority countries). Was Mateen radicalized? According to the Jerusalem Post (today);
“……..RIYADH – Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people in a gun attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and 2012…..” Saudi Interior Ministry security spokesman Major General Mansour Turki said on Monday……He said Mateen performed the umrah Islamic pilgrimage for 10 days in March 2011, and eight days the following March……”
Omar might have been more dedicated to Islam than you know. In addition, the Daily Mail reported that his dad is pro-Taliban:
“…..In videos posted online, he has expressed gratitude toward the Afghan Taliban, while denouncing the Pakistani government……..And in another, according to the Washington Post, he tells the camera: ‘Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up. Inshallah the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.’……..”
Under the Taliban, homosexuality was a capital crime. In fact, Omar was likely radicalized. He may have become vehemently anti-gay at home. Quit making excuses for radical Islamic terrorists and Islamic mistreatment (slaughter) of gays, Mr. Greenwald.
That’s a pretty horrible accusation to make about someone providing needed and rare perspective on an event that already has Trump bombasting about prejudicial violence and Clinton threatening calculatedly to increase bombing overseas and expand the surveillance state. The establishment is using this to ramp up fearful trust for Big Brother/Sister and distrust of (non- Saudi) Muslims, overtly in the GOP and covertly in the Democrats, and this joint attempt needs derailing.
(It should be noted that Bernie Sanders, far from joining the Green Party and opting for peace, has also called for more bombing. His foreign policy was always ill-defined, as though he was going to do pretty much what Obama’s doing – which is bad enough – and obviously he just isn’t thinking. He doesn’t support the death penalty, but he would drone Muslim ‘suspects’ and those nearby to death, just like Obama and Clinton, further poking the hornets’ nest like a buffoon.)
Hi Maise
I have been posing opposite of Mona for several years. She says that “good” below the line posters are leaving this site because of me. There have been some good conservative posters here but they have been run off by abusive posters on this site. I refuse to leave. That upsets her (and a few others).
Mona is the former law partner to Greenwald so she has a special place on this site. She has had several posters banned – all opposing her point of view. Anyone who agrees with her are free to post without interference. Who really is the authoritarian in action?
This was obviously a canned post by Mona because I never mentioned the “radical left” or Israel in my initial post. In addition, I supported torture after 911 as written by John Yoo and I embraced torture only to save lives. Mona fears my point of view like the plague which is why she wants me off of this site. It won’t happen. There is far too much anti-Americanism and opposition to Israel to an obsession for me to leave. I enjoy posting here too much to leave anytime soon.
Good luck to you.
I understand that Mona gets under your skin. But if there was any truth to this assertion, you’d be banned by now.
How come you can’t just make an argument. Instead of challenging assertions, you come back in every post, about how Glenn is writing this or that, and not mentioning the evils of those other people. Why can’t you just challenge him on what he writes? Did you have to go to a special school to learn this bullshit tactic. And it’s not even a very effective or compelling tactic. Paper fucking thin.
@ Craig
Nobody here “fears your point of view” but many of us despise it and will continue to argue against it.
But what we really dislike is your inability to learn even the basics of comment section formatting. It makes your otherwise insipid posts unreadable and its a sign of incredible disrespect to a commenting community i.e. why should anyone take the opinion of someone seriously who a) never links to his sources for his purported factual assertions, b) isn’t even smart enough to do a simple Google search and learn how to blockquote (which has also been explained to him by other commenters), c) even when his “point of view” is thoroughly demonstrated to be garbage with factual links to source materials and demonstrations of your logical/reasoning fallacies, and d) whose almost singular go to argument on any topic involves the logical fallacy of “whataboutery”.
Nobody here is afraid of you or your point of view (which is largely going to die out in the next two generations). We are annoyed by inane points of view that are poorly argued, factually unsupported and unproved, logically incoherent, and could be manufactured by the average high school kid with a decent GPA.
You’re about as dangerous or scary as navel lint.
I think I did answer the basic idea of the article, atheist. And generally speaking, there are two sides to almost every story. We only hear one from Glenn, in general. I distrust what he writes because he is so politically motivated – but he is an exceptional outside the box writer. You can agree, disagree or just refrain from commenting on my posts, but I’m comfortable with what I write (of course, I have written some things – and wonder what I was thinking!).
Thanks.
Agreed about Bernie Sanders. He’s better on foreign policy than Hillary, but then so would be Genghis Khan.
Yay, Mona!!!
Regulars from the early days of Glenn’s writings and, hopefully, many others reading would or should be familiar with Jaime Omar Yassin (aka, oomex) who has been writing under the handle of Hyphenated Republic. Here he writes an enlightening, and pretty much scathing, history of a Sanders that many are either ignoring or not quite seeing. Don’t worry, he sure as hell has a few words to add about the gross Hillary Clinton before launching into his information about Sanders.
I’m excerpting only the bit about Clinton here. Please read the rest at the link.
Pointless Article About Bernie Sanders
Do not know why the link did not work:
https://hyphenatedrepublic.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/a-pointless-article-about-bernie-sanders/
Oomex;Smart guy with too many internal conflicts.
Yes,Sanders and Gabbard have defects,both caused by ethnic ties.
Mutts make better people.:)
Exactly correct. However, some of my best friends here are fervent Berniebots and just cannot stand to read this truth without challenging its validity or making endless and contorted excuses for Sanders’ support for empire, the arms race, extrajudicial killing and wars started or expanded by “liberals.”
So, heads up, Maisie. ;^)
“……Clinton threatening calculatedly to increase bombing overseas and expand the surveillance state…..”
The increased use of drones is a good idea, but terrorism naturally leads to an expansion of the surveillance state (and not just at home). That is always going to happen because a President does not want a successful terrorist attack on his/her watch. People support this anyway And of course, refugees and immigrants from North Africa and the greater Middle East ensures expansion of surveillance.
Thanks.
” That is always going to happen because a President does not want a successful terrorist attack on his/her watch.”
Perhaps you were in diapers when Dick Cheney was running the show?
Craig has said he’s voting for Donald Trump. His history in Glenn’s comment space has revealed him to be a deeply depraved authoritarian, who defends torture, and embraces it as an affirmative good. He has no use for the U.S. Fourth Amendment, and there is nothing the government can claim the right to do in violation of it that he will not defend.
Craig, like most Zionists, defines “radical left” to mean anyone who insists on documenting the gross human rights violations of the United States and Israel. Such people could be laissez-faire free market fundamentalists, and in CraigWorld, they are either Nazis or “leftists.”
He’s beyond reason, and I highly recommend not replying to him. Doing so only induces him to post more fallacy-laden screeds and accusations. Along with his constant whataboutery, often entailing lists of all the incidents and issues this site’s journalists do not write about.
Everyone is obviously free to do as they please, but ignoring Craig truly is the best option.
Okay, thanks. It just seemed like a horrible thing for him to say. I trust your opinion since you are a remarkably well-read and (ferociously) articulate thinker; craigsummers sounds rational (if opinionated) in his tone to me, but if as you say he’s not going to listen to other perspectives, there’s no point annoying other readers with pointless discourse.
I think you just made me blush. Thanks.
I used to constantly reply to Craig. But then there accumulated quit a few other readers who were seriously pissed at me for doing so. Eventually, I listened, got it, and adjusted my commenting habits accordingly.
Just a suggestion of why I thing Greenwald is disingenuous, did he mention anywhere in his article that 10 countries treat homosexuality with the death penalty – and all are Muslim majority countries? That is the way he approaches journalism – like he is a lawyer before the Supreme Court. He provides facts only to back his political point of view.
Thanks.
Hey maybe you’re both right. Islam causes hatred of homosexuals. Islam is no worse than Christianity. They’re both contagious parasitic nonsense, i.e. religion.
Of course, the real cause of terrorism is a lack of other forms of political empowerment, like, for example, BDS. Terror is the weapon of the weak. But it doesn’t work, because it only makes society more oppressive of minorities and individualism.
jdawg
Christianity and Islam are not the same although they are both religions. Think of the only 10 countries in the world that still treat homosexuality with the death penalty. It is one thing to oppose homosexuality, it’s another to invoke the death penalty like Iran in 2005.
Excellent summation of the article. I am surprised that Grernwald wtote this somewhat Guardian type long narrative.
Thanks.
The usual bigots are out in force with their bigotry on display.
No matter what the topic is, they have no respect for anything other than their own bigoted view. What is about zealots?!
We need some bigotry spray…
Does the Quran have any particular comments on homosexuality, or does it just fall back to the Torah and cultural practices? (The Christian New Testament has about two sentences, one of which is just St. Paul complaining about how the world is going to the dogs, and the other is about how a whole bunch of different sinners are going to hell, including fornicators, poisoners, etc., and it’s balanced by Jesus’s defense of the woman accused of adultery, telling the people who condemn her that they can only throw the first stone if they themselves aren’t sinners.)
Why not utilise Google and search primary sources such as the quaran for an objective and balanced opinion, rather than relying on others to give their interpretation? As others have stated, there are some candid and noteworthy mentions:
Quran (7:80-84) – “…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)” – An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the “rain of stones” on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people’s destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and29).
Quran (7:81) – “Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?” This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being “among great sins.”
Quran (26:165-166) – “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, “And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing”
Quran (4:16) – “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone” This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word “men” and simply says “two from among you.” Yusuf Ali may have added the word “men” because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as “your women”). In other words, since 4:15 refers to “your women”, 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men.
Interestingly, the same rules don’t seem to apply in paradise, where martyrs for the cause of Allah enjoy an orgy of virgins and “perpetual youth” Quran (56:17) (otherwise known as “boys” Quran (52:24)). Quran (76:19) bluntly states, “And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls,(56:23).
Generally speaking, traditional Muslim scholars have dug a lot of holes over the past 1400 years.
Thankfully, they are now being challenged by a minority of Muslims, and they are doing it without altering the living text of the Quran.
“Why not utilise Google and search primary sources such as the quaran for an objective and balanced opinion, …”
——
Yup, the most eminent scholar of our time is none other than Shaykh Google!
One must acquire knowledge, as opposed to mere information, at his feet.
He can answer complex questions in less than 0.0541 second.
DemocracyNow! interviewed a homosexual Imam, Daayiee Abdullah, today who said the text of the Quran is not anti-homosexual and all the anti-homosexual interpretations come from the cultural influences in the same way that the Bible is not explicitly anti-homosexual but cultural bias is used to interpret it as anti-homosexual.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/13/openly_gay_muslim_imam_reacts_to
Isn’t Afghanistan a Muslim country?
