Last summer at FreedomFest 2008 I debated Dr. Daniel Peterson, a professor at Brigham Young University and author of Muhammad: Prophet of God, on the topic "Islam: Threat or Not?" The panel was moderated by Matt Sanchez, war correspondent for World Net Daily.
The FreedomFest folks kindly allowed me to post video of the debate, which I will now do, in parts owing to the YouTube time limits. Here is the first part, in which Dr. Peterson rips me but good. Stay tuned for what happened next!
I don't want to "stay tuned." I couldn't stand sitting through that idiocy. I want your reply -- now.
That's right. Lets have it, now!
While watching this video I had every confidence that Spencer responded with equal vigor, and couldn't help imagining the sounds of Hugh's keyboard devastating response.
We await with baited breath.
Robert l have heard and read from your critics and l do not need to be surprised what comes from this so called learned man. please your reply to this idoit would be most appreciated. thank you.
I can't stand speakers who talk fast, slur their words, and spend more time reading their notes than looking at the audience...This means to me that the speaker is not all that comfortable about his presentation...This guy just rambles on with dozens of subjects in one sentence...A lot like Abdullah M...
It's amazing that people can build these huge elaborate structures on an idea that was 'made up'
by a seventh century pervert with mental problems.
It's 1AM here and I am also sitting here waiting. Please I need instant gratification.
knock 'em out out in the first round Robert... you 'da man!
This guy sounds like the the guy on VTV who went to North Korea and enjoyed these lavish meals and great accomodations, except this guy bought the propaganda and turned the other way when they started picking up all the table scraps as food for everyone else, and thought that when the lights went out all over the city it was just a one-time fluke and that that doesn't happen every day.
"Islam's historical record is mixed." Seems pretty consistent to me. Everything Islam has touched has turned into pre-civilizational backwardness, despotism, and stultification based upon the systematic violation of every single human right of nearly every individual, but of course not equally, as that would be un-narcissistic and therefore un-Islamic.
He also says that 1/4 of the world is Muslim. Good Muslim mathematics, there. It's 1/5, tops, assuming that every individual in every Islamic paradise is Muslim, which they are not.
This asshat even plays upon most people's ignorance of the Crusades and their "understading" of them as being unjust and uncalled-for, when the very book he invokes, 'PIG to Islam and the Crusades,' dispels this Orwellian, Leftist-parallel-universe myth. Furthermore, he says that Kelsay argues that the non-existent "moderates" have a case. I've read 'Arguing the Just War in Islam,' and Kelsay's argument is the same as Spencer's: that "moderates" only exist in the West and only because they are ignorant of Islam and are spoonfed the same fraudulent version of it that we are (which is obviously not true anymore anyway, as anyone who has every lurked on Islamic forums or seen Undercover Mosque can attest). Kelsay does not argue that the "moderates" have a case. He argues that people should call themselves Muslim but not actually practice Islam. He argues that the mujhideen are not waging war as they are supposed to according to Islamic dogma, which is true. But Bin Laden does not have a Caliph to order him around, and it would not have been possible to attack all the women and children in the WTC and the Pentagon while they were unarmed in unprovoked night raids, then rape, enslave, and sell them, nor would it have been possible to behead all the men. Jihad is an obligation and he is waging jihad; he is therefore being a good Muslim. Kelsay gets hung up on the technicalities, when Muslims are actually updating their warfare. This is "reformed" Islam: updated jihad.
Ugh. Yeah, bring the rest, please.
Whence Part 2?
So, Peterson disagrees with Spencer and the mainstream Wahabbi view of Islam, so what? He offered not a single shred of proof to support his thesis in his opening statements.
What I heard was a lot of, "...if that is true...", "...since there are so many Muslims, what can we gain by declaring Islam as...", "...moderates have a legitimate case...", "...a premise that I disagree with...", "...Since SPencer asupports the Crusaders, he is no different than Bin Laden...", etc., all the usual talking points devoid of any substance.
I can't wait for a single example by Peterson of a true moderate, if one is ever offered by him in this debate.
I concur with the others. Leaving us in a lurch like this of having to endure this "scholar's" empty rhetoric without your rejoinder is not in keeping with the spirit of Thanksgiving.
Regards.
Well, the first major point, and the last point, he makes in this clip is essentially "since there are so many Muslims in the world, it's frightening and disheartening to believe that mainstream Islam is inherently totalitarian/violent."
