From the Jihad Watch Hatemail Bag

LIBERALISM THEN AND NOW

THEN:

"Mahomet was an imposter, since he completely abolishes the freedom which is granted by that universal religion revealed by the natural and prophetic light, and which I have shown ought to be fully granted."

Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) "Letter 49: Spinoza to Isaac Orobio" (1671)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/let49.htm#TOP

NOW:

"And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad?"

John Bryson Chane, "What were you thinking of God?" Sermon preached at Washington National Cathedral (12/25/03) http://www.edow.org/news/media/releases/2003/jbc_xmassermon.html

"I usually call myself these days a freelance monotheist. I draw nourishment from all three of the religions of Abraham… And I can not see in essence any one of these three faiths as superior to any of the others."

Karen Armstrong, "Now with Bill Moyers" (3/1/02)
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_armstrong.html

"(The) panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned."

Al Gore, "Earth in the Balance - Ecology and the Human Spirit" (1992)
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/Gore7-99.html

THEN:

"It is a misfortune for human nature when a religion is granted by a conquerer. The Mahometan religion, which refers only to the sword, is more likely to motivate those with the same destructive spirit that founded it."

Montesqieu (1689-1755) "The Spirit of Laws: Book XXIV, Chapter IV" (1748)
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_24.htm#004

NOW:

"In the aftermath of the cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of communism have created a "threat vacuum" that has given rise to a search for new enemies. For some Americans the enemy …is (the) Islamic world… Islam and Muslim culture are portrayed as somehow peculiarly and inherently expansionist and prone to violence and warfare."

John Esposito, "Political Islam: Beyond the Green Menace," Current History (1/94)
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/espo.html

"The notion that Islam 'imposes itself by force and violence and has always been against Christianity' -- that is not true at all."

Karen Armstrong, "Former nun's concern grows after Madrid," Chicago Tribune (4/24/04)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001712.php

"(Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is) dedicated to a free Egypt…I knew that there was a possibility that the government would cut me off from him for releasing this statement. But he told me he wanted this statement to get out to his people."

Lynne Stewart, "The Terrorist's Lawyer," 60 Minutes (9/21/03)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/02/60minutes/main507885.shtml

THEN:

"Mohammed had not only religious doctrines descend from Heaven and placed in the Koran, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels in contrast, speak only of the general relations of men to God and among themselves. Outside of that they teach nothing and oblige nothing to be believed. That alone, among a thousand other reasons, is enough to show that the first of these two religions cannot dominate for long in enlightened and democratic times, whereas the second is destined to reign in these centuries as in all others."

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) "Democracy in America: Volume II, Chapter V" (1840)
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch1_05.htm

NOW:

"Neither Islam nor its culture is the major obstacle to political modernity."

Robin Wright, "Islam and liberal democracy: Two visions of reformation," Journal of Democracy 7.2, (1996) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/rwright.htm

"The heart of Islam beats with the heart of the American people."

Karen Armstrong, "Interview," Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Episode 602 (9/13/02)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/armstrong.html

"The theoretical undertaking of synthesizing Islam and democracy is promising. …Muslims and non-Muslims alike should welcome the intellectual efforts, and yes, dreams, of Islamic democrats. …their aspirations represent the way of the future. …Islamic democrats are the best hope for the future of the Muslim world—and they deserve our admiration and our support."

Noah Feldman, "The Best Hope," Boston Review (4-5/03)
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.2/feldman.html

THEN:

"To pretend that Christianity was intended to stereotype existing forms of government and society, and protect them against change, is to reduce it to the level of Islamism or of Brahminism. It is precisely because Christianity has not done this, that it has been the religion of the progressive portion of mankind, and Islamism, Brahminism, etc. have been those of the stationary portions; or rather (for there is no such thing as a really stationary society) of the declining portions. There have been abundance of people, in all ages of Christianity, who tried to make it something of the same kind; to convert us into a sort of Christian Mussulmans, with the Bible for a Koran, prohibiting all improvement: and great has been their power, and many have had to sacrifice their lives in resisting them. But they have been resisted, and the resistance has made us what we are, and will yet make us what we are to be."

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) "The Subjection of Women: Chapter II" (1869)
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m645s/chapter2.html

NOW:

"…ignorant and self-deceiving Arab intellectuals …have seen in the atrocities of 9/11 a sign that the Arab and Islamic worlds are somehow more diseased and more dysfunctional than any other, and that terrorism is a sign of a wider distortion that has occurred in any other culture."

Edward Said, "The meaning of Rachel Corrie," Counterpunch (6/23/03)
http://www.counterpunch.org/said06232003.html

"People who talk about the need for Islam to have a reformation, ‘as we did’ in the 16th century, show a great ignorance of Islam and the Protestant Reformation. People who think there was something special about the Reformation are ignorant about world history."

Karen Armstrong, "Interview," Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Episode 602 (9/13/02)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/armstrong.html

"… (the Constitution) which although a secular document reflecting the wealthy, white, slaveholding, Anglophilic men who wrote it, is treated with the reverence accorded to scripture by any good fundamentalist anywhere."