Why is homosexuality a crime but grown men making sex slaves of little boys is okay?:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/an-afghan-tragedy-the-pashtun-practice-of-having-sex-with-young-boys-8911529.html
But let’s not forget that the Qu’ran and the Bible are intolerant of homosexuality. The sacred monotheistic texts contain prohibitions that would by just about any legal definition be considered hate speech in the modern secular world.
The Old Testament Book of Leviticus 20:13 states: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
The Qu’ran proscribes sex between Muslim males, and mandates punishment, although it does sometimes allow for leniency. Elsewhere, though, it cites the destruction of Sodom, held as divine punishment for homosexual sex, as a lesson.
And the Hadith, the Qu’ranic commentaries, contain references to punishing the “abomination” of gay sex with stoning or immolation.
Such prohibitions could be dismissed as antediluvian anachronisms, not to be taken seriously in the modern world.
But of course they are taken quite seriously. Deadly seriously.
Werd.
150 years ago Muslims were chastised by western orientalists because Muslims were laissez faire in their sexulity and now, iroincally by Western made laws, they are too homophobic (especially islam as stated by Samira here in the comments page). Why should Islam always behave according to the ebbs and flow of western discourse? Why is sexual secularism the only discourse available?
Good point, Jekyll. It annoys the hell out of me that most U.S. states legalized gay marriage in, what, 2013? And now people get outraged–OUTRAGED!–that other countries aren’t following suit fast enough. Pshaw.
Perhaps the truest expression of democracy is letting other countries work things out for themselves.
If you haven’t figured it out by now, ‘Democracy’ is often a synonym for what the West wants for the rest of the world.
Samira, you just received a lesson that your real life experience doesn’t equal these people’s ideas of what your experience should. Here in America we call that liberalism.
Stay safe.
That is utterly false. I explicitly validated her life experience.
She, however, failed, as you do, to validate the life experiences of Muslims in Western nations, Muslims like Maher Arar. He was renditioned by the U.S. and Canada to Syria, for torture.
Canada has formally apologized and compensated him financially. The U.S., by contrast, will not allow his lawsuits to go forward, and he is not permitted in the country. For the crime of being a Muslim.
Omar Mateen was a western Muslim. His father said he was offended by two men kissing. Clearly gays need to stop offending Muslims?
That was a total non sequitur. First you spew an utter falsehood, and then an irrelevancy.
I trust the reasonable, good faith readers to see how vacuous your commentary is.
Every word from me has been, in order, an astute observation first to Samira, well wishes to her in her very dangerous situation, then two facts about Omar Mateen, and finally, under the circumstances, a suggestion some might call good advice. Meanwhile you’ve used wishful thinking, and you didn’t even show solidarity with Samiras real life struggle. Tsk
Thank you.
I obviously don’t understand the nuances of American and European politics, but in the last several years, I have gotten used to being accused of dishonesty and stupidity by people who know very little about Islam and Muslims, whether I defended or criticised Islam.
Let me inform you that I know a great deal about the sociology of religion and hold a BA in this secular discipline. While earning that undergraduate degree, I did study the history if Islam, as well as that of the other two Peoples of the Book.
While you almost certainly know many more particulars about Islam than I do, I am equally confident that you have an an inferior understanding of religion as an anthropological matter. Thus, at least in your exchanges with me, you are not dealing with an individual ignorant of relevant facts.
See? What you know counts more than what she’s living. Thank you, Mona. You totally just proved my point.
Codswallop. What you are “proving” is your inability to follow the logic of a discussion. At specific issue was her claim that she encounters many people ignorant of the particulars of Islam, not her life experience.
An educated understanding of religion as a human, sociological phenomenon is entirely relevant to this entire discussion. Whether you like that or not, it is true.
You are either dishonest or stupid. Either way, you have demonstrated your bad faith engagement here.
“An educated understanding of religion as a human, sociological phenomenon is entirely relevant to this entire discussion”
Translation: ignore the wicked parts of ancient holy books which justify most of what ISIS is doing, instead listen to thinkpiece writers and Major Islamic Scholars. I do agree that if you want to defend Islam, you need to immediately start by making the foundational texts completely irrelevant.
“…wicked parts of ancient holy books which justify most of what ISIS is doing, …”
——
I don’t know which books you are referring to, but the Quran does NOT justify what Daesh does.
Throwing gays off buildings and destroying false idols and following Mohammed’s example of sex slaves and pedophilia? That’s all in there.
Oh, wait, I’m sure I have to read the Real Interpretation, based on the seventh book of whatever from some cleric or something in wherever, to get the True Meaning. I’m not Properly Informed. Instead of just reading the words and interpreting what they say.
Now, this isn’t to imply most Muslims support ISIS (very, very few do), but it’s because they have good enough secular morality to ignore what their holy book actually says.
You are a prima facie idiot and bigot, who hasn’t yet said anything requiring substantive reply.
Got nothing, huh? Ah well. Despite your best efforts, hopefully Trump won’t be able to capitalize off the left’s hand-in-sandism enough to actually win the White House.
In response to your bloviaitng and inane spewing, yeah, nothing substantive, as it’s not necessary. But as you’ll see, if you have not already, I’m pretty handy at dealing with authoritarians, Islamophobes and assorted other adherents of this or that depravity.
When they do post anything specific that merits rebuttal.
But you haven’t.
Please quote the verses from the Quran, especially the onees about throwing gays off buildings, and show me how you interpret them, and I’ll see if I can draw your attention to how some Muslims interpret them.
I wasn’t referring to you as I don’t know you and our discussion was not about religion itself.
CJ just threw a wrench in the conversation for his own BS purposes.. He’s the last person who really cares about your well being. Mona is the true liberal, and will defend almost anyone or anything that she finds to be in a position of powerlessness.
But she also defends Glenn Greenwald with a singularity of passion, and all you felt coming your way was a defense of Glenn, not an attack against you. She would defend Glenn Greenwald from Glenn himself. I wouldn’t take anything she wrote to you personally.
I suppose — if that means strongly and pointedly disagreeing with him when he’s wrong. It has happened, and he’s been lucky enough to have me around to set him straight (oh dear, well, you know what I mean).
Haha. Touché
I don’t take Internet comments personally but I get frustrated by the lack of sane criticism of Islam in many liberal and left-leaning outlets.
Oh but it is, and always is, when Islam vis-a-vis the West is being discussed. That you fail to grasp this is indicative of great ignorance.
Additionally, your life experience has some strong parallels to my own. But my escape was from Traditonalist Catholicism. I spent a good five years in my twenties despising Catholics and could barely be polite in the presence of priests or practicing Catholics.
What cured me, what tempered me and freed me from that also oppressive, fundamentally misanthropic view of religion and Catholicism, was studying religion as a phenomenon. Having done so has been incredibly useful for grasping a wide variety of political controversies, not to mention understanding human beings.
Do please enlighten me, then.
I have never hated Muslims, I actually usually defend them which doesn’t make me the most popular person among ex-Muslims. I do despise Islam though as I spent a long time studying it and I find it generally corruptive and dangerous. I hesitate to call myself anti-theist as there are certain religions and belief systems that I like but I really dislike most sects within Abrahamic religions.
That’s what I’ve been doing.
I was talking about this part of your comment.
>Oh but it is, and always is, when Islam vis-a-vis the West is being discussed. That you fail to grasp this is indicative of great ignorance.
I don’t think we discussed the religion itself. You mostly talked about the situation of Muslims in the Western countries and Islamophobia. That’s something that could and have happened to many other minorities in the West.
By the way, one or two commenters expressed skepticism of your claims about yourself. I share that skepticism, but also don’t believe it matters.
Your persona is “true” in the sense that there are gay and other ex-Muslims in Muslim countries who sincerely dislike Glenn Greenwlad’s anti-Islamophobia and defense of the rights of Western Muslims. Some of them are “New Atheists.”
I get why they would be, even tho I find them tragically mistaken.
So, whether you re a poseur or not, it doesn’t matter.
I saw the comments and answered them. Again, there’s no way for me to prove that I’m not a poseur. I can write in my native language if it helps but I know that’s not enough proof. (?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???. )
Sadly It seems that it’s not possible to write in Arabic script here.
Doesn’t matter — that wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other.
She’s not a poser Mona. I can completely see where she’s coming from, and I agree that she’s mistaken. But I can most definitely see her position. Religion is such an overwhelming oppressive force, if one is an unwanted minority, in an authoritarian society, any form of defense of religion can appear to be intellectually misplaced to that person.
In America the Jehovah Witnesses shun dissenters, they promote hate against them even pray against them…(my sister ‘was’ one).
In America the Mormons not only do the same thing…they have patrol vehicles to capture dissenters (many of whom are young teens).
In America the Amish will shun, denounce, and absolutely will disown their (dissent) child…close the door on them.
In America many Jewish shun dissenters et al.
In America many Catholics denounce dissenters.
In America MOST churches will denounce dissenters as apostates and pray against them.
All the while demanding their religious freedom(s) to not associate, serve, speak to, acquaint, do business with…and of course tweet the demise of a minority they deem unwashed…the same as casting stones.
I accept your examples, and am aware of most of them. Yes, religion can be an overwhelming oppressive force anywhere :(
“Yes, religion can be an overwhelming oppressive force anywhere :(”
——–
I think you meant to say organized religion.
Our own Sufi teacher was once advised by one of his teachers to run away from the ME as far as he could, because he saw that wherever the Muslims came to power to “establish” Islam, they’d screw things up in a big way.
That said, religion can also be a very illuminating and inspirational source, if interpreted and applied through the higher consciousness, and in a reasonable, appropriate, courteous and flexible manner.
Which is why, the first step is to know the cosmology of the self.
P.S. I’m quite exhausted from posting now, and will only comment in response to something I’ve written, but only if I feel it’s appropriate. Will go on another news fast for a few days tomorrow.
Yes. That’s what I meant.
Hi. I’ve never commented on the Intercept before, but I couldn’t let go of your comments.
I just can’t believe how self-congratulatory, rude and arrogant your comments are. You should be embarrassed to present these as real opinions.
You immediately dismiss someone’s real life experiences so you can turn around and parade your dubious educational experiences and then present your story, as if it’s somehow relevant or means you can talk to this person any way you want.
Mona, maybe you should take a step back from the Internet, or go back to school and take a few lessons in etiquette and how to be a decent human being.
Isn’t Mona a pip?
She’s like a reformed alcoholic who gets it, now.
She still struggles with the urge “to inflict intolerable pain” upon commenters she doesn’t believe in. So much for her overcoming Catholicism … and understanding human beings … bwahahaha!