That conclusion may indeed be frightening, but in the context of a logical debate, it says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not mainstream Islam actually IS inherently violent. In the honest pursuit of the truth of any subject, the emotional and psychological impact of your conclusions are not relevant to the logical foundation of your argument.
I'm reminded of the GK Chesterton quote:
"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."
Patience is a virtue...This is a drama and Robert is building suspense...'All good things come to those who wait'...and wait, and wait....
Hey folks sorry to keep you in suspense. I'm the one to blame for not putting the second video up along with the first one.
Unfortunately, the earliest I can get it uploaded is in between 8pm and 9pm eastern time tonight.
There will be 6 parts in all to this series, so it will continue through next week.
INTERMISSION (it may be a long one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG-wjkB7gXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OANwX8pFC8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgTrigy7UKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqJ5ZZ4zZw0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A77QlfEaDk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaemNKql-TI
Same old same old from those in the West who think there is a good, peaceful Islam (or at least sure as hell hope there is one). What Peterson doesn't understand, though, is that while many Muslims may be peaceful and proper in their daily life, this doesn't mean that Islam is OK (N.B., many Communist Party members during the Cold War were affable with family, friends and even strangers but this didn't mean Marxism was just fine).
Peterson wants Mo's creed to be OK but thinking it is won't make it so. Obviously this guy has not comprehended the succinct wisdom found in Ibn Warraq's assessment which so many who post here at JW are familiar with: There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. Will await Robert Spencer's retort with great interest.
YouTube limits???? There are YouTubes that are an hour long and more..What gives???
Re Peterson,
I agree with others that his opening talk doesn’t digest well aurally. Speeches, to the extent they are scripted, should be scripted to sound more like conversation than reading. The text he reads from is too dense, his pace, too fast. He is uttering Islam apologetic talking points at nearly auctioneer pace.
He erroneously claims that Spencer argues that Qutb, et al., have the “correct” “true” “real teachings” of Islam. In fact, Spencer does not pronounce on what is true Islam, but rather reports on the mainstream accepted views (e.g., what the schools of jurisprudence say about jihad, the dhimma, apostasy and blasphemy punishments, etc.), and the Islamic texts, cited by people like Qutb.
Whether or not Islam is “inherently” violent or not is a red herring. The question is does it contain enough violence to justify our concern, and reasonable actions, in response to that violence or potential for violence. The answer, even for Peterson, ought to be an unambiguous “yes.”
He focuses too much on the violence issue, and does not mention the non-violent jihads that threaten western societies. He does not mention that the Islam threatens many non-western countries. Muslim demographic advantage plus voting tends to result in hard-line Islamic government being brought into power. (Is Peterson aware that approximately 71% of Muslims in the largest Muslim countries want a strict application of sharia law? See World Public Opinion survey). The smart, patient, slow jihadists know this, and have on occasion let slip publicly their ambitions.
Peterson disagrees with the idea that we can’t “negotiate with these people [jihadists, sharia supremacists, etc.].” I would be impressed if he could find any substantial number of cases in Islamic history where Muslims in a position of equal or greater military force to their opponents agreed to negotiate in good faith with those opponents, whereby the result of the negotiation was satisfactory for both sides and sustained for more than 10 years. (My point is that I suspect such cases to be either very rare or non-existent). So why should
He is right that Islam is not all bad. Islam does contain some good elements, and there are Muslims who are moderate. However, Islam must be analyzed as a system (or, if Peterson prefers, systems plural—I see no need to fuss over the semantics one Islam or many). But Islam needs to be seen as a system, a system that has an imperialist, intolerant, supremacist core, and some good elements that can camouflage the bad parts. This mixture makes Islam dangerous, the same way the charming Ted Bundy was more dangerous than some screaming, flailing lunatic on the street corner.