Edward Said, "American elections: System or farce?" Al-Ahram (12/00)
http://www.mafhoum.com/press/amelect.htm

THEN:

"The matrimonial condition is not the same in reality in Mahometan and Christian countries. Here, the woman contracts with her husband nearly upon a principle of equality; there, marriage is impressed with a character of servitude: here, the woman preserves her liberty; there, at least among the more opulent, she is kept in a state of seclusion."

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) "Of the Influence of Time and Place in Matters of Legislation: Chapter I" (1843) http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/bentham/timeplace/timeplace.c01.html

NOW:

"There is no difference between Islam and human rights."

Shirin Ebadi, "Iranian rights activist wins Nobel Nobel" CNN (10/10/03)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/10/nobel.peace/

"Mohammed gave women rights of inheritance and divorce, that we wouldn’t have in the West until the 19th Century."

Karen Armstrong, Now with Bill Moyers (4/9/04)
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript315_full.html

"We will also be working against religious fundamentalism and its attack on women everywhere, including by Christian fundamentalist groups in the United States."

Margaret Owen, "Women to fight ‘fundamentalism’," Reuters (4/8/04)
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,266549-1-9,00.html

"…And part of the way that they are able to debunk Islam is to use over and over and over the women issue. So unless they intend to make equal pay for women and not quibble over Title Nine and all the other things they do in this country, I find that it's sort of the pot calling the kettle black."

Lynne Stewart,  "Lynne Stewart Interview" World War 3 Report, issue 40 (6/30/02)
http://www.worldwar3report.com/40.html

THEN:

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) "The Contest in America" (1862)
http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/conam10h.htm

NOW:

"War is always an acknowledgment of failure."

Dominique de Villepin, "Villepin: 'War is acknowledgment of failure'" CNN (3/9/03)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/villepin.transcript/

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists."

Romano Prodi, "The Spanish response," Washington Post (3/16/04)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61727-2004Mar15?language=printer

"At the same time, war (against the Taliban) would reinforce the worst elements in our own society-- the flag-wavers and bigots and militarists."

Katha Pollitt, "Put out no flags," The Nation (9/20/01)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=pollitt

"A truce must be called with radical Islam."

Patrick Seale, "Patrick Seale: Painful stings are unavoidable when a hornet's nest is stirred" Gulf News (3/19/04) http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=114783

THEN:

"… there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States..."

George Orwell (1903-1950) "Notes on nationalism" (1945)
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

NOW:

"…if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others."

Susan Sontag, "The talk of the town," The New Yorker (9/24/01)
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?010924ta_talk_wtc

"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."

Nicholas de Genova, "Professors Condemn War in Iraq At Teach-in," Columbia Spectator (3/27/03)
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/03/4095f1f5eeacc?in_archive=1

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow –and they will win"

Michael Moore, "Heads Up…from Michael Moore" (4/14/04)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

ANY QUESTIONS?

First of all, Rubisco, nobody enjoys a good quote more than I do, but part and parcel of a true democratic discourse is, at days end, having some genuine premise and conclusion of one's own.And the "ANY QUESTIONS?" tagline is part of an advertising anthology whose inventory includes "GOT MILK?" and all it's permutations.In other words, if it came from a t-shirt or bumper-sticker and your tongue isn't in your cheek at the time of quoting, it probably is best left on the T-shirt or bumper-sticker.
Secondly, like the professor of economics who just got a photocopy of what looks suspiciously like chapter five of Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" from the oft-absent Phys-Ed major as his final term paper, I don't believe that anyone who had the intellectual prowess, academic backround, time and focus to be familiar with (under the "THEN" catagory) Montesqieu, Spinoza,and Mill (and by extension, Liberalism and Liberals) would fail to compare them to contemporary equals of say, John Ruskin, rather than the pathetic cavalcade of intelectual has-beens, wanna-bees, and never-wases (under the "NOW" catagory)Rubisco offers the rest of the class.In fact, I think it's a fair bet that Rubisco doesn't even know the author of "Doing Whatever One Wants" (Ruskin's scathing refutation of Mill)beyond some fading thirty-year old quotation on the wall of an even more faded Baskin-Robbins.
All of which leads me to assume that this was cut-and-pasted in it's entirety from some other source unattributed,and as such is part of the "I believe it because it's true" psychosis that pilots aircraft into the side of buildings in NY,explodes trucks in front of Federal offices in Oklahoma, saws heads off helpless victims on-camera with highlights at 11,and has no place on these pages or on any genuine discussion.

Robert,

Getting back to the topic, your reference concerning "intellectuals" resorting to a spooky sort of covert "Jew-bashing" to rationalize what they hope is the root of your "obvious negative bias" ("Let me guess, you are Jewish, right?")reminds me of what passed for Catholic Intellectualism back in the 1970's. Any reference to Christianity's "Mohammed" - St. Paul - and his apparent manifest religious intolerance, paternalism, and contempt for women as people was invariably met with a weary shrug,a bemused smile, a kindly "I get that one all the time" look with the statement,"Well, as you probably know, St. Paul was raised a Jew, and was originally a rabbi."