I was disappointed with Harris’s response as well. His views have moved more and more in a troubling direction over the past few years and to look at this guy -who was a hot mess on all fronts, it seems – and say “caused by religious indoctrination!” is such a stretch that it’s a stretch to think it’s a stretch and not just straight-out prejudice. To say that different ideologies, and not a variety of geopolitical circumstances, are a causal factor in outcomes in sociocultural development is a tentative theory, but one that I would have no problem with a person researching in good faith. To simply go “Well, this person’s a Muslim, clearly religion is to blame” is kinda like you’ve giving up even trying to come up with science-y sounding rationalizations. I feel like a backstabbing fan (in other places) saying that, but I just can’t agree on this one.
As for the LGBT community – I guess it’s another Orwellian loop closing, huh? From society not accepting to accepting to treasuring *so frigging much* that we will do all kinds of things to protect, and, btw, have to remain labeled as a distinct group so that we can celebrate our acceptance, otherwise who would all the acceptance be *for? Whatever. I was bizarrely over-attached to a gay man before it was even the ‘in’ thing to do – you continue to be infinitely adorable Glenn.
Anyways. So sorry about the tragedy in Orlando – those poor people have been through enough without becoming an intellectual abstraction to serve whoever’s purposes.
Why don’t you read Qur’an and hadith first before making such foolish article? Islam clearly commands the death of homosexuals and most Muslims agree with it and they never disobey Qur’an..most muslims are already celebrating the deaths of the 50 gays on Arabic news pages like aljazeera..Muslims didn’t reform their Savage religion u can’t compare between them and Jews/Christians
Where does the Quran command that homosexuals must be put to death? I’m not aware of it. But perhaps, I have missed it.
You can’t compare a specific sect within Christianity (Evangelicals, Jehovah’s, etc.) with “Muslims”, which would encompass all of Islam’s own sects. You have to compare Evangelicals to the likes of Wahhabists or Salafis if you want an accurate comparison between the more conservative factions of the two religions.
Nobody is disputing the fact all these religious holy texts contain violent passages. The difference is there is no worldwide campaign in the name of Christianity or Judaism to create a “caliphate” or violently establish a state based on said texts. There are literally dozens of Islamist groups across dozens of nations and multiple continents with this express purpose. These groups routinely cite Islamic scripture in justification for their violence. Virtually every day we hear about another sadistic mass murder specifically carried out in the name of Islam. It’s once in a blue moon we hear about a similar atrocity carried out in the name of Christianity/Judaism.
Evangelical extremists refuse to bake cakes for gays. Islamic ones murder dozens of them. I abhor all types of religious persecution, but there’s a justified reason one religion is being singled out above all others.
I know you probably won’t believe it, but if any other religion’s followers were carrying out the same level of violence, you would see just as much backlash and discrimination towards them as you do Muslims today.
And nobody but you is insinuating or asserting there is a “worldwide campaign” in the “name of Islam” to violently, or otherwise, create a “caliphate”. So nice strawman that you obviously self-refute with the next statement:
And those “dozens” of “groups” (i.e. a subset of “Islam”) across “multiple continents” do not share that “express purpose” given their larger number approximating the remainder of the 1.3 BILLION adherents of the “faith”.
So maybe you shouldn’t overstate the influence or effect of that minority of “Islam” that has some whacky, and yes has occasionally resorted to violent (statistically speaking) means in pursuit of that whacky agenda not shared by the remainder and majority of the 1.3 billion adherents of the faith present in nearly every nation on the face of the earth.
Oops. Should have read as follows:
No, I think you need to refresh you understanding of straw-person, [way to through in a healthy dose of misogny you dufus].
There is certainly a geopolitical axiom amongst many IS supporters whom wish to engender a caliphate or do you deny IS exists, and believe they are the Frankenstein love child of the US and Israel – please remove you tin foil head covering before answering.
Then there is the Pew Poll, which the author conveniently missed, that reported many Muslim countries are extremely far right wing in their beliefs, in context of beleiving homosexuals should be punished, apostates should be stoned, and a woman should always obey her husband, with Pakistan constantly scoring over 80% of respondents, closely followed by Indonesia, which was often projected as a liberal Islamic state, but has more recently become far more hard lined and right wing theocracy. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/
This article really helps put things into context, I appreciate that in gneral, US Muslims appear far more liberal than the hate preaches in the UK, the following article does help put things into context:
“Can We Finally Talk About Muslim Homophobia in Britain”
“‘autumn, mysterious posters began to appear all over the East End of London announcing it is now a “Gay-Free Zone.” They warned: “And Fear Allah: Verily Allah is Severe in Punishment.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/can-we-finally-talk-about_b_828037.html
“52% of British Muslims in poll think homosexuality should be illegal”
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/
This was a drastic improvement from a 2009 Gallup poll that found:
“Poll finds zero tolerance for homosexuality among UK Muslims”
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/05/07/poll-finds-zero-tolerance-for-homosexuality-among-uk-muslims/
“Muslims comprise just 2% of the total British population, yet they commit 25% of all anti-homosexual crimes”
From wikiIslam
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Homosexuals_(United_Kingdom)
Iranian Parliament Member tells British officials in London that homosexuals should be executed, originally indicating that homosexuals should be “tortured
“5000 children attending Islamic schools in the UK which teach their pupils that ‘gays should be executed”
Now, to claim that Islam and conservative Muslims do not as an ideological belief system herald deeply bigoted and homophobic views is not only intellectually dishonest but factually and morally incorrect. Why do we not see Hindu or Jain temples in the UK calling for the execution of gays or the stoning of apostates. I agree it may be a small minorty that do this, bit thane the leader of the Muslim council of Britain, effectively the leader of Sunni Islam mosques in the uk was caught calling the execution of gays, apostates, Jews, and idol worshippers, then there needs to be serious questions raised that such institutions need to be investigated for harbouring extremist views that are incompatible with a western liberal democracy. The same would stand for any religious institution heralding such beliefs.
This is coming from a liberal, gay man of colour, from an ethnic minority.
To the extent that dubious stuff about “caliphates” is true, it is a “difference” that’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Jews are a tiny percentage of the world. By contrast, there are 1.6 billion Muslims. The vast majority do not wish to kill LGBTs, and certainly those in Western nations overwhelmingly do not — as a cohort, they are among the largest supporters of LGBT rights. But their sheer numbers mean that the most violent factions in Islam have more crimes of violence in absolute terms.
As to Christians, it is not “once in a blue moon” that they commit violent atrocities against gay people, or trans people. Not in the West, and not in Russia.
Moreover, Christians historically have killed gay people. Secular influences in Western nations have destroyed their ability to do so with impunity, so there’s now much less of it.
Muslim-majority nations are rightly expected to stop grossly violating the human rights of LGBTs. Unfortunately, the West lacks moral authority to lecture them about human rights. For many, LGBT rights are seen as Western values, and they have good reason to disdain rhapsodies about Western values.
Oh,no,A Jewish theocratic state doesn’t exist,and its the worlds imagination that it uses Biblical texts and 2000 year old ethnic claims for its existence.
Are you a wedge of dividing BS or a wedged divided fool?
Muslims revere Jesus Christ,while Judaism rejects Him.
Pathetic the feeble minded fools for BS.
Your continual treatment of Western sexual epistemology as universal truth is nauseating from someone who constantly blubbers on, as you do Mr. Greenwald, about liberal imperialism. There is no more subversive liberal imperialism than the reproduction in alien cultures, particularly in Islamic cultures, of the sexual practices, identities and desires currently hegemonic in the liberal capitalist West. As Edward Said said, imperialism IS the export of identity.
Nor is it surprising that the among the Western assimilationists in the Islamic world, both residing in the West and in the homelands, all but exclusively from the middle and upper-middle classes, there are those standing “shoulder to shoulder” with your hetero-handicapped identity cult.
It is very possible to be both horrified by the slaughter in Orlando and repulsed by your cult. This former “downlow” boy from Flatbush, harassed for years by your cult and its liberal allies in the media to come to the “truth” of my “sexuality” — and who learned at university studying analytic philosophy and reading poststructuralists that we DL boys were right, same-sex practices did not make us gay, that sexualities and genders were Western constructs of recent vintage — would never stand in the same room let alone shoulder to shoulder with the cult of the gays.
This is a piece of propaganda, trying to pretend that Islam is not a problem.
The only “facts” the piece contains is an alleged poll that states US muslims are more accepting than other other religions.
First off, people lie when they answer polls. Muslims lie in order to make their cult look acceptable.
But even if the stat is true, it has zero bearing on the problem that Islam represents globally. US muslims are a tiny slither of what Islam is.
Islam is not some tiny, weak minority in need of coddling. It is a global cultural superpower of over 1.6 billion people, with a history of genocide and imperialism, beginning with Muhammad the so-called prophet who exterminated (according to Islamic sources) the Jewish tribes of Arabia, took sex slaves, etc, etc.
Other religions might profess intolerance of gays but it only Islam that butchers gay people every single day–LEGALLY.
This takes place in EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM MAJORITY NATION. And that is not due to some coincidence.
Greenwald, a gay Jew, talks about Nazis cherry picking from the Talmud and tries to equate this with how people misquote the Koran.
This is a deceptive bit of sophistry. Firstly, Jews are in face a real minority, so tiny they don’t warrant statistical discussion. Secondly Judaism is not a universal religion, whatever Jews or don’t do religiously speaking, only concerns Jews.
Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion and therefore requires all non-muslims to get into line. In fact it requires continuous jihad until the world is subsumed by Sharia Law, which by the way contains the death penalty for gays and is implemented in all Muslim countries.
Christianity has evolved because there is wiggled room in exegesis to allow for it. That does not exist in Islam because the Koran is a set of lectures that apply currently as opposed to stories set in the past that can be interpreted.
There is not enough room here to explain all.
Just know that Greenwald has some kind of self-hating agenda that causes him to seek to whitewash the obvious.
The US Taliban Christians are ecstatic over these murders. We should all remember the Reverend Swanson in Iowa, pacing back and forth across the stage, waving the Bible, quoting Leviticus, and shouting that all Gays should be killed. Candidates Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal were all there, grovelling and hoping to get the evangelical votes and they didn’t speak against Swanson. Cruz won that battle for the crazies in Iowa, but there were enough reasonable people who heard his father’s almost insane religious statements that Cruz crashed and burned. Cruz can’t help himself and has tried to make hay out of this massacre. Shut up Cruz!!
The underlying events are tragic, but as this article demonstrates, Muslims in the US are becoming integrated into society. First, just like other Americans, they have learned to lie to pollsters. Second, they have adopted the American custom of mass shootings. I expect the next revelation will be that Mateen was a fervent admirer of the NYPD.
