Indeed, left-wing politics embraces overly abstract definitions of human rights to the point where they blatantly ignore the truth that there absolutely are extremist people. Hitchens is absolutely right to accuse liberals of ignoring the facts.
However, Hitchens is so biased that he doesn't seem to realize that he is also ignoring facts. For example, did you know that there are muslims in this world who actually are NOT terrorists? I didn't know that either because I have been reading Hitchens my whole life.
One conversation I had with a christian acquaintance stands out in my mind. They were trying to make the case there was nothing wrong with trying to convert everyone in the world to christianity. We both agreed that there is a right (ethical) way to think and a wrong way to think. But when promted with, "but how can you possibly make the claim that your religion is any better than any other?" she responded with, "because people in my religion don't commit acts of terrorism."
If you didn't catch it, with that one remark, she was able to group all non-christians into the same group as terrorists. This is the same black-and-white thinking in which that people like Hitchens can thrive. Rather than simply accusing liberals of ignoring the darker facts about islam, he goes on to suggest that us democracy loving countries are in the right in waging wars aimed at Islamic countries.
In my mind, fighting terrorism is different than waging war against islam. Claiming that wars against islamic countries are perfectly justified only makes the extremists appear to be correct in the eyes of the ordinary people who live in those countries.
Generally, I believe that Ramin and I are in agreement. At the same time that libs are generally too ready to forgive and dismiss, cons are equally ready to jump into the pool of acid that is a religiously based war.
The line that needs to be drawn here is that we are (hopefully) not attacking Islamic nations because of their religious majority, but rather because they pose some sort of threat to international stability (unlikely so far).
Where I pull up short in agreement is the statement that there is a "right" way to think.
There are many competing philosophies which serve to argue this particular point, and as far as I can tell they are, for the most part, equally valid. To say that an Anglo or Christian mode of thought is the right way discounts the evolution of hundreds of different cultures which have different methods and values.
I think the case in point are the many Muslim women in the United States who chose to cover their heads. Sure, in some cases there is a patriarchy entrenched which enforces such things, but in many (I would venture to say most) circumstances the covering is a matter of choice and tradition.
To claim an absolutely correct 'ethic' is a devaluation of multiculturalism, not just in America but in the world in general.
Ramin's friend's response to his challenge is also thought provoking, because it brings up the matter of a person's point of view.
Undoubtedly there have been many Iraqi civilians killed during the current war. Many among them were probably killed, inadvertantly I'm sure, by US soldiers. Many of these soldiers are Christians. I would venture to say that the survivors might, from their own limited viewpoint see the American Christian Soldiers as terrorist persecutors of Islam.
As one of my excessively liberal friends used to say, "They don't hate us because of our freedom. They hate us because we murdered their children."
Sure, it was all done accidentally and with the best intentions, but what does that matter to the parents of the dead, or the orphans with dead parents. With each incursion into the middle east we are only feeding the future supply of suicide bombers.
My point here is that being one of the righteous and being a terrorist are a matter of point of view, much in the same way that a "right, ethical" way of thinking is a point of view.
On Hitchens, I'm a tad bit alarmed at your defense of Muslims. Not because Muslims don't need or deserve defense, mind you, but because you'd never in a million years defend a Christian. Hitchens should be your model in a way, since he dislikes all religion. He'll even give religious people credit, after significant twisting of the arm.
The Christian girl's statement is patently false, although I'd need a bit more context to judge with reasonable accuracy. Was the conversation a mere comparison of Christians and Muslims, or Christians and everyone else?
Ryan:
While it may be true that there is not a "correct" way to go about things, I feel that as people we can make judgements about things and decide that perhaps one religion, lifestyle, or whatever is better than another.
Honestly, no grudge against Chad or anything, but I'd just as soon take political advice from him as I would legal counsel from my 8-year-old cousin. All things considered, I think our hatred in the Muslim world is basically the result of the United States unequivocally backing their mortal enemy in the region. I'd be interested in seeing exactly how many insurgents in Iraq and other terrorists who target Americans have lost close relatives to our bombs. I'm guessing the number is astonishingly low.
To Ryan: Just for the record, when I say "there is a right way to think" I don't mean there is only one correct religion. What I meant was, ethically, you can generally find a "right" and "wrong" way to think as long as your definitions are all in line, for example, blowing up innocent people is wrong. Even the suicide bombers agree with that statement. But the suicide bombers believe they are not blowing up innocent people, they see themselves as heros killing off an enemy in a never-ending war. So you are right about cultural relativism being an important factor in how one determines right from wrong. However, should cultural relativism excuse suicide bombers just because they have a differing point of view? Their point of view being that they are not committing murder, but winning an endless battle against evil?
To James: I'm not defending isalm, and re-reading my last comment, I am actually not quite sure what I said that would make you think as much. I disagreed with hitchens because after reading his article, I got the impression that he was willing to group all muslims into the same group as terrorists, just like my christian friend did. If he is trying to say that islam is the problem and then use that as a justification for war, I definitely disagree with him.
Of course, I don't know Hitchens too well, and I haven't read his articles. If he is as much of a secular-lover as you say he is, I'll make an effort to read more of his work.