I wish the Socratic Irony of confessing only one's own ignorance and wishing to learn from anyone who claims to know (not that I would practice it) would return and send this "I know the answer to your question before you ask it" nonsense howling back to the Carnival of Fools from whence it came.

Phil,

I am in awe of your pedantry and snobbery!

It might please you to know that not only have I never heard of John Ruskin, I never even heard of the work, "Doing whatever one wants."

Let's put it this way: I don't feel the need for a critic to help me evaluate someone like John Stuart Mill.

During your vain attempt to show off your erudition, you failed to notice that I juxtaposed these passages in order to show that the true spirit of liberalism is being betrayed.

The fact that the liberals representing "NOW" are mostly losers who will never compare with giants like Spinoza et al. is irrellevent.

I want to make it clear that what is widely accepted today in liberal circles often contradicts the ideas that made liberalism so great during from the Enlightenment through the Industrial Revolution.

Indeed, people like Villepin and Moore will be forgotten, but we should never underestimate the damage they are doing today.

Rubisco,
They, and the Jihadists, only do as much damage as we give them to do by drawing attention to them.
If there are no equals to Spinoza, et al. then neither "Liberalism" nor "Liberals" exist any longer except in the fantasy ideology of fascists posing as "Conservatives".
The poseurs you cited are the political equivalent of the African-American who accepts being called "boy" in exchange for his position in a workplace...if that's what Massa wants to call me, as long as the talk show and book-signing offers keep coming...
One of the warning signs of the onset of Fascism in 1930's Europe was the discrediting of Liberalism that no longer existed - a literary devise that one can still observe in, for example, the recent autobiography of Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany. Like racial scapegoats,it matters little whether political scapegoats actually exist as individuals or a group, or actually said or believe what a Fascist claims they say or believe (notice how most of what exists of "liberal" theory comes from "conservative" websites, "conservative" politicians and "conservative" talk show hosts, who habitually begin each diatribe with, "Now, you know what the liberals are going to say, do, think when they hear about this....they're going to say, do, think this...)what matters is the Fascist is able to juxtapose themselves: "If the liberal/communist/jew/westerner is evil (and by telling you what he thinks or does, I have just proven it)then it stands to reason that I,a conservative/capitalist/christian/jihadist who opposes him, is good."
Part of the problem, the reason why it appear that Liberalism and Liberals no longer exist is grounded in the false assumptions we have of ourselves and those around us because our two-party system, along with the influence a legal subculture based upon adversarial relationships which has leached into our Mainstream, to create social and political polarization so foreign to our civilization we lack the vocabulary to discuss it.
That's the main reason you need to know John Ruskin if you know John Stuart Mill...they were adversaries, opponents, they disagreed on the nature of personal freedom, but Ruskin, an art critic by trade,who wrote theories on social reform in the form of imaginary letters to workingmen and laborers and supported old age pensions, labor organization, and universal public education - not exactly today's standard resume of what one might have assumed (due to his clash with Mill)to be a Conservative. And this was not the exception, but the rule up to about the 1930's. Before then, as Mencken had observed,there was "a steady willingness to believe his opponent is as honorable a man as himself,and may be right".This is the "true spirit of Liberalism" and yes, I did notice you trying to juxtapose giants with poseurs like pearls before swine - that's what convinced me you were even worth posting to...
And try to appreciate that Liberal ideas did not make Liberalism great during the Enlightenment and Industrial Age, Liberalism was the Enlightenment and the Industrial Age.

Mr. Spencer:

The hatemail you got (some of which we saw before your overhaul of comments) doesn't really surprise me. When Muhammad Mahatir told the world's Muslim leaders that Jews controlled the world by proxy, he revealed the utter intellectual bankruptcy of his culture. But if a leader who has had extensive experience of the world,including study abroad, must borrow a cliche from a decadent movement of a decadent era in a rival civilization, what can be expected of the Islamic street?

I thoroughly agree with your statement on the "unconscious ethnocentrism" of the immoderate Left. While blithely calling the rest of us "racist", these folks tell you that the only reason Marxism-Leninism failed was because it was run by a bunch of Slavic uentermenschen.

Rubisco and Phil: Karen Armstrong is a prime example of someone who is so open-minded that her brain fell right out of her head.

These juxtaposed quotes -- the beautiful and intelligent past represented by De Tocqueville,
Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, with their remarks juxtaposed so brilliantly by the poster, "Rubisco," those egregiously idiotic remarks (Armstrong, Esposito, Said, Moore) of the unbeautiful and cretinized present -- how well chosen are the remarks, how pregnant with implication, how useful in provoking thought, and even a kind of stunned wonder at the difference in the level of thought and expression, between past and present, and all that it implies. Thank you, "Rubisco" -- and as Jimmy Durante would add, as he did for Mrs. Calabash -- wherever you are.