Should the gay community seize the opportunity for greater acceptance by denouncing Muslims? At the outset of the election, it might have appeared unlikely that Mr. Trump could build a coalition of evangelicals, white supremacists and LGBT activists. But as Condoleeza Rice said, “We need a common enemy to unite us”.
Certainly not among Muslims.
*Im confused about the meaning/implications of ‘non acceptance’ in the polling data benitoe? Acceptance is easy enough to grasp ~ if you smile at me I will understand. ‘Non acceptance’, otoh, seems more fungible than the term ‘terrorism’.
Condoleeza Rice has a time machine. It goes back to the 1930s.
I can’t fuckin believe she said that.
Her direct inspiration was Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservatives:
“Who can cause you to believe an absurdity, can cause you to commit an absurdity” Voltaire. No slouch as an intellectual, he. What the loony who murdered the gays believed or not has no interest for me, Timothy McVeigh had no such beliefs and they were both nut cases. What bothers me is what his father said. he condemned what his son did but qualified it by saying it was up to god for punishing gays……wow. No doubt the majority of Muslims and Christians for that matter believe that. How could this guy hire a gay person, for that matter, how could the Pope hire a gay guy or any woman for that matter. Reading your stats, I’m glad I’m a Canadian Atheist. I live in Ontario and our Premier is an openly lesbian woman who campaigned with her partner. I’m against her party, essentially like the US Democrats but I’m proud of my fellow Canadians that we would elect a person without regard to their gender or sexual orientation. Your stats on religious acceptance of human sexuality absolutely horrify me. What kind of people are you?
This, sir, should be awarded article of the year!
An interesting observation in a Guardian op-ed:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/lgbtq-americans-gain-liberties-but-acts-of-intolerance-persist-pulse-nightclub-shooting
It’s something of a digression from his main point — don’t get complacent — but still worth noting.
Thank you for your article but you have set up a bit of a straw man. Acceptance/support of same sex marriage is fairly irrelevant. Without a doubt there have been atrocities committed to gay people by Christians/Atheist/Muslims etc. Why I say it is irrelevant is that someone can easily not be accepting of many things but they don’t feel that it is necessary to murder for it. What you should be looking at is what is the perceptions of “punishment for gay people.” I have just returned from Egypt and I can tell you that for certain the overwhelming support for “death or prison” for gay people is shared by a majority of the population. In fact their morality laws can punish for 17 years in prison.
If I walked into a “Southern Baptist Convention” they would all tell me that I was going to go to hell and then probably offer to buy me lunch, Even the Westboro Baptist Church spewing their vile vitriol don’t bring fear when I step out.
There are different levels of acceptance is my point, I don’t really care what people think of my life I care what they are willing to do to me because of my choices.
Thought-provoking article. I particularly appreciate your unmasking of the “humanitarian” cover for liberal violence overseas, as the so-called Democratic Party’s hypocrisy is starting to annoy me far more than the predictable bellicosity of the Republicans.
As a Green Party supporter, I am interested in peace as a priority. It seems ridiculous to me that establishmentarian liberals take great pride in their tolerance of the everyday traditionalism of Islam (which indeed they should), yet have absolutely no patience for the vast amount of similarly-minded Christian conservatives in Republican America. Why not try to be more tolerant of both, while obviously never excusing toxic extremism in either?
Prevailing American culture has a sadomasochistic obsession with dominance and submission, and this can be easily seen in the ‘toxic masculinity’ of Trump and the reactionaries who support him – but it is equally present in the more veiled domineering personality of Hillary Clinton, and the unfortunately misandrist “feminism” of many other liberals who disguise their hatred of men with intellectual sophistry.
There is no tolerance for traditionalism if it is ‘white male’ traditionalism: there is simply a tarring with the same brush applied to all red-state Americans, regardless of how generally decent some of them are – the world has changed incredibly fast for even their most moderate members, and it is understandable that many are uncomfortable with adjusting overnight to the new inclusiveness now allowed by the elite. Forcing conservatives to accept being utterly wrong, attacking them as subhuman dopes, is just as bullying as Bill O’Reilly is – and importantly, it only winds them up more. Plus it distracts from the real issue that the establishment as a whole is corrupted, independently of the back-and-forth of political theater.
There is indeed a problem with intolerance, and the “crush, humiliate your opponent mentality.” But it exists in both establishmentarian liberals and conservatives – the intolerance of liberals is simply considered largely invisible by the prevailing narrative, and this is hypocritical – and counterproductive if Americans really want peace and a unified nation. It takes work and diplomacy to solve feuds, and such charity should start at home.
Excellent analysis, in my opinion, thanks for your comment.
@ Maisie
I second Sulai in commending your thoughtful comment.
Actually, anti-imperialists should not want the United Snakes to be “a unified nation”. It would be a much greater danger to the rest of the world if it were.
Yes; well said and bravely too challenging the supposed “liberal” biased intolerant intellectual classes. Conservative intolerance I understand,it goes with the territory, the liberal intolerance is a truly oxymoron attitude. I am me, do not judge me because I am a white male, I am me and I support acceptance of all genders and orientations who do not oppress others.
Wow Bob….what a change. You didn’t have much tolerance for Bryce Masters at the hands of a brutal cop…and what is more interesting is that you are Canadian.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/tased-in-the-chest-for-23-seconds-dead-for-8-minutes-now-facing-a-lifetime-of-recovery/?comments=1#comment-241609
Equally present? Of course it is not. Although there are plenty of reasons to oppose HC, this supposed equivalence between the two is wrong.
Liberals oppose Trump, what he stands for and his methods. You are taking political statements made during a very hostile election season, and looking for similar statements against foreign Muslims, and not finding them equate the two situations. In fact foreign Muslims are not part of the current political fight, and looking for equivalent statements against them is ridiculous.
you raised some critically pertinent points and a wholeheartedly welcome an congratulate your honestly and candidness; the notion of liberal intolerance and far left bias, often yielding a totalitarian and despotic hive mince hot rich needs to be challenged. I am firmly and vehemently opposed to fascism, believer all humans have a right to voice their opinions and thoughts, however, they should be held responsible for the opinions they voice. Whether it is rape threats on Twitter, Athesits calling for the death of Christians, or rabid Islamist preachers calling for the execution of everyone that is not a Whabbi Sunni Muslim. Extremist and vitriolic opnines, whether they call for violence and the murder of gays/Jews, or against a woman for simply voicing her opinion, should be dealt with the same contempt and merit the full brutality of the legal system.
Righteous truth clearly stated and exhaustively documented, even.
Everybody share this essay with everybody.
The only good queer is a dead queer
And the best dead queer is one we can exploit for our own iniquitous ends
You have an iniquitous end?
Beautifully said, Glenn, and unfortunately all true.
Thanks Glen, for another clear analysis of how anti-Islam cherry picking works. Clinton is trying to turn this tragedy into her personal political gain. Clinton too is using this as an excuse to advance the National Surveillance State. Clinton said, “I will make identifying and stopping ‘lone wolves’ a top priority. I will put a team together to get on top of this urgent challenge. And I will make sure our law enforcement and intelligence professionals have all the resources they need to get the job done.” So now we go from “superpredators” to “lone wolves”? Clinton once again reveals her true stripes taking as stand shoulder to shoulder with Donald Trump.
The instant exploitation of this attack is part of a more general trend of exploiting liberal social issues to glorify agendas of militarism, tribal conflicts, and aggressive foreign policies. Decorate the GCHQ headquarters or the Tel Aviv city hall with the LGBT’s rainbow flag colors and suddenly mass surveillance and decades-long military occupation seems pretty and liberal. Choose militaristic U.S. Presidents who represent social milestones of race and gender and suddenly their militarism seems to liberals to be more tolerable and even inspiring. Pretend that the war on Afghanistan is about feminism, and aggression toward Iran is about protecting LGBTs, and watch liberals melt with appreciation. Disguise anti-Muslim animus as pro-LGBT activism and one can quickly expand support for a neocon mentality and agenda into large sectors of western liberalism.
There is a pattern here as Glenn has emphasized
Any excuse to amp up arms, military, and control and who is the real beneficiary? Who benefits most? FOLLOW THE MONEY TO THE SOURCE.
Then ask yourself, why does the source need so much military and control?
Earlier Glenn tweeted a video about a gay journalist, Owen Jones, in the UK who was faced with two people, who, no matter what he said, refused to admit the simple fact that this was a crime targeting the LGBT community.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/742342580466225152
We are seeing this everywhere and it is like sticking a knife in the back of the grieving mourners and those who feel horror and despair about this massacre.
I could not agree more with the connection made here between the treatment of the LGBT dead and the overwhelmingly powerful ideology in the US that glorifies our murderous overseas adventures by painting us and our military as Pure and Good and saving the world from the true evil, Islam. But when we violently Other any group as we do Muslims, is it that much more likely that we will do the same to any group seen as different. Thus we easily gloss over the identity of the murdered LGBT, who in that video become “people.”
And it dovetails nicely with the conceit (no matter how dissonant) that as we are Pure and Good, it is impossible for us to carry vile hatred as the Muslims do.
i havent been told but i would guess they dont like the rothschild currency scheme with the interest rates.
@ Glenn
I echo Kitt’s sentiments below–I think this is a very strong article, one of your better ones, and hopefully it will be disseminated widely.
It is an interesting (and morally repellent) dynamic–i.e. using human rights or equal rights (or lack thereof) “fights” as pretext (“pinkwashing” is I think a term for this generally) for militarism or military interventionism (or increasing domestic American police state).
It’s right up there with the use of “spreading of freedom and democracy” (assuming once “liberated” you “vote consistent with America’s interests”) pretextually for militarism or military interventionism.
I’m not sure human rights, equal rights, or “fights” to spread democratic forms of government are advanced by militarism and violence. I believe quite the opposite in fact given all the “collateral” damage, privation, dislocation, and economic destruction done to the very people and infrastructure in those nations America claims it is trying to “save” or “liberate” from their oppressive undemocratic existence (which is not to say that is not an accurate description of the status of some (although I believe lacking in complexity and culturally biased therefore overly-simplistic)).
Given the general percentage of all the world’s human population(s) regardless of nationality which is LGBT (estimates vary from 8-14%), which is worse–running the statistically unlikely risk of being punished by your domestic state or its citizens for being LGBT, or the statistical threat of dying or starving in a war zone perpetuated in your lands by America (or West generally) in an attempt to “liberate” you from your homophobic government and fellow citizens? I’m guessing the latter is a much greater statistical threat to your life and livelihood, but I could be persuading with any methodologically sound studies that might prove something contrary.
