In a recent interview with Chris Wallace, presidential candidate Herman Cain stated that he opposed the construction of a new mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, and further explained that any community has the “right” to ban mosques. This characterization really isn’t a twisting of his words, or a slip, or an interviewer’s trick, or anything like that — Cain states quite clearly “yes, they can ban mosques, and that’s not discrimination against religion.” So obviously, right off the bat, this statement is clearly absurd, and I’m ready to pronounce that there’s just no reasonable argument to be had.
But I want to stress that Cain’s position is actually much more perverse than a simple “Muslims are bad, ban mosques” kind of ignorance. He seems to be tangentially aware of something called the First Amendment, and actually tries to use it to support his position. His argument, as best as I can understand it, amounts to something like this: The Establishment Clause reflects the principle of separation of church and state. But a central tenet of Islam is the union of church and state, which makes it distinct from other religions. And when people in a community feel threatened by this “unique” feature of Islam, they have the “right”* to ban mosques. Such a ban wouldn’t be “religious discrimination,” because Islam is more than just a religion (and in a constitutionally problematic way).
This argument isn’t just wrong. I would seriously, literally, nominate this position as the most thoroughly, profoundly mistaken view of the First Amendment ever expressed by any national politician (at least since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798). How do I loathe thee, Herman Cain? Let me count the ways…
1. The Establishment Clause prohibits state establishment of religion. Now, even for the government, this principle is not quite the same as “separation of church and state” — that’s a somewhat nuanced point I wouldn’t expect non-lawyers to grasp intuitively. But it’s something else entirely to say “the Establishment Clause reflects separation of church and state, and that principle acts as a limitation on private religious viewpoints.” Wrong, wrong, wrong! I’m sorry Herman Cain, the idea that government may not establish religion does not give you a backdoor to discriminate against religions that supposedly disagree with the “separation of church and state.” If that were the case, we might also need to start banning quite a few churches as well.
2. Banning mosques because of specific “problems” with Islam is obviously religious discrimination