Now that we're off-topic again.....

Hugh,

"...how well chosen are the remarks, how pregnant with implication, how useful in provoking thought, and even a kind of stunned wonder at the difference in the level of thought and expression, between past and present, and all that it implies."

Are you kidding? Reading a post juxtaposing Spinosa, Orwell and Mill with the likes of Gore, Armstrong and Moore is like watching that ballgame video a few weeks ago where the 28-year old former Assemblies of God Youth Minister triumphully beat out the 4-year old for a foul ball in the stands...there is simply no contest! And it is intellectual dishonesty of the cheapest kind (the kind exhibited by Gore, Armstrong, et al.)to continue to assert otherwise.
I wonder if you would still regard De Tocqueville, Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, and Orwell as part of a "beautiful and intelligent" past if their shades were to again walk among us just long enough to tell you and Rubisco (who are both intelligent enough to have anticipated this yourselves)what they thought of the Patriot Act, the Marriage Protection Act,and an Attorney General that leads his staff in a "non-obligatory" religious service every morning.
Actually, they don't need to, one may already glean it from the quotes you've supplied.

And one more thing, remember a cardinal rule of literature when regarding Karen Armstrong: "Never read an autobiography while the author is still alive - especially if it's by a former athlete, a current politician, or a prostitute who became a nun and vice versa".

Quote from Rubisco

"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishu’s."

Only if Rudisco plays the Somalis

Rubisco has Just another classic case of Cranial Rectal Inversion.. "Head up the butt"

The greatest thing about freedom of speech, it exposes the idiots, they cant help but show up shoot the mouth off and run... What help are you when you help a Michael Moore, he is a traitor.
He should be taken out and shoot for all the world to see! It easy to shoot your mouth off, can you back it up. Can you walk the walk or just talk the talk.... when Jihad shows up, My 1st question will be are you a member of the NRA... If your not, don’t stand near me! Where will the anti-gun people be when the Holy war come here... Funny thing when war shows up, the anti-gun people will hang out with the gun nuts!
Hey kinda reminds me of the Muslims.... Same Stuff, Different Day!

to phil: your lectures above beg the following questions: (1) who would you recommend as contemporary liberals of stellar quality? (2) if such people exist, how do they differ in their rhetoric from the mantra promulgated by the intellectual midgets quoted above? (3) if, indeed, moore/gore/armstrong and their ilk are not representative of the post-modern liberal point of view, then who among the liberal establishment will denounce them for their false takes on reality? (i already know the answer to that one: no one -- "no enemies to my left.")

Hugh,

Thanks for your support. Hearing it from you means alot!

Bar,

Read between the lines.

Phil,

You still don't get it do you? My post is neither an endorsement of all the values promoted by the Bush administration nor those of a mythical yesteryear.

It is an expose on the degenerate views and rants that are associated with liberalism today. Let's put it this way; I believe that some ideas are timeless and universal, regardless as to the time or place from which they came. In effect, I have no doubt that there were alot of fatuous mounbanques during the time of J.S. Mill, but the giants of my "THEN" section have withstood the test of time, and that has made all the difference in the world.

It is always more difficult to know the follies of one's time while history is unfolding. I am hoping this juxtoposition might make some comtemporary liberals think.

For the record, I consider myself a liberal and a lifelong Democrat, who is in strong disagreement with many ideas of the Bush administration, but in view of what's at stake, I think my differences with Bush are petty:

A landslide victory by the Republicans would send a clear message to the terrorists that America is not like Spain.

The Democrats will win my vote only when they make it clear that there is nothing "anti-liberal" about as serious commitment to fighting terrorism.

"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other son of a bitch die for his"
George S. Patton (1885 - 1945)

"Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar." This call and spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice was quoted by Churchill in his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC - May 19, 1940, London.

The hand of the diligent will rule, but the lazy man will be put to forced labor...

Bar,

Try this one:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) "The River War", first edition, Vol. II (1899)

Phil,

You seem "threatened" by the fact that people like Ashcroft and Bush are so openly Christian.

For the record, I also consider myself to be a "secular humanist" (for lack of a better word), but I am profoundly disappointed at the defeaning silence from today's secular humanists with regards to the threat of militant Islam.

With the exception of brave apostates like Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, the overwelming majority of the passionate anti-jihadis are motivated by their Judeo-Christian heritage. In other words, most secularists lack the backbone to recognize the enemy, much less fight it. Consequently, even though I do not consider myself a Christian, I have much more respect for Christianity and Christian society, than the current secularism that has lost its way.

In effect, if Bush and Ashcroft want to express their faith in God on the job, let them: Maybe that is what helps keep America from becoming the amoral free-for-all that used to be Europe.

In closing, I would like to put one of the prized quotes in a wider context:

"One must recognize that equality, which introduces great goods in the world, nevertheless suggests to men very dangerous instincts…

The greatest advantage of religions is to inspire wholly contrary instincts. There is no religion that does not place man’s desires beyond and above earthly goods and does not raise his soul toward regions much superior to those of his senses…

Religious peoples are therefore naturally strong in precisely the spot where democratic peoples are weak; this makes this makes very visible how important it is that men keep their religion when becoming equal."