And at a broader abstract level, if America was truly committed to humanitarianism, for example, on the basis of certain nations denying equal rights to their LGBT citizens, no need to bomb some “change” into those nations or militarily intervene, employ peaceful diplomatic and economic incentives to changing their domestic laws as part of doing international business, and more importantly open up America’s laws to include political asylum and refugee status to the world’s LGBT community.
If those members of humanity who are LGBT are living in societies that choose to oppress, otherwise harm, or deny them equal legal, political and economic rights, and they are truly under physical or sever emotional threats and want out of their nations they should be given safe refuge and a path to citizenship in the USA upon application. I can’t see those oppressive states having any reason to stop LGBT citizens from emigrating and certainly the US has a lot of room to absorb the immigration of the world’s LGBT population and vibrant communities of caring folks willing to help them assimilate.
And it would drive the right-wing in this nation insane.
Just my $0.02.
Please don’t tell me that you actually believe the USG when it says it cares about human rights. That’s just for PR. They’d torture a kid for a nickel.
I don’t. That was the point of my long-winded comment, to point out the hypocrisy and offer a viable alternatives to war that would advance humanitarian aims.
However, I would clarify–if by “USG” you mean US Government, I think you’d need to be more precise. I believe there are many well-meaning right minded folks in the “USG” depending on the specific agency and roll they play within that agency who care very deeply about “human rights”. Where they disagree with those who ultimately set policy and implement it is where the disputes arise particularly with regard to the “means” to any particular humanitarian end. One of America’s biggest problems is that it does so much (or so little and so inconsistently as the case may be) out of its perceived “national interest” whether than in the “neutral” interests of consistent humanitarianism.
I don’t believe you can morally or logically rationalize “humanitarianism” through a “bombing campaign.” Genocide, and that needs to be defined strictly and legally by agreement among the world’s nations, is a different matter. But I think that is a matter than can only be addressed neutrally by a military entity funded and directed without undue influence by the larger more powerful states, particularly the Security Counsel nations, to the end of separating combatants, and providing safe refuge for refugees when a state’s leader decides to purge some minority population with their own state. But in doing that, it absolutely has to be the case that it is done consistently and in all instances, and without “national interest” but rather “human interest” being at play otherwise some significant portions of the globe are going to perceive it as hypocritical and born of “self-interest” outside of strict humanitarianism (which it generally is and particularly in the case of the US of A).
role not roll . . . sorry for typo.
Good stuff as always, rr. Even with a typo!
Notwithstanding Greenwald’s sly attempt to malign Christianity and Judaism, the facts are homosexuality is illegal in virtually all Islamic societies and many Islamic countries execute gay men for the crime of being gay.
It was constitutional for homosexuality to be illegal in the states up until a little more than a decade ago. Christian fundamentalists have bashed and killed queers historically because their faith shares homophobic roots with Islam and Judaism whose fundamentalists continue to perpetrate homophobia sometimes violently.
A pox on the houses of all fundamentalist Abrahamists.
1. Glenn’s arguments are straightforward and not remotely “sly,” 2. He maligns no one or anything, including Christianity and Judaism, and 3. Everything he wrote is true.
That you dislike the facts he demonstrated makes his article none of: sly, maligning or false.
This detracts from the point he makes, historical contexts aside, the vast majority of Islamic sites worldwide not only ban homosexuality, but openly murder gays for being gays, wth se nations regressing from secular states – whether democracies or dictatorships to backward despotic theocracies, e.g. Turkey and Indonesia.
But right now Islam is the biggest threat to the LGBT communities as a religion. Many muslims that I talk to, though respectful and polite, still consider homosexual acts as a severe sin. And they do believe in Sharia law. As a gay guy, it’s against my interest to support any religion, Islam in particular, unless the followers come out to disavow a book filled with hate and horror.
“As a gay guy, it’s against my interest to support any religion, Islam in particular, unless the followers come out to disavow a book filled with hate and horror.”
———-
Many Western Muslims (Sufis and non Sufis) have figured out a way to be loving and respectful to the LGBT people without having to disavow the Quran, which is a living writ that can be read in multiple ways, one of them is to read it within its own textual and historical context, and by diving into its inner, spiritual meaning.
It’s important to know the existence of these Muslims, albeit in minority, during this oft-repeating hysteria against the entire religion, which is not monolithic, and its primary source.
Reformation and changes start off by a single person or a small group of people, but they can spread, even if it takes a while, given the right circumstances.
There’s a tremendous amount of support and sympathy amongst the Muslims for the victims of this senseless evil act.
Yes homosexuality is illegal in many Islamic countries, but are you aware that in many Christian countries being gay is also extremely dangerous? Are you aware of the extreme levels of violence that is perpetrated against gays in countries like Brazil, Peru, and much of Central/South America? Countries that happen to be none Muslim.
Glen, I really like most of what you write, but reading your tweets and this article has been very painful for me. I am a gay woman living in a country that has the death penalty for people like me, though my death is more likely to happen in the hands of my own loving parents rather than the authorities.
The problems that we face are caused by religion and more specifically Islam, as other LGBT people from non-Muslim families in my country have much easier lives.
I feel like you don’t understand the enormity of Islamic influence on the rampant homophobia in Muslim communities and instead blame other things. I have never ever personally interacted with a Muslim IRL who holds positive views about LGB people and most of my friends and acquaintances are actually pretty liberal.
I know that there are Muslims living in the Western countries who support LGBT people, but their number and influence is insignificant. The Muslims who matter, (Influential Shia and Sunni clerics ) didn’t condemn the Orlando shooting and I’m sure most of them are glad about it.
I stand with you. Gay Muslims in that part of the world are some of the bravest people on the planet
Thank you. :) Just a minor correction, I’m not Muslim but my family is.
With all due sympathy and respect, that’s just misleading. Glenn wrote:
I’ve never seen him deny the horrible plight of women, gays, and others in some Muslim-majority countries. But he’s entirely correct that singling out Islam is an intellectual and moral error. For all the reasons he well-stated.
Your experience is one that must be listened to, but so is that of Muslims living in the West, who, as Glenn demonstrates, are among the most accepting cohort of gay rights in the U.S. Crucially, Western Muslims are subject to severe bigotry that can have dire consequences.
Canadian-Muslim Maher Arar was renditioned by Canada and the United States for torture in Syria. He had done nothing except by a Muslim. So, when the Orlando massacre happened, Arar tweeted a great deal about why Islamophobia is a vile reaction to it. Finally, he tweeted:
Maher Arar certainly knows what it means to be a Muslim in the West these days. He was tortured because he is one.
Neither your reality, nor Arar’s should be erased.
I don’t agree with his reasons. I think it’s okay to single out Islam when it comes to the horrific treatment of LGBT people. In my experience, even if you’re living in a wealthy Muslim country and have an educated family (like me), you’re still likely to face horrible homophobia.
Then you think wrongly. And are serving in the cause of burdening a demonized Western minority, a demonization that has had, and will continue to have, horrific consequences for them (or, in the case of Sikhs, for people thought to be them).
Finger pointing is not helpful as I can accuse you of serving Islamist groups by distracting from the massacre in Orlando and we can continue to squabble over our imaginary agendas.
I don’t intend to demonize anyone. I’m just pointing out that Muslim communities have a serious problem when it comes to homophobia and it needs to be acknowledged.
“I’m just pointing out that Muslim communities have a serious problem when it comes to homophobia and it needs to be acknowledged.”
——–
Indeed!
And the changes in Muslims’ attitude in favor of the LGBT communities, and a re-read of the Quran by some Muslims, including Imams, on this matter must also be acknowledged.
My own daughter has a gay BFF. His sexual orientation has never been an issue for us.
We are crying for these victims just as much as the non Muslims.
And I’m really happy about it, but I think you guys face an uphill struggle as Salafists and other orthodox groups have both money and long-standing tradition on their side.
Indeed!
It’s much easier and safer to challenge the orthodoxy in the West than it is in many Muslim countries because of the freedoms it offers; though pretty much all Muslims living in the West become suspects when there’s a violent act committed by someone who claims to be a Muslim.
That said, the negative focus on Islam provides many Muslims the opportunity to re-examine the sources of Islam, weed out the garbage in them, and re-interpret many things.
Often, it is a simple matter of critically analyzing the secondary sources in light of the primary source, the Quran, which itself is examined in light of its own textual and historical context, and by not taking certain things, which were heavily influenced by the Semitic culture of the day, so literally, while maintaining their inner meanings and objectives.
This type of re-examination will cause one to be jailed, exiled or killed in many Muslim countries. So it is best done in the West.
I wish you luck in all your endeavours. :)
“Finger pointing is not helpful as I can accuse you of serving Islamist groups by distracting from the massacre in Orlando and we can continue to squabble over our imaginary agendas”
Probably the single stupidest comment I have seen all day anywhere.
You could, but you’d be wrong. By contrast, you simply blew off Maher Arar’s torture and true statements about the severe burden of being Muslim in the U.S. or Canada. That’s quite disturbing.
Which Greenwald more than “acknowledged, as did I. You, however, have nothing to say to the Western Muslims who are profoundly discriminated against in Western nations, leading to murders, torture and other awful actions against them.
>By contrast, you simply blew off Maher Arar’s torture and true statements about the severe burden of being Muslim in the U.S. or Canada. That’s quite disturbing.
I’m not talking about Islamophobia or the issues Muslims face in Western countries. I’m just talking Orlando shooting and the problem of homophobia among Muslims.
>Which Greenwald more than “acknowledged, as did I.
I don’t think that’s enough. The article itself is a distraction from the real problem that killed 50 innocent people and continues to kill LGBT folks around the world.
>You, however, have nothing to say to the Western Muslims who are profoundly discriminated against in Western nations, leading to murders, torture and other awful actions against them.
You talk of a man that I don’t know but I and many of my friends are nameless victims of this religion. Three of my friends have died because of it. Several of them have been tortured after being arrested in a raid. I try to be sympathetic to the plight of Muslims in the West but I honestly would trade place with them.
Fortunately, what you do or don’t find to be “enough” is irrelevant.
Let me assure you, Maher Arar is in a position to know what constitutes a
“real problem.” Your continued insistence on ignoring his life experience is sickening.
That you do not know who he is, or the countless murdered victims of Western Islamophobia (some of whom are actually Sikhs), that you have no idea what the Maher Arars are talking about, means you know too little to make any kind of moral judgment about Glenn Greenwald’s article.
The real problem is the 50 people who died for the crime of being gay. The real problem is the countless LGBT people trapped in Muslim countries living miserable lives. Islamophobia is also a real problem but today, shouldn’t we at least discuss Islamic homophobia before Islamophobia?