Repeating a common apologist line, he unscrupulously and erroneously blames the “harshest” western critics for increasing the likelihood of a clash of civilizations. He does not seem to accept that harsh criticism of an ideology that is deserving of criticism is an important step in the defense of western civilization. He does not seem to acknowledge the jacked up “sensitivity” of the Islamists, who invoke jihad and sharia in response to bikinis, cartoons, barbers, and teddy bears—or at least to use these stimuli as pretexts. It’s clear enough that there is no way non-Muslims can go about their business without offending most Muslims (e.g., about 68% of Muslims think Islam critics should be criminally prosecuted and punished), except by accepting Islam or Islamic rule. He does not seem to realize that the jihadists of various kinds were attacking the west long before any westerner made criticisms of Islam. There was little significant high-profile criticism of Islam in the mainstream media in North America, for example, prior to 9/11 2001. Al Qaeda did not launch their attacks because they were offended by Huntington or Pipes. Yet, if they did launch attacks against Islam critics (and certainly they have launched attacks on Islam critics and writers, and have made threats), the correct response is not to reduce the criticism but rather to increase it, while taking the appropriate military and police actions. Peterson also misses completely the threat Islam poses to non-western non-Muslim societies around the world.
Peterson uses the standard apologist line that Islam criticism undercuts moderate Muslims. Whether or not Islam criticism “undercuts” moderates, Islam critics have a primary role to play and that is, in part, to describe accurately the nature of Islam and the nature of the problems it poses to non-Muslim societies. Besides, if some moderates don’t have any criticisms of Islam as it is, then how moderate can they be? In any case, Islam critics do put pressure on Muslims to attempt to reform, and that is good. Whether or not they can reform it is another question. But as long as Muslims insist on bringing Islam into non-Muslim societies, and imposing it on non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries, non-Muslims have every right to pressure Muslims to either radically reform or drop Islam. The only grounds for withdrawing outside pressure on Islam and Muslims would be if they permanently treated Islam as only a private matter and did not impose it on non-Muslims and did not restrict the freedoms of other Muslims.
Peterson trots out the moderate Sufism apologetic line. There may be some peaceful Sufists here and there, but is he aware that Sufists historically have belonged to one or other of the Sunni and Shia schools of jurisprudence? Is he aware that some jihadists (including some of those involved with the Beslan massacre) were Sufists? Has he read anything by Ghazali? The fact that Sufists might engage in inner jihad does not negate their ability to wage the outward jihads.
Peterson asks, if everything the harsh critics of Islam are saying is true, then what do we do? Peterson himself is not clear and seems non-committal. He confuses the description of Islam, which is one thing, with the problem of what to do about it if it really is as bad as the critics say it is. Fearing what the latter might entail, he seems to want to adjust the description to conform to a less harsh view. It is a common admission among western apologists for Islam, though I doubt Peterson, when confronted with this admission explicitly, would deny it. (He also denied being an apologist) We can only judge by his statements thus far.
There is constant talk about 'moderate' Mohammadans, but no one as yet has been able to produce one.
That's because there is a very fine line between Islamic moderation and apostasy.
No one knows just exactly where that line is, but a Mohammadan can be killed for crossing it...
For those of you who have not read Geert Wilders Speech in New York this past September sponsored by the Hudson Institute,I can't recommend it enough.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/09/28/transcript-of-geert-wilders-speech-in-new-york/
Well, if it's intermission time, then I'm going to go to the lobby...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfDXlgmKFyU
Popcorn
Richard
Sock it to 'em Robert. This slave of untruth needs a reality sandwich and his bubble of self-deception needs pricking.
An excellent post, Kinana of Khaybar. You covered a lot of bases well. Now, if only folks like Dr. Peterson would read and reflect on what you have to say. But they almost certainly won't and so America and the West will continue to lose precious time arguing about the merits of Islam when we should be wondering how we're going to deal with one of the most menacing systems of thought ever devised by man. No, not devised by God or Allah or whatever one wishes to call the deity, but by man.
Sanchez the war correspondent needs to know that he's a Jihad correspondent, not a war correspondent.
War focuses on territory, moving materiel and fighters around the chess board seeking control over land. The only territory at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in Jihad anywhere, is mindscape. Sanchez is like "war correspondent" Geraldo Rivera: a dumbass who should confine himself to the weight room.
When he smirks that the Ramadan feast he enjoyed was non-violent, Sanchez is stupid enough to fail to ask just what it is Ramadan celebrates. (Hint: a violent success perpetrated against Arab pagans in western Arabia. aViolence perpetrated in the name of, and at the command of, Allah.)
But at least Sanchez doesn't sport a gay moustache, I'll give him that. Maybe he's dating Condoleeza Rice, who's just as happily confused as he is about the origins of Ramadan.
610 * 623 * 632 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
Blogger awake hits the nail on the haid: Peterson's serial rebuttal is content-free. And despite his too-kind-to-himself protestation that he's not an apologist for Islam, Peterson is just that: an apologist for Islam.