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) "Democracy in America: Volume II, Chapter V" (1840)

Rubisco,
I take back what I said about you cribbing...your capacity for text is indeed prodigeous, producing coherent (and clearly original) posts faster than I can reply.
I'm "threatened" by the fact that, even with the Jihadists as a clear and present object lesson, that no one sees anything wrong with the narcissism inherent(not to mention exhibitionism, and all the emotional deviation it implies)in being openly anything in the public eye. Much less the feeling of being compelled to accept their behavior as a standard. Isn't that the "conservative"'s principle argument against the Gay Rights Movement? I'm certain de Tocqueville, who had the excesses on both sides of the French Revolution as his model, never invisioned Bush or Ashcroft, at once both government employers and government employees,selfishly ignoring common decency, and the very Federal laws they swore to uphold. I've watched Ashcroft for a long time, and if his religion has raised "his soul toward regions much superior to those of his senses…" I,(and a host of Missouri Synod Baptists who now regret ever voting for him)am still waiting to see it. More likely,he will, with the Jihadists, declare (with apologies to the pigs in Orwell's classic)"All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others" which is the definition of Dhimmitude if ever there was one.

Yes I do get it, we agree more than we disagree, but you have missed your own point to which I'm desperately trying to steer you back - you are just a step away from realizing that there may be no true "Liberal" movement in this country.That these has-been, wanna-bees, and never-wases that you cite are nothing more than straw men in the service of reactionaries, if not fascists.
"It is always more difficult to know the follies of one's time while history is unfolding" No contest. But that's what made Mill, Orwell, et al. great!And even as "Liberals", they depended on the lessons of history (genuine history, not fascist revisionism)and thus "stood upon the shoulders of giants".And if that, ironically, is not the truest definition of "Conservative", then there are none among us.
"but in view of what's at stake, I think my differences with Bush are petty:
A landslide victory by the Republicans would send a clear message to the terrorists that America is not like Spain.
The Democrats will win my vote only when they make it clear that there is nothing "anti-liberal" about as serious commitment to fighting terrorism."
I doubt if there is an Afghani alive today that would step aside to let the Taliban rule all over again just to be rid of the Soviets, but I could be wrong..."what's at stake" is that the Republicans are cynically exploiting the war to force the vote to Bush and the Democrats are cynically exploiting the Republican cynicism to force the vote their way...and damn them both for doing so! It is the moral,constitutional,and patriotic duty of any political party in this country to "win my vote", that is, appeal to me as a citizen, to elect them - not demand my vote as a tithe, nor bargain for it like a commodity! Shame! Shame on all of them!

Bar,
Stay out of this one! I don't have time to explain why you've got Rubisco all wrong. Stay on the porch,keep posting, study our writing, look up our references,(you would benefit taking a few days or weeks looking up all of Rubisco's quotes) don't make up fake medical terms until you've mastered at least one language (I recommend you keep working on English)You're not ready to argue with the Big Dogs yet, much less be a lead...so your view isn't going to change anytime soon.

ted,
1.)I'll let you know when I find one. Until then, like Diogenes, I'll keep searching.
2.)I think it's more like a cross between Moore's (Sir Thomas, not Michael)Utopia and Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes where a perfect society is usurped by a lesser species (complete with a fantasy ideology and a forbidden zone) that mimics their actions, but not their intellect, and almost get away with it.
3.)See 2.).More to the point I'll be Col. Turner if someone will kindly point out Dr. Zaius.
Bearing in mind my earlier post, "Before then, as Mencken had observed,there was "a steady willingness to believe his opponent is as honorable a man as himself,and may be right"." and that we learn more from those who disagree with us (although, often not that much more)than those with whom we agree,and that only a Fascist, as part of the pathological narcissism inherent in fantasy ideology, needs the co-dependency of enablers. (Unless, of course, you're Reza, in which case you need merely to get back on your medication and stay there). That having been said,I don't believe we have any traditional Liberals or Conservatives per se, at least not on the front lines of political discourse, and we they did, we would find they agree on more than they dissagree. It would seem that Lewis Carroll's depiction of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum as metaphors for the 19th century British parliment (just as I explained to Rubisco about Mill and Ruskin, one can't really imagine William F. Buckley, jr. without Gore Vidal - the last of their species and elder statesmen at that)is more apt in our own time than his. I'm not ready to enbrace Vidal's suggestion("There is only one party, the Industrial party, and it has two right-wings: the Democrats and Republicans")yet, but some days...I hope the current polarization for polarization's sake - the primitive impulse to identify (or, failing that, invent) an apponent and then label him as evil in order to proclaim myself (by default)as good is just a modern, and hopefully temporary, insanity.

The comments are great....