Why should I know about every single case of Islamophobia in your countries?
Do you know the story of Hamid? A young man who was raped by his own brother and cousins because he was outed? He went to the police but they mocked him. He fled the country but he wasn’t granted asylum because he couldn’t prove that he was gay. He came back and killed himself because he had nothing else to live for. Did you know of him?
> you know too little to make any kind of moral judgment about Glenn Greenwald’s article.
I’m not passing a moral judgment on Glenn. I just expressed my personal disappointment.
you’re living in a country that has the death penalty for “people like you”, yet you’re willing to post here all about it.
Nah, don’t think so.
As people have noted from the start of the internet, one of the great things about it: you get to be whoever and whatever you want.
Secularists in Egypt post things on YouTube all the time. She’s posting only her first name in English. The idea that someone in her country would read this message board, understand English and identify “Samira” is quite low. She’s taking almost no risk posting on this page. The fact that you’re doubting her existence speaks volumes about how low the left is willing to sink to maintain the myth Islam isn’t uniquely dangerous and intolerant.
Check.
You were spilling your drink a moment ago; so young.
People who leave comments on the internet are attached to an IP address that reveals one’s general location.
It’s possible to disguise that but it isn’t easy or common.
Very common in my country where access to most sites is restricted by the gov. Most people use proxy and Tor and other methods.
Except a “sockpuppet” amirite?
And unless you are being sarcastic, which very well may be the case depending on how you read your statement and who it was addressed to, then it sets up a very interesting idea to wit: “one of great things about [internet]: you get to be whoever and whatever you want so long as you do it under one pseudonym at a time in the same comments section.”
Raises interesting issues: why is a sockpuppeting necessarily bannable, though not at every blog, if all ideas/arguments in a comment section are free to be challenged openly by all other commenters in a comment section? What difference does it make how many pseudonyms are being employed in making (counter)arguments by one person? I mean one man or woman can only type so fast so spamming a thread is a separate matter, as is undisclosed paid advocacy both of which are more problematic in my opinion.
One reason I chose to comment under my real name is that I don’t want things being misattributed to me by virtue of people speculating about sockpuppets and/or using my real name by innuendo affixed to a widely known pseudonym that is not me.
I’d rather be able to openly stand behind what I write here rather than trying to disprove a negative (i.e. that I didn’t type something or I’m not a particular pseudonym or sockpuppet) that is tough to do without disclosing IP info, or a level of technical understanding or explanatory powers that I do not possess.
Easier to attempt to control the consequences of my thoughts or written sentiments by consistently being able to say at any time under oath, or in context, that I comment only under my real name.
Now I certainly understand the need for anonymity and pseudonyms in some circumstances, but all in all I think the internets and comments sections in general would be (in some ways though not all) more productive and enlightening (if not necessarily more “civil”) if people posted under their real names. Again that comes with very real risk of having crazies and zealots of whatever stripe single you out and stalk, harass or otherwise threaten your life or livelihood, but generally speaking I believe that to be a fairly low statistical risk for the average person or commenter (with notable exceptions even here–Mona for example, and someone actually calling my employer once).
Just a thought–although I’d concede not a very important one in the grand scheme of things.
It read like a Hallmark card for a war on Islam.
Glenn, Could you actually be a bigger prick? First you don’t even have the guts to post your doubts about Samira to her face you have to reply secondhandedly like some high school teenager.
Second you don’t even try to contradict her views because if she is actually who she claims to be your entire premise is suspect and its easier to simply dismiss her from your comfortable enclave of a western country where you don’t have to worry about being executed for your beliefs
And lastly for you of all people to insinuate someone of sockpuppetry is laughable and actually sad given your well documented proclivity for being one early on in your illustrious career.
I don’t know what happened to my last comment. :P
I sure as hell can’t prove my identity but you can spare the time and talk to LGBT refugees from the ME or people who work with organizations that help them.
Hi Samira,
My family is also Muslim, but I’m not from the Middle East. I sympathize with your situation, only to the extent that I can. And I agree with you, that homophobia in Islam, and in religion in general, is a problem. But if you go back into human history, homophobia existed before religion. That’s how it got put into the text in the first place. But absolutely, religion keeps it alive.
Glenn does not write to absolve Islam from blame. Glenn is just pointing out that Islam is not a uniquely bad actor. You might think, sitting in the ME, that The West is a reflection of the liberal nature of Christianity. It’s far from that. The West is a reflection of society’s ability to create a legal system that keeps Christianity, and Islam, and any other religious behavior, in check. What Glenn is saying, is that using this incident to single out Muslims as bad actors is not useful idea. And I agree completely. But of course it’s possible that I agree, because I’m sitting here in the comfortable legal protections afforded me by The West, not by Christianity or any other religion.
And I don’t know how old you are or what the marriage pressures are for you where you’re from. But I have a cousin who is gay. I didn’t know she was gay, until I was an adult. The only thing I knew is that while her sisters got married, she did not. Only when I became an adult, I learned, that her mother, my aunt, protected her from marriage. I hope you find somebody supportive in your family.
I just read my post, and it’s so sad, the little comfort I’m “hoping” for. Let’s hope one day, you can marry whomever you want.
Cheers :)
Thank you. I don’t plan to give up anytime soon. :)
I agree with all your points. I don’t think Christianity and most other religions are blameless when it comes to homophobia. I just think it’s in poor taste to write an article of this nature such a short time after the shooting. I also believe that currently, homophobia is a much bigger issue among Muslims compared to Christians and Jews.
Most of LGBT people in my country suffer more in the hands of their families rather than then the gov. I’m constantly under the pressure to marry and most other LGBT people also end up married.
Thank you for your kind words. :)
\
So let me just explain why his timing is so pertinent. When something like this happens, the mass media in The West goes into a frenzy over the evils of Muslims. Just imagine being a Muslim woman in a hijab, after an incident like this. She would be afraid just to go to the store. Glenn’s articles are an absolute necessity for that hijab wearing woman’s protection. He gives her a voice, and he lets society know that she has friends, and they cannot pick on her. For that woman, and maybe for me too, with a Muslim name and everything, Glenn Greenwald’s articles, interview, tweets, are an absolute necessity. He is the best friend a Muslim in North America has. His timing is not in poor taste. He defends Muslims when they need defending, not when everybody else has come around. His timing is perfection. His voice is indispensable. But you’d have to be here to understand the implications of a Glenn Greenwald, for a North American Muslim.
But I understand your position.
I understand what you’re saying and I agree to some point but I’d be more sympathetic if I’d seen more support for LGBT people from Western Muslim over the years. I know my position is more of an emotional one though.
Yes, this is also the problem where I’m from. The immediate family is the worst friend. They’re more concerned about how society will judge them, than the well being of the son or daughter. There are laws in the books about executing gays, where I’m from, but I’ve never read or heard of anybody being executed for being gay. The ostracism occurs at the family level.
You’re totally right. Out families are our number one enemies.
In my country, they don’t hang you for being gay. They hang you for other “crimes” such as rape and perversion. It’s pretty difficult to know for sure why a person was executed.
She’s actually being very brave by posting here. Where she’s from, they’re probably monitoring everybody and everything.
Of course homophobia largely derives from religion. That in no way negates any of the points from the article.
“The Muslims who matter, (Influential Shia and Sunni clerics ) didn’t condemn the Orlando shooting ”
““The Islamic Republic of Iran, in line with its principled policy in condemning terrorism and its strong determination to firmly and decisively counter this ominous phenomenon, denounces the recent terrorist attack in US [city of] Orlando,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossein Jaberi Ansari, said on Monday.” – http://presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/13/470289/Iran-US-Orlando-Florida-Hossein-Jaberi-Ansari
But then maybe he/the government of Iran doesn’t matter and are not “influential.’ Or maybe just not the right kind of Muslims.
It’s hilarious. Yeah, the IRI denounces this terrorist attack while the bodies of gay men are dangling from the cranes.
Notice that I said clerics and not the politicians.
Don’t worry guys. Christians and Jews can be homophobic too so lets not blame Islam when a muslim murders us in the name of his religion.
Right, of course. So the next time a Jew forces someone to drink gasoline and then burns him alive, we should naturally blame the whole of Judaism for it right? That would really suck for you, applying your own logic to you would rob you of your most favorite word, .”anti-Semite”, that you throw at every perceived offense, real or not.
Wooo, go atheists! We are the most accepting group! :)
There is some nominal truth to this argument, but it can be addressed by a nominal reform to Trump’s moratorium proposal. We disallow priority statuses for immigrants from countries where apostasy or proselytism is illegal. Unless they are apostates, or belong to a religious opinion that is not “protected” by apostasy and proselytism laws. In this way, we put all religions on the same playing field. But you can look up apostasy on Wikipedia, and you’ll see a map of the laws throughout a wide swath of Islamic countries. Now my variant of the proposal would not ban immigration of Muslims who are citizens of Britain or France – if they haven’t disqualified themselves some other way, then it looks like they can handle America. But it would face facts that religion here isn’t like religion there; religion here is a choice, not something to be killed or imprisoned for leaving.
Perhaps you have not quite demonstrated that when the laws of country dictate certain barbaric practices, then the religion of the country is totally responsible.
I would acknowledge that US Muslims are a relatively enlightened and well educated group, but you know you’re cherry-picking the polls to draw a false equivalence here. Pew also has many polls demonstrating the depth and breath of Islamic intolerance for homosexuals worldwide. https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/742053862769467392?lang=en
How many Christian countries have Gay Marriage? In how many Muslim countries is the practice outlawed? And would you object to bringing up the shooters religion if he were a right-wing Christian? I doubt it. This would be less of an issue if the Left weren’t advocating for open borders and mass immigration from Muslim countries. Often justifying such immigration on the grounds of persecution. And is Douglas Murray using himself as prop when he points that half of British Muslims (no longer a powerless minority) oppose the legality of homosexuality, not the legality of Gay Marriage but of homosexuality itself? I don’t think the West can change Islam through bombing it, but Islam can change the West through sheer numbers.
Right. Christianity gets credit for Gay marriage now when there was no Gay marriage in these countries a short time ago.
Yeah, once the dominant Christians figured it out after decades of repression, then everyone else is backwards immediately.
I fear anyone who has to wear special clothing in order to appease the wrath of their imaginary friend.
There is certainly a disturbing amount of homophobia within the Muslim community but the fact is that even if the current rate of immigration was increased dramatically Western european nations would not become Muslim-majority nations. Preventing muslims from coming in won’t prevent an increase in homophobia but aggressive liberal educational programs could make the second generation much less prone to bigotry.