What Hugh said -- I can't wait either!
Peterson is a member of the Cabdriver School of Islamic Apology. Dean Esmay is another. They like to note at the top their personal connection to a nice Muslim. Then imply you don't know a nice Muslim so you're an uneducated rube or bigot.
Then they admit their primary argument consists of being unwilling to face the unpleasant and dangerous possibility that Robert Spencer has a point. It's just too awful to contemplate.
"The End of History" in a matter of a decade quickly became the end of historians. The UN made this clear with their resolution yesterday. That's the official start of the Unenlightenment, and the mainstream press could not be bothered to mention it even in passing. A global censorship resolution passes, encouraging theocracy, reconstituting a sort of global Inquisition, and nobody in the mainstream press even noticed.
Bang, meet whimper. Islam being a threat was established without doubt yesterday at the UN. Unless you're a big fan of global theocratic despotism.
I guess I'll enjoy the brief window of freedom we have remaining and comment occasionally.
Looking at the abover blogger's handle Kinana of Khaybar, I've come to a shocking epiphany: I've been wrong all these long years pronouncing and denouncing Islam.
I've been wrong, so terribly wrong, so misguided.
It turns out that when Mohammed ordered his Companions to build that fire on Kinana's chest to get the Jewish treasurer to divulge the location of Khaybar's hidden gold, he was the original inspiration for the Boy Scouts, which hundreds of years later came to teach bright young men how to build camp fires and learn how to be prepared for the travails of adult life.
610 * 623 * 632 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
I bet there are millions of Moslem boys participating in the Boy Scouts program over there in Dar al Islam. Probably right here in Dar al Harb too.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
Fire 'em up, boys.
Peterson's biggest flaw is succumbing to the simmering and dangerous but allegedly moderate Muslim argument. All it takes is one or two western authors departing from the PC party line, the argument goes, and every wonderful Muslim cabdriver will be forced to turn into mujahideen. It's not their faith you see, just people talking about their faith. Distinction without a difference, sure, but at least we avoid confronting 1,400 years of Muslim conquest, subjugation, theocracy, and incessant violence.
If the previous was the "Greatest Generation" we'll be noted as the Worthless Generation (of cowards). Or maybe just more jahillyah and be forgotten completely. As it turns out the 1960s were a mostly irrelevant decade dealing with transient concerns.
Stay tuned for the upcoming civil war in the Left as their alleged support for gay rights and women meets their support for Islam. Popcorn optional.
Reforming Islam...
How can you reform something that is already perfect?
Is it possible to make perfection more perfect?
Does an attempt to reform perfection make it less perfect?
Islamic reform is un-Islamic.
Islamic reform will not be voluntary if it happens at all, it will have to be imposed...
Ah, Robert is torturing us...
I already feel sorry for Dr. Peterson because of what will happen next. :)
"Muhammad: Prophet of God" ...book by Peterson
I haven't read this book, but I wonder if Daniel addresses the evil acts committed by Muhammad? Does he mention Muhammad's sexual perversion, plundering and mass murders, or does he present Muhammad as an angle? Has anyone read this book?
This should be like taking candy from a baby for Mr. Spencer.
Good post, duh_swami! As always!
If Mr Peterson is a professor of Islamic Studies, then what else can we expect him to say but to defend Islam. Afterall, his career depends on its continued existence. From where does he draw his sustenance? My guess is sources directly involved with Islam. May be some funds come from Islamic foundations or even from sources in the Arab Middle-East.
Good post, duh_swami! As always!
Posted by: champ
Thank you Champ...It only took six tries to post it. Things are looking up...
Have a good turkey day...I don't eat turkey, and gave up tofu along with all forms of soy, so
I think I may have some cold potatoes and fried ice. There may be some limp lettuce in the fridge, I might try to revive it...:)
"Dr. Peterson rips me but good. Stay tuned for what happened next!"
Posted by Robert
Ooooh, this is going to be good! This is my lucky year.
In Canada we celebrate Thanksgiving in October, but this year its almost as if I get to experience it all over again vicariously. And with anticipation playing its typical role of heightening the enjoyment of the actual experience, the mere thought of watching Robert devour this guy like the stuffed turkey that he is has my every sense primed to the max and me sitting on the edge of my seat.
I'm salivating!