4 comments:
Indeed, left-wing politics embraces overly abstract definitions of human rights to the point where they blatantly ignore the truth that there absolutely are extremist people. Hitchens is absolutely right to accuse liberals of ignoring the facts.
However, Hitchens is so biased that he doesn't seem to realize that he is also ignoring facts. For example, did you know that there are muslims in this world who actually are NOT terrorists? I didn't know that either because I have been reading Hitchens my whole life.
One conversation I had with a christian acquaintance stands out in my mind. They were trying to make the case there was nothing wrong with trying to convert everyone in the world to christianity. We both agreed that there is a right (ethical) way to think and a wrong way to think. But when promted with, "but how can you possibly make the claim that your religion is any better than any other?" she responded with, "because people in my religion don't commit acts of terrorism."
If you didn't catch it, with that one remark, she was able to group all non-christians into the same group as terrorists. This is the same black-and-white thinking in which that people like Hitchens can thrive. Rather than simply accusing liberals of ignoring the darker facts about islam, he goes on to suggest that us democracy loving countries are in the right in waging wars aimed at Islamic countries.
In my mind, fighting terrorism is different than waging war against islam. Claiming that wars against islamic countries are perfectly justified only makes the extremists appear to be correct in the eyes of the ordinary people who live in those countries.
Generally, I believe that Ramin and I are in agreement. At the same time that libs are generally too ready to forgive and dismiss, cons are equally ready to jump into the pool of acid that is a religiously based war.
The line that needs to be drawn here is that we are (hopefully) not attacking Islamic nations because of their religious majority, but rather because they pose some sort of threat to international stability (unlikely so far).
Where I pull up short in agreement is the statement that there is a "right" way to think.
There are many competing philosophies which serve to argue this particular point, and as far as I can tell they are, for the most part, equally valid.
To say that an Anglo or Christian mode of thought is the right way discounts the evolution of hundreds of different cultures which have different methods and values.
I think the case in point are the many Muslim women in the United States who chose to cover their heads. Sure, in some cases there is a patriarchy entrenched which enforces such things, but in many (I would venture to say most) circumstances the covering is a matter of choice and tradition.
To claim an absolutely correct 'ethic' is a devaluation of multiculturalism, not just in America but in the world in general.
Ramin's friend's response to his challenge is also thought provoking, because it brings up the matter of a person's point of view.
Undoubtedly there have been many Iraqi civilians killed during the current war. Many among them were probably killed, inadvertantly I'm sure, by US soldiers. Many of these soldiers are Christians. I would venture to say that the survivors might, from their own limited viewpoint see the American Christian Soldiers as terrorist persecutors of Islam.
As one of my excessively liberal friends used to say, "They don't hate us because of our freedom. They hate us because we murdered their children."
Sure, it was all done accidentally and with the best intentions, but what does that matter to the parents of the dead, or the orphans with dead parents. With each incursion into the middle east we are only feeding the future supply of suicide bombers.
My point here is that being one of the righteous and being a terrorist are a matter of point of view, much in the same way that a "right, ethical" way of thinking is a point of view.
Damn, this got long.
Ramin:
On Hitchens, I'm a tad bit alarmed at your defense of Muslims. Not because Muslims don't need or deserve defense, mind you, but because you'd never in a million years defend a Christian. Hitchens should be your model in a way, since he dislikes all religion. He'll even give religious people credit, after significant twisting of the arm.
The Christian girl's statement is patently false, although I'd need a bit more context to judge with reasonable accuracy. Was the conversation a mere comparison of Christians and Muslims, or Christians and everyone else?
Ryan:
While it may be true that there is not a "correct" way to go about things, I feel that as people we can make judgements about things and decide that perhaps one religion, lifestyle, or whatever is better than another.
Honestly, no grudge against Chad or anything, but I'd just as soon take political advice from him as I would legal counsel from my 8-year-old cousin. All things considered, I think our hatred in the Muslim world is basically the result of the United States unequivocally backing their mortal enemy in the region. I'd be interested in seeing exactly how many insurgents in Iraq and other terrorists who target Americans have lost close relatives to our bombs. I'm guessing the number is astonishingly low.
To Ryan:
Just for the record, when I say "there is a right way to think" I don't mean there is only one correct religion. What I meant was, ethically, you can generally find a "right" and "wrong" way to think as long as your definitions are all in line, for example, blowing up innocent people is wrong. Even the suicide bombers agree with that statement. But the suicide bombers believe they are not blowing up innocent people, they see themselves as heros killing off an enemy in a never-ending war. So you are right about cultural relativism being an important factor in how one determines right from wrong. However, should cultural relativism excuse suicide bombers just because they have a differing point of view? Their point of view being that they are not committing murder, but winning an endless battle against evil?
To James:
I'm not defending isalm, and re-reading my last comment, I am actually not quite sure what I said that would make you think as much. I disagreed with hitchens because after reading his article, I got the impression that he was willing to group all muslims into the same group as terrorists, just like my christian friend did. If he is trying to say that islam is the problem and then use that as a justification for war, I definitely disagree with him.
Of course, I don't know Hitchens too well, and I haven't read his articles. If he is as much of a secular-lover as you say he is, I'll make an effort to read more of his work.
Post a Comment