“aggressive liberal educational programs could make the second generation much less prone to bigotry”
I think aggressive social educational programs tend to backfire on most subjects. I think if you give it time, Muslims tend to assimilate, though slower than some groups. (such as Siks in the UK) And that if you continue to let in massive numbers of migrants, the way Europe is currently is, then that process will become more difficult because you’ll inevitably create ghettos like you see in France and Belgium.
“Cherry-picking” does not mean what you think it does. U.S. Muslims really are, as the polls Glenn cites show, among the largest cohorts supporting gay rights in the U.S. Many non-Muslim nations, really are as anti-LGBT as he shows.
Documenting these facts that you dislike does not constitute “cherry-picking.”
“U.S. Muslims really are, as the polls Glenn cites show, among the largest cohorts supporting gay rights in the U.S.”
Even Glenn’s carefully picked poll doesn’t show that it’s among the largest cohorts. And again I granted that US Muslims tend to be a relatively affluent well educated group, so it’s not surprising that they hold more enlightened values than their counter parts overseas. But if you’re seriously talking about the danger posed by particular religious groups, then show me a Mormon preacher advocating death for homosexuals like the Imam who just visited Orlando.
The common source of homophobia is fundamentalist Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Fundamentalist interpretations of Iron age superstitions is the problem.
Remember, “Abrahamic” is a noun and “fundamentalist” is an adjective. In English, adjectives modify nouns to change their meaning. In this case, “fundamentalist” distinguishes fundamentalist Abrahamics from those whose faith adapts to changing circumstances, in this case modernity.
The homophobia emanating from the fundamentalist Islamic world only differs in scope and intensity from that which I experienced at the hands of Southern Baptists in Texas when I grew up there in the 1970s. They bashed us. They killed us. They would have bashed and killed more if they’d had the opportunity.
The term, Fundamentalism, doesn’t apply to Islam. It simply means adhering to the fundamental tenets of Islam. Those who use it for Islam are looking at it through another religion’s glasses.
The same thing is said by Christians here. There are plenty of Muslims who integrate into modern society without acting on their homophobic baggage just as there are plenty of Christians who do not fag bash.
I could not give less than two shits about the Iron Age mythologies of others. When Christians launch their dominionist crusades against Muslims, then the more fundamentalist of the Muslims are going to retaliate as they would, replete with homophobia and misogyny.
The short answer is to not kill their kids and they won’t retaliate. But that does not address the exporting by the fanatics of their Iron Age bullshit.
Then why do yo use it as an adjective in the first sentence?
Yeah, I should have said “Abrahamists” but people don’t understand what that means so it has to be further qualified with “religion” to contextualize. The primary cause of conflict between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims is the narcissism of small differences.
Well said.
It was stunning how quickly some people yesterday latched onto the idea that Islamic State had sponsored this attack. The sense that IS propagandists should be taken at their word is itself ludicrous, and there was literally no other indicator, beyond the attacker’s name, that hinted he may be of Muslim background.
It was enough, however, for a lot of people to jump straight to their preferred anti-Muslim conclusion. Comey’s statement today was intended to inject some sanity into the discussion, but sadly, I doubt it will.
RT reported as much yesterday: https://www.rt.com/news/346390-isis-claims-orlando-shooting/
Of course they jumped on that – otherwise they’d have had to say it was a homophobic terrorist, and condemn homophobia and violence, and that’s not the kind of message their political base wants to hear.
It’s true indeed that anti-LGBT agitation is common to different religions, not just one subset of Islam. And before Orlando, we were confronting the rash of so-called religious-freedom restoration acts (RFRAs) and rulings like Hobby Lobby. It seems that the Free Exercise clause has no limits and people of faith can negate rights held by other citizens.
It’s time we had a discussion on finding a limit to the Free Exercise clause, at the point where it does infringe on other rights and other citizens. Repeal or overturning RFRAs is one necessity. We also need to take a hard look at the religious tax exemption, something not explicit in the Constitution but by a 1970 Supreme Court ruling, and maybe trim it back along the lines suggested in US v. Bob Jones University.
We might also need a unified professional licensing body for clergy, in the same way we license doctors or lawyers.
If this is an overreach, fine, let’s see what the Federal courts think of this new line of inquiry. Glenn’s article demonstrates just how wide the religious problem is, and it isn’t unique to Islam — rather, we need to draw a line between religion and extremism and stop defending the latter as a 1st Amendment right. No constitutional freedom is, or should be, unlimited or superior, any more than, say, a right to free speech protects slander or personal terroristic threats, or a right to bear arms means a right to murder, nor a right to free worship in church means that the whole country be a church.
And it should be noted that on the other coast of the US, on the same day, the police, acting on an unrelated complaint about behaviour, found a CHRISTIAN man, armed with more firepower than used in Orlando, who was (according to reports) planning to stage a similar attack on the LGBT community there. Nobody hit the news speculating about possible links to the Radical Christian community (those that radicalized Wendy Davis, and supported the laws that were passed against the LGBT community (most directly the Transgender part) that demonized them as child molesters and rapists. And it is extremely ironic that after a week of the media and public attacking Trump for racism because of his comments about how the ethnic background of an American born American citizen was the reason for that citizen’s actions, the same media (and parts of the same public) are out there (as is Trump himself) making comments about how the ethnic background of an American born American citizen were the reason for that citizen’s actions.
Some people are too quick to want to ban all Muslims from entering the West and throw those who are already in the West out, but it is a fact that because of Muslims’ interactions with the non-Muslims in the West, and the greater freedoms that the West provides, versions of Islam are being developed that are peaceful, loving towards the non-Muslims, and very supportive of the LGBT communities.
Moreover, these versions of Islam are not being developed by abandoning Islam’s primary source, the Quran.
Rather, they are based on progressive, practical, and rational re-reading of the Quran, interpreting it within its historical as well as textual context, and examining the secondary sources of Islam in light of the Quran, instead of the other way around, as many traditional Muslims do.
I’ll give you an example: Many Muslims who live in the West read in the Quran that what it criticizes is predatory homosexual act, and not a loving relationship between members of the same sex.
Sadly, in today’s Muslim world, what I have pointed out above is either very difficult or not possible at all.
The young Muslims living in the West are developing a much greater understanding of the LGBT people through their personal interactions and friendships with them.
Many people demand that the Muslims reform their religion. They need to awaken to the reality that the best place to do so is the West.
Religion is always better off when it is free of state control; state control of religion is always bad as the religion is inevitably maniupulated into becoming an instrument of repression and control in the hands of state authorities (who typically enforce a literal fundamentalist reading of the religion’s holy books on the general populace, though they themselves never adhere to such strict standards.)
Once religion is free of authoritarian control, more open-minded interpretations of texts that still preserve the religion’s basic tenets become possible – and different religious traditions can also then peacefully co-exist without being persecuted by state authorities. This of course is why the United States, with freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution, has never suffered a religion-based civil war.
However, there are many cynical actors in both religion and politics in the United States who seek to use hatred and intolerance of others, from LGBTs to Muslims to any minority group, to further their own personal ambitions and greed for power and wealth. Ted Cruz was perhaps the worst example of this trend recently seen, although there are many others. They should all be seen for what they are – enemies of the Constitution and traitors to the democratic spirit.
Ceaseless vigilance is the price of freedom, indeed.
Indeed!
The Sufi movement within Islam began largely to counter the politicization of Islam by the rulers.
Your usage of sufis as some sort of liberal bulwark is utterly incorrect. As I stated before many Sufis were unbridled conservatives and were openly political.
You are reading your own thoughts into what I wrote.
Or, perhaps you are giving a different meaning to the politicization of Islam I referred to.
It is possible for a Sufi to engage in worldly matters through the higher consciousness. And many did just that. I don’t consider it to be politicization of Islam.
If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
First of all being a sufi has become synonymous with being some sort of western liberal Muslim which is utterly false. Many sufi muslims are quite conservative in their views and have been throughout history. The image of dancing dervishes drunk on wine and being laissez faire in their Islam is a very much an orientalist perspective.
Second point though I will not argue abt your ill founded pov on ‘predatory’ homosexual act is which utterly false according any and all mainstream sunni and shia accords, the interactions and friendships of LGBT good thing but too is often based on western points of interest, meaning all other forms of islamic interaction become diluted because one does not adhere to the sexual standards of the west. And lastly your point of reforming islam is just a pathetic acquiescence to how western history reformed religion.
I don’t believe you read my post carefully.
Explain then.
“It’s also true that parts of Islamic doctrine contain all sorts of horrible views on LGBTs, women and other issues. But exactly the same is true of both the Christian Bible and Jewish Talmud.”
The crucial difference is, of course, that Christianity and Judaism condemn homosexuality but don’t necessarily punish it, because those religions have largely been privatized in the West. Islam on the other hand has legal/political aspects as well as being what we in the west call a religion. Of the major schools of jurisprudence, they all agree that homosexuality is punishable by death. They disagree on the method only.
Now of course not all Muslim people necessarily condemn LGBTs. But then, not all Muslim people’s views are influenced only by the Islamic intellectual tradition. They inevitably absorb some of those worldly, errant views their holy books tell them to ignore, and so end up quixotically trying to reconcile their anti-gay faith and their pro-gay views. Or else they are only nominally Muslim and their worldview isn’t really informed at all by Islam. Interestingly, the Muslim-majority countries which are the most liberal are the ones who fit that last description, i.e. Albania, Azerbaijan etc. Muslim religiosity is correlated much more consistently with anti-gay attitudes and anti-gay violence than either Judaism or Christianity.
“Over the last several years, Christian zealots in the U.S. have agitated with both activism and money – often successfully – for the implementation of severely repressive anti-LGBT laws in Christian Africa. That includes Uganda, where they tried to implement the death penalty for homosexuals.”
Sure, and nobody has trouble admitting they did it because of their beliefs, no one became a Christian apologist all of a sudden and claimed it had “nothing to do with Christianity”.
Lastly, I’d like to make a point about LGBT Muslims, or for that matter LGBT Christians and Jews. I don’t think the best strategy is to try to trick religious people into thinking their religions are pro-gay. It’s bound to fail in light of the weight of inherited scriptural evidence and clerical exposition. Moreover, it seems to concede that religion is the basis on which claims for rights or acceptance are made. Why make that concession? Why go through all the BS of trying reinterpret bronze-age stories about cities that never existed (you know those two I’m talking about), or put words in the mouth of a man who lived in the 6th century (or a man who lived in the 1st)? If the theological debate was solved definitively in favor the anti-gay interpretation, would that change their views? I think not, because at the end of the day, these people aren’t really turning off their own “fallen” “idolatrous” human moral compass and taking instruction from their holy books. They decide what they think is right and then go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and reconcile it with religion. Seems silly to me.