Kinana of Khaybar makes two important points,
The only grounds for withdrawing outside pressure on Islam and Muslims would be if they permanently treated Islam as only a private matter and did not impose it on non-Muslims and did not restrict the freedoms of other Muslims.
.
.
.
Peterson asks, if everything the harsh critics of Islam are saying is true, then what do we do? Peterson himself is not clear and seems non-committal. He confuses the description of Islam, which is one thing, with the problem of what to do about it if it really is as bad as the critics say it is. Fearing what the latter might entail, he seems to want to adjust the description to conform to a less harsh view.
The wishful thinking that Dr. Peterson illustrates is the most troubling aspect of his viewpoint. Throwing our hands up in exasperation or convincing one’s self that the problem is so hard that it shouldn’t be addressed is not a useful approach.
This is not a struggle that can be won by reshaping the enemy’s own ideological propaganda from the outside; too much thought, effort, and brutality has been expended over the last 1400 years to make the system resistant such efforts.
If those who are on the “inside” of the religion cannot or will not help mount the propaganda and military campaigns to expose, isolate, and eliminate those elements that threaten non-Muslims (and Muslims who would like to practice a solely personal religion) with violence and oppression, they increase the likelihood that the non-Muslim world will eventually be forced to take the position Peterson attributes to Sam Harris.
As has been pointed out many times; the fact that there were Germans and Japanese who would have preferred to live in peace during World War II didn’t save them from the misery of war when the problems their leaders’ ideological stance created could no longer be ignored. The fact that the reality of that war was too horrible for some people to imagine doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
"Muhammad: Prophet of God" ...book by Peterson
I haven't read this book, but I wonder if Daniel addresses the evil acts committed by Muhammad? Does he mention Muhammad's sexual perversion, plundering and mass murders, or does he present Muhammad as an angle? Has anyone read this book?
Posted by: champ
You can bet Robert read his book, even if only in preparation for this debate. We saw Dr. Peterson quote Roberts writings and then challenge them. I expect Robert will, in turn, speak to the Professer's writings.
Or maybe he'll just come back with,
"Jane, you ignorant slut"
Peterson continues a pattern I've heard over and over from different people:
(paraphrasing) "Muslims comprise 1/4 of the world's population; they are not just going to go away. If one assumes Islam is irreconcilable with our way of life, the implications are staggering. Therefore, I reject the premise that Islam is irreconcilable with our way of life."
He's absolutely right, the implications ARE staggering...and because of that, Daniel Peterson, like so many others, would rather deny the existence of the problem than face it.
You will all see soon enough, but I hope the anticipation doesn't lead to disappointment at the reality. In any case, I will say now that the stated topic was "Islam: Threat Or Not," and I did not prepare for the debate by studying Dr. Peterson's works, as the debate was not supposed to be about the merits or lack thereof of his work or mine.
However, his opening statement, as you can see, was an attempt to shift the focus of the debate to a criticism of my work as such, as if the topic of the debate were "Spencer: Threat Or Not." I did accordingly throw out my prepared remarks and instead responded to much of what he says here.
Anyway, I think I held my own, but you all can be the judge once the rest is posted.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
LOL, Richard! Poor Jane, please cut her some slack. :-)
I have a feeling that Daniel's book about Muhammad would make me want to hurl due to it's LIES about Muhammad. The title alone leaves me with the impression that he speaks favorably about this evil prophet (puke be upon him). How anyone can defend or speak favorably about a liar, pervert, thief and murderer is beyond me.
While we are all waiting for Part II, please enjoy one of my favorite clips with the awareness that this movie could not be shown in many Islamic countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEIUW5Rslrc
The debate may be about threat, but one thing I am sure of, is that Islam is a definate threat to my funny bone.
Fair dinkum, I've lost bets before. I got a big box of Junior Mints and a Coke from the lobby. I can't wait for the lights to go down. I hope that guy in front of me takes off his cowboy hat.
"Dr. Peterson rips me but good. Stay tuned for what happened next!"
uh oh!
Islam is vile, and its adherents are mentally ill, as this guy demonstrates all too readily. He's not concerned with the absolute horrors committed constantly in the name of Islam - he's just worried about YOU, Robert, openly discussing them.
What else is new? As I say, they're severely mentally ill. And soon the lunatics will be running the asylum. Worse, they're criminals committing crimes against humanity - and, with the cowards who run non-Muslim countries, these criminals will soon be in charge.