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), Speech, September 22, 1936

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)

"With the exception of brave apostates like Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, the overwelming majority of the passionate anti-jihadis are motivated by their Judeo-Christian heritage. In other words, most secularists lack the backbone to recognize the enemy, much less fight it."
That would make the Anti-Jihadis no better than the Jihadists, which is the argument the so-called "liberals" and appeasers and Dhimmists Mr. Spencer has been battling all along!Islamists aren't wrong because I'm not Moslem, I am not Moslem because they are wrong! Right and Wrong are not accidents of birth!! And just because "secular humanists" (who exist more as straw men in fundamentalist's publications and editorials than anywhere else)are not, unlike Christians and Moslems in your apparent worldview,(and I'm so mad because I know you're smarter than this)born enemies - until someone, in the service of their fascist ideology - tells them they are. That's why so many of us refuse to profess a religion publicly nowadays the way people disdained patriotism in Europe after WWII(which laid the groundwork for the "multicultural mess it is today) - because just as the Nazis, with their selfish, narccissistic co-opting of patriotism made it a vile, cheapened thing of the streets, so too Fascists on both sides of the Atlantic have rendered religion their besotted whore - unfit for the company of civilized men.

"I have much more respect for Christianity and Christian society, than the current secularism that has lost its way."
Did you, by any chance, study Buddhism under Watts in the 1970' or 1980's? If so, as strange as it may seem,(and stranger things have happened)you and I are fellow disciples....

Off-topic, but am I the only one that has figured out Pierre Boulle (who also penned "Bridge on the River Kwai")wrote "Planet of the Apes" as an allegory of the fall of the post-colonial French nation to a wave multicultural stepchildren from it's former African colonies...way back in 1963! As such, it's certainly more racist then anything mon petit Bardot ever wrote! Shame how the French jurists will abandon you once you lose your figure!

PHIL: "I'm certain de Tocqueville... never invisioned Bush or Ashcroft, at once both government employers and government employees,selfishly ignoring common decency, and the very Federal laws they swore to uphold."

RESPONSE: I don't care to debate about Bush or Ashcroft's motives and/or agenda, but to suggest that they are on the way to creating the Orwellian nightmare of "Animal Farm" is way out of line.

PHIL: "More likely,he will, with the Jihadists, declare (with apologies to the pigs in Orwell's classic)"All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others" which is the definition of Dhimmitude if ever there was one."

RESPONSE: The difference between Dhimminitude and religious discrimination by Christians is that the latter is not justifide by scripture. Islamists humiliate people of other faiths because their religion justifies it. As for Jews or Christians, they must rely on less sacred reasons that are open to debate. I for one single out Islam because it is harmful. Not because the Bible, cultural prejudice, or Big Brother told me so.

PHIL: "these has-been, wanna-bees, and never-wases that you cite are nothing more than straw men."

RESPONSE: If these people are "straw men," then why are Democrats still upset that Al Gore is not president? Why are NPR and PBS so enamored of Karen Armstrong? Why is Edward Said deified in some America's most famous Universities? Why is "Farenheit 9/11" getting so many rave reviews?

PHIL: "Republicans are cynically exploiting the war to force the vote to Bush and the Democrats are cynically exploiting the Republican cynicism to force the vote their way."

RESPONSE: This might be true. All the more reason for me to point out that that liberalism is being betrayed. When thoughful Americans recognize, they might do a better job of choosing a candidate for the Democrats.

PHIL: "That would make the Anti-Jihadis no better than the Jihadists."

RESPONSE: Get real! Are you implying a moral equivalency between Jerry Falwell calling Muhammad a "terrorist" and suicide bombing, sawing off heads, and 9/11?

Falwell may be an ignorant bigot about many things, but what he said about Muhammad was right on target, and I commend him for having the courage to say it in public.

Well phil your right I cant type with the big dogs, but I can sure fight with them... Im not some over educated person who spills knowledge to impress... I have a back bone that does not bend... No liberal could even begain make sense, let alone change my mind....
One thing that is really missing is common sense... Liberals cant even figure the jokes out!
I now understand Rubisco, wasn’t sure at first, had to read it a few times, so no you don’t have to waste your time trying to explain it to me... My common sense will get me a lot further then a bunch of collage degrees. See if you can get this one Phil, What’s the 2 most common elements in society, hydrogen and stupidity.... Optic Analits... It gives you a crappy outlook on life... Fake medical terms... What the F???

The heart of the matter with Islam is a matter of the heart.