Muslim religiosity is correlated much more consistently with anti-gay attitudes and anti-gay violence than either Judaism or Christianity.
Evidence? The evidence already seen here does not support that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#/media/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg
Notice any patterns?
Patterns? Oh, you mean correlation, which we all know is not the same as cause.
Homosexuality obviously caused people to turn to Islam
Yes, of course correlation does not equal causation. But when you have a strong correlation between Muslim piety and anti-gay laws/violence, and clerics explicitly citing Islamic doctrine as the justification for it, and scriptures which indisputably call for it, it seems reasonable to infer some causation.
“The crucial difference is, of course, that Christianity and Judaism condemn homosexuality but don’t necessarily punish it”
Appears to be a recent development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
Laws repealed or struck down before 1970. -Illinois
Laws repealed or struck down from 1970 to 1979.
Washington, Oregon, California, North Dakota, South Dakota,Nebraska, Wyoming,
Yes, it’s a recent development. But so what – if that’s what Christianity has evolved into, then evaluate it and compare it as such. Christianity was amenable to this development because as I said, Christianity doesn’t have, as part of its foundational tenets, political/legal implications. Remember I said don’t *necessarily* punish it. It certainly has in the past and Christians continue to do so in certain places.
It means that the tolerance you expound is not absolute and all societies evolve, at their own pace. Was that so hard to figure out yourself.? The Talmuc and the Christian bible haven’t struck out those passages requiring homosexuals be executed, have they?
I will give that the New Testament is noticeably mute on the subject, but that still didn’t leep many US states from requiring punishment homosexuality in their statutes up until the Supreme Court said they couldn’t, in ,wow, 2003.
“Christianity was amenable to this development because as I said, Christianity doesn’t have, as part of its foundational tenets, political/legal implications.”
Yeah, because the Christians don’t try to get their religuous values enacted as laws, their myths taught as “science” in our schools or throw in our faces on their holy days?
A Hindu woman in Ireland didn’t die a few years back because the Christian ban on abortion wasn’t Irish Law.
What rock did you just crawl out from under?
KEEP SOL IN THE SOLSTICE!
OOPS…
Appears to be a recent development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
Laws repealed or struck down before 1970. -Illinois
Laws repealed or struck down from 1970 to 1979.
Washington, Oregon, California, North Dakota, South Dakota,Nebraska, Wyoming,Colorada,New Mexico,Iowa,Indiana,Ohio,West Virginia,Maine,Vermont,New Hampshire,Massachusetts,Connecticut,New Jersey.Hawaii.Delaware
Laws repealed or struck down from 1980 to 1989:
New York,Pennsylvania,Wisconsin,Rhode Island, Alaska
Laws repealed or struck down from 1990 to 1999.
Montana, Nevada,Missouri,Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia.Maryland
Laws repealed or struck down from 2000 to 2002.
Arizona,Mississippi.Minnesota
Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.[1]
Idaho,Utah,Kansas,Oklahoma,Texas,Louisiana,Arkansas,Alabama,Florida,South Carolina,North Carolina,Virginia, Michigan
Notice 13 states only repealed sodomy laws after the US Supreem Court declared such laws unconstitutional.
Yep, the USof A has always been a bastion of liberal gay rights.
No applause please for identifying every state from Wiki’s map without help.
Islam is currently threatening 1000 of years of the societies built in the West.
Its failed societies due to religious sect infighting are flooding our countries with your refugees.
Not worked that one out yet.
And its not a dig at your deity or brainwashed religion as I deem all of the the same.
Now go away. Drop your stupid “indoctrinated” faith. And educate yourself.
All of the world major problems at this point is caused by your religion.
Another moron who believes that Western civilization and liberal values are so weak that a small religious minority will be able to destroy it all. I also must add that not all of the major problems in the world are caused by Islam, that is unless you believe Islam causes disease, climate change, ALL violence, ALL hatred and a bunch of other problems.
Another moron who believes that Western civilization and liberal values are so weak that that a religious minority will be able to single-handedly destroy it all. He also apparently believes that all of the world’s major problems are caused by Islam. Not sure how Islam contributes to climate change or terminal diseases but whatever.
The refugee problem in Europe is not because of Islam. It is the USG/Israeli agenda to divide/conquer the ME… their resources et al.
Where have you been?
@David North –
Stop falling for that “clash of civilizations” bs. We are all humans together on this planet. And we must all start working together to address the problems we face – Thomas Ford outlined quite a few of them.
And Sparrow’s point is well taken as well.
We humans have GOT to stop bashing each other. Wake up and start to be part of the solution instead.
This just in….
US bombs not related to failure of Muslim states in the Middle East.
as you mentioned, it’s a bit pathetic how the media bring islam into this in the first place. the guy was not a fanatic nor was he even a religious person to begin with. he was a goddamn bro. he had marine “semper fi” bumper stickers, nypd clothing, posed in cheap suits with half a bottle of gel in his hair, worked for a private security firm and beat his wife. sounds like a lot of iraq war vets to me. sounds like a typical blackwater employee to me. and – again – sounds like a typical bro asshole.
when islam did come up, he was an idiot. first he blagged about loving AQ. then he said he loved hezbollah. anyone with even a passing, casual knowledge of the “muslim world” knows how stupid that is on so, SO many levels. this desperate need for westerners to attach islam to every single tragic event is, as you alluded to, somewhat like the old tactic of looking for “jew influence” in every political event.
as for the vulture aspect, i turned to cnn as events were unfolding and – while the bodies were still warm – some dumb fuck from the government was blaming it on encryption and used the phrase “going dark”. i’d like to hope the fact that this brohadi acted alone and worked for a security firm would embarass that fbi-fellating wanker but then i remember his type has no shame.
Also reported by his ex-wife he was a garden variety wife beater. And a steroid user. Sounds like this guy was nothing more than a confused, hostile and dangerous individual, ready to go off on a whim.
Islam’s mistreatment of gay people is by far worst out of every other ideology. Nothing comes close. The numbers and details matter and are the reason for our scorn. You cannot exonerate Islam by spreading around the blame. A few cherry picked examples in no way negates the enormous threat Islam poses to lgbt people all over the world. In terms of violence and the pervasiveness of bigotry, Islam is the gold standard for 21st century homophobia. Furthermore, our ire is directed at Islam because this is a religion at war with everyone. An attack on a gay bar is just another attack by Islam on the pillars of western civilization. The next time another group is victimized by terror, there’s a 99% chance the perpetrator will be Muslim. Only Islam produces this level of terror. It stands alone
Do you notice how you just ignored all the evidence and data in order to spew baseless banalities at a group you dislike? The word “bigotry” is hard to define but that’s a good working definition of it.
I’ve read scads and scads of your posts and articles over the years, Glenn, and even with that being the case, I believe this one to be one of the very most important and informative ones that you’ve ever written. As you pointed out above to the bigot, you’ve loaded your article to the rafters with evidence, and you’ve powerfully and undeniably made the strong and ugly connection between the bigotry against LBGT people with the enormous and non-stop money spigot of the endless wars. I’m hoping you’ll do video interview or two or three about this in order to increase the audience size to as many as it might be possible to reach.
What time zone are these article time stamps given in? Would think it would be standard to put that, just curious.
Anyone know?
Glenn, are you out of your mind?
All 10 countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are Islamic. Check out this map. That stat is reflective of how widespread and problematic homophobia is Muslim-majority countries. You’re wrong. I’m right
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
If “You’re wrong. I’m right” (That is you talking to Glenn), then the improvement in the treatment of Gays in many countries must because they converted from Islam to Christianity. Could have fooled me.
You’ve been check mated by the map. You have nothing to say. Shut the fuck up
If Christian fundamentalists could still bash and murder LGBT in the US at will they would not have stopped.
Your data is suspect and misleading. American attitudes related to same sex marriage are confounded by sample sizes and age distribution. On a global level, Islam is the biggest threat to gay rights in the world. How are you even arguing this?
Sometimes we just have to accept the hard facts even when it doesn’t mesh well with our other agendas! In this instance; Hating Muslims!
1) More Muslim Americans than Americans Evangalists or Mormons support same-sex marriage.
2) American Evangelists are funding and supporting death penalty laws for gays in Christian countries (example: Uganda)
3). It’s Political Christian groups who are devoted to making LGBT people second class citizens and use whatever means to accomplish that goal including violence.
I just don’t know how to get around these ugly facts.
3)
Lol!!! Wow. I’m talking about global trends. Once again, read the map. Notice what part of the world contains most of te yellow
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
I completely understand what Jonah is saying. Yes there are Christians and Christian countries that make being gay a crime but it is a crime in all of the Islamic countries where it’s a death penalty.
My friend, this comment is as crazy as they come.
and if you take offense at being called a bigot (no quotes because it’s true) then please do explain how “islam” is a giant, singular monolith that exists in one form at one time in one place. i guess southern baptists are the same as orthodox russians? ISIS is the same as rohingya muslims in burma? if that’s the case the buddhists are carrying the weight of our fight with their lovely militias. jerry sienfeld is the same as avigdor lieberman? they both complain about political correctness, that’s for sure! and what’s the deal with the west bank?
tl;dr – you: “they all look alike to me and they better not whistle at our womens!”
Evidence please. You have a long up hill climb since Glenn gave the evidence that negates what you wrote. But if you have some evidence, let’s see it. If not, please do not post here.
A gay bar is now a ‘pillar of western civilization’. You might want to mention that to cops in many cities who continue to harass gays who go there, less universal than it once was but not by any means gone. If the next time another group is ‘victimized by terror’ why are most mass shootings in the US by Christians. But of course, you fix that problem by refusing to refer to the others such as the Charleston TERRORIST attack on a black church as terrorist.
I have called Dylan roof a terrorist on this very website. He was a murderous white supremacist who deserves life in jail. Notice how lynchings and church bombings no longer happen in US south? That’s because we fought white supremacy and won the battle. The battle of the 21st century is the fight against Islamic supremacy. We need to fight that with the same vigor. The attack on the gay bar was another manifestation of Islamic supremacy
And the only reason why fundamentalist Christians no longer bash and kill us with impunity is because we organized to put an end to that shit. They still would if they still could, their contempt is seething barely concealed under the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
The Father of Propaganda
…keep up Jonah
” The next time another group is victimized by terror, there’s a 99% chance the perpetrator will be Muslim. Only Islam produces this level of terror. It stands alone”
And then there’s the …
IDF
Timely article.