Islam is a crime against humanity.
I am sorry to be a complainer here, but this, to me, is such an important type of debate to hear.
Since I am house-bound and my finances are very restricted, I have no option but to view this article on a dial up connection.
This morning I spent about three hours tying up the phone line to load and view this video.
I agree with most of the commenters here about your opponent's lack of substance.
I just wish there were some way for there to be a transcript or a summary of the debate, because there is no way I will tie up the phone line for up to 15 additional hours to see the remaining 5 parts.
I realize you are under no obligation to accomodate me, but I just wanted to voice my concern once.
Thank you for your wonderful work here.
By RS: You will all see soon enough, but I hope the anticipation doesn't lead to disappointment at the reality.
The fantasy is always better than the reality.
I'm sure RS held his own, what I want to see is how well Dr Peterson held his own.
He did not do so well in his opening remarks...
This could lead to the belief that he is a push over...It may not be the case...Viewing will tell...
The reading public has spoken . . .
Dr. Peterson's latest book . . .Muhammad, Prophet of God via Amazon.com Sales Rank: #613,885 in Books
Robert Spencer's latest book:
Stealth Jihad via Amazon.com Sales Rank: #452 in Books
It's all so obvious.
Please please please, Robert, put Part 2 up.
I look forward to seeing you again, all handsome and brilliant
If criticism of Islam 'undercuts' moderate Muslims, does criticism of violent parents 'undercut' moderate parents? So we just ignore violent, abusive parents? Why can't people think clearly?
Dr. Peterson is an active participant on a Mormon apologetics board, and he has started a thread discussing this video and some of the comments that are found on this site. I'd like to extend a friendly invitation to those of you who might be interested in civil, respectful dialogue to join us here:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=39616
All the best.
Correction to my above post: After re-reading Dr. Peterson's post located at the provided link, it is not clear that he was, in fact, speaking of the comments on this site. The invitation still stands, of course, and apologies for the error.
All the best.
Part 2 is now up on U tube.
Brilliant and concise response from Mr Spencer.
Roll on part 3.
Thadeus,
Thanks for the link. Peterson writes
What Peterson may not realize is that the "Jihad-Watch crowd" has seen these apologetic lines time and time again over the years.
For my own part, I will admit that I probably overstated matters by implying that Peterson was an Islam apologist. To be accurate, I don't think he is an Islam apologist. In the context of the FreedomFest "Islam: Threat or Not?" debate, I think Peterson tried to balance out what he viewed as overly negative critical perspectives on Islam. In doing so, he ended up using a number of lines (in his opening remarks) that happen to be used by Islam apologists. I also think he mischaracterized Spencer's claims. I was responding to the contents of the comments.
-In the thread, other posters comment on this topic. One poster attempts to mock us (probably JW commenters) by sarcastically advocating wiping out one quarter of the world’s population, though he does not quote anyone here who says that. Another accuses “anti-Islam” sites (presumably, including JW and the comments section) of not being able to quote the Quran accurately. Another suggests we are “looking for ‘war’.” The various drive-by accusations are unsubstantiated.
I find that most of the accusations against Dan Peterson are based on things that the writers of these posts are also doing. Instead of trying to understand what Peterson is trying to say, his words are being slandered with bias instead of reason.
I have heard with my own ears Daniel Peterson say he likes Robert Spencer as a person, yet Peterson is not given the same courtesy. Robert Spencer may have points, but he is not a god and his words should be read with critique as much as Daniel Peterson's.
It's disheartening that someone who researches and works so hard on obtaining information such as Bob Spencer should be lumped with the un-Christian bigotry of Hugh Fitzgerald, lacking any knowledge of how to listen even to a debate, apparently.
Re: Jewcat:
If criticism of Islam 'undercuts' moderate Muslims, does criticism of violent parents 'undercut' moderate parents? So we just ignore violent, abusive parents? Why can't people think clearly?
I hope that you are thinking clearly, and can re-read the obvious errors in your logic. Thinking clearly helps. So, to paraphrase, I would say what I hope you meant to say. If criticism of Islam 'undercuts' moderate Muslims, does criticism of parenthood 'undercut' moderate parents?
Yes! Attacks on the family, and parenthood, DO indeed make things harder for good parents to raise a family. Anyone raising a family in this Hollywood-dominated, anti-marriage (Thank God Prop. 8 passed!) society knows this.