PHIL: "I'm certain de Tocqueville... never invisioned Bush or Ashcroft, at once both government employers and government employees,selfishly ignoring common decency, and the very Federal laws they swore to uphold."
RESPONSE: I don't care to debate about Bush or Ashcroft's motives and/or agenda, but to suggest that they are on the way to creating the Orwellian nightmare of "Animal Farm" is way out of line.
I'm suggesting de Tocqueville(not Orwell, slow down)never invisioned the two like them in positions of power in America, and I stand by it. Since you mentioned it, I'm not suggesting that they have created an Orwellian nightmare, but in order to support their motives and agenda, someone will have to create one.This is what I see and hear everytime someone insists that "a Bush landslide will send a message" or "Ashcroft will safeguard our rights" or "The Saudis are our longtime friends and allies"

PHIL: "More likely,he will, with the Jihadists, declare (with apologies to the pigs in Orwell's classic)"All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others" which is the definition of Dhimmitude if ever there was one."
RESPONSE: The difference between Dhimminitude and religious discrimination by Christians is that the latter is not justifide by scripture. Islamists humiliate people of other faiths because their religion justifies it. As for Jews or Christians, they must rely on less sacred reasons that are open to debate. I for one single out Islam because it is harmful. Not because the Bible, cultural prejudice, or Big Brother told me so.
OK, now Orwell...he didn't invent Newspeak, he observed it in history both past and present, and simply extrapolated it ahead fifty years or so. There are basic linguistic principles that allow us to do this with virtually any language.That being said, I don't know who you have been arguing Christian or Jewish discrimination with, but every single person I've argued with, every incident I've studied,from the Congressional Record to the Supreme Court over the last century and a half, the discriminator claimed what were to them, sacred reasons, not open to debate. And it is precisely this "thinking makes it so" coupled with "it's true because I believe it" (whether in the context of academic, journalistic,or theocratic "PCness" that heralds an Orwellian Nightmare, for both Left and Right, believer and non-believer, on both sides of the Atlantic.

PHIL: "these has-been, wanna-bees, and never-wases that you cite are nothing more than straw men."
RESPONSE: If these people are "straw men," then why are Democrats still upset that Al Gore is not president? Why are NPR and PBS so enamored of Karen Armstrong? Why is Edward Said deified in some America's most famous Universities? Why is "Fahrenheit 9/11" getting so many rave reviews?
The answer to your whole response is: tribalism.Al Gore is their vanqished chieftain, Armstrong is their virgin priestess, the late Said is their dead prophet, and "Fahrenheit 09/11" is their solemn High Mass. And that is where Liberalism (and Conservativism as well) has come to: nothing more than opposing tribes.

PHIL: "Republicans are cynically exploiting the war to force the vote to Bush and the Democrats are cynically exploiting the Republican cynicism to force the vote their way."
RESPONSE: This might be true. All the more reason for me to point out that that liberalism is being betrayed. When thoughful Americans recognize, they might do a better job of choosing a candidate for the Democrats.

PHIL: "That would make the Anti-Jihadis no better than the Jihadists."

RESPONSE: Get real! Are you implying a moral equivalency between Jerry Falwell calling Muhammad a "terrorist" and suicide bombing, sawing off heads, and 9/11?
Falwell may be an ignorant bigot about many things, but what he said about Muhammad was right on target, and I commend him for having the courage to say it in public

Not at all, I'm stating outright that being motivated by one's circumstances of birth is tribalism - and clinging to tribalism is what has held back the east, not any oppression from the west, real or imagined! And I've come to realize, while writing the answers to your replies, that perhaps things are worse than I thought.Perhaps, if our institutions have all succumbed to modern forms of tribalism, perhaps we have already collapsed from within.I don't remember inviting Falwell into the argument, but you must admit that there is actually as little courage involved with calling Muhammad a "terrorist" from Lynchburg while surrounded by one's christian tribesmen, as calling for a Jihad from a mosque in Falluja while surrounded by one's moslem tribesmen.

Phil : because just as the Nazis, with their selfish, narccissistic co-opting of patriotism made it a vile, cheapened thing of the streets, so too Fascists on both sides of the Atlantic have rendered religion their besotted whore - unfit for the company of civilized men.

Response: Don’t look for religion to solve society ills, religion is run by man and man is not perfect so religion will not be. To judge anyone’s religion by how they act, will leave you with no religion. Just because you give yourselves a title doesn’t mean its true. The KKK says they are Christian, but anyone with the ability to read can see that they are just fools. The Nazis where the same, you can not say you are Christian and kill Jews and such. By doing that means that you are not A Christian. Judge people by the content of there Character not what comes out of there mouth.. Don’t be a fool. If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. Being Christian gives you a measuring stick that is God’s standard, not some man made wisdom that ebbs and flows with time. Man is fallible. God is infallible. We have removed our God from society, when will he remove us?

Falwell may be an ignorant bigot about many things, but what he said about Muhammad was right on target, and I commend him for having the courage to say it in public.

What standard does Mr Falwell try to live to? Is God a bigot? Is God ignorant? If we profess that we do not believe that homosexuality is not right, are we guilty of hate? If my standards are higher, does that make me a bigot? If you don’t like what they say, are they then ignorant? Only the spirit of God understands the things of God. If you don’t have the spirit of God, then the things of God will not make sense to you. The foolish ways of men will.

phil, i like your tribalism metaphor. reminds me of desmond morris, among others.

you have a mirror emotion of mine. you believe the right is perpetrating totalitarianism, and i believe that the left shamelessly perpetrates it as evidenced by activist judges, brainwashing in education curricula, and the a priori theme of the left-wing platform that the world is better off run by moral relativists and post-structuralist utopian demagogues.

what we really seem to have happening is a condition where humanity is on certain strong trajectories (examples can range from population growth to democracy proliferation to increased mass communication to the inevitable clash between the west and the middle east) and the various wings of politics only have part of the solutions (or part of the problems, depending on how you look at it). therefore, it would seem to follow that as long as some remnant of status quo remains (i.e. no totalitarianism in western civilization) the various political parties will rise and fall in some equilibrium that keeps power out of the hands of those who would abuse it for totalitarian ends.

i can agree somewhat that recent trends bode ill for religious liberty. for instance, i am not very pleased that bush called on the pope to encourage u.s. bishops to speak out against gay marriage. while personally, i am against gay marriage, it seems to me to be a fundamental problem to appeal to the vatican to get involved in domestic political issues in america. also, the constitution party concerns me with their blatant platform of combining church and state into some sort of theocracy (note it is very painful for me to see this group latch on to much of the federalist platform -- one which i agree with wholeheartedly). also, the decision by a judge yesterday in virginia to hold up a blue law due to scheduling concerns by business owners shows on the flipside a most devil-may-care attitude in the legislature and judiciary to grapple with issues that are indeed forbidden.

indeed, one can read the latter part of revelation 13 and see the development of the very technologies that would fulfill the prophecy of the lamb-like beast being a transformed united states. and it is equally interesting to note that the onslaught of biometric identification, etc., is being welcomed by the population as a protection against terrorism. the beast has many tools and uses them to trap humanity.

i do not agree that bush/ashcroft have a diabolical agenda. however, they are handmaidens to the very trends that will pave the way for future exploitation by diabolical leadership. whether this comes from the left or right doesn't really seem to matter. both have their ways and means. and all have the same end.

ted,
Thanks, but the "tribalism" metaphor belongs to Lee Harris, whose works I've recommended to anyone reading these pages, early and often.
And as far as mirroring, actually, I blame both the "left" and the "right", it's just that I find that the "right" gets less attention in these threads.
I think the trajectories we're on are tribalism, and it's a declining trajectory.
I don't think that the Bush/Ashcroft agenda is diabolical,that would give them way too much credit.I think, as I hope I expressed, that their agenda is selfish and narcissistic although the consequenses may be, in your words, "diabolical".
The "recent trend" does not merely "bode ill".The Rubicon has already been crossed.Under Governor Bush, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints had to sue the Texas Public School system all the way to the Supreme Court just to keep their children from being excluded and publicly ridiculed by the Evangelical-dominated faculty and administrations. If the President has, in fact, requested support on political issues from the Pope, if Ashcroft and other Feds have, in fact,exempted conservative christian denominations from terrorism, fund-raising, tax, and breach of church-and-state investigations (Falwell,from his office in Falwell Ministries, has publicly endorsed Bush for President, for example)to say nothing of Ashcroft's having allegedly lead his employees in "nondenominational" services complete with a prayer of Ashcroft's authorship,then rule of law in respect to religion is already gone.

Rubisco,

One more thing - I have Bar to thank for this, the original is in his post above,I've altered it a bit for purposes of illustrating that it could have just as easily been posted by some clueless "leftie" or "moderate muslim" trying to convince us that there's nothing to worry about:

"Don’t look for religion to solve society ills, religion is run by man and man is not perfect so religion will not be. To judge anyone’s religion by how they act, will leave you with no religion. Just because you give yourselves a title doesn’t mean its true. The Israeli's say they are Jewish, but anyone with the ability to read can see that they are just fools. The Turks were the same, you can not say you are Moslem and kill Kurds and such. By doing that means that you are not A Moslem. Judge people by the content of there Character not what comes out of there mouth.. Don’t be a fool. If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. Being Moslem gives you a measuring stick that is Allah’s standard, not some man made wisdom that ebbs and flows with time. Man is fallible. Allah is infallible. We have removed our Allah from governing council, when will he remove us?"

This is a precise illustration of what I meant when I wrote "All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others" and why "That would make the Anti-Jihadis no better than the Jihadists."

Oh, yeah, and Bar, I warned you to stay out of this, now deal with it....

PHIL: MAKE ME STAY OUT!

You can not compare a hate monger to a person who loves. In your Mind I guess the DEvil and Jesus are equal. pull your head out! Get some air to your brain so you can think.

In your world I guess there is no God, or morals, or HOPE.

To change one’s thoughts you do not have to change the way they think, only there prospective!

yes, phil, indeed you make good points. 'tis all inevitable, however. the only hope we have to redeem our shame that we certainly possess by recklessly managing the great country given us by our ancestors and forefathers is that the end of the world draws nigh.

"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises." --Thomas Jefferson

Phil: This is a precise illustration of what I meant when I wrote "All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others" and why "That would make the Anti-Jihadis no better than the Jihadists."

Funny, I don’t think Jesus would agree!

John 2: 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

There is only one way, the narrow path, not the wide highway that leads to your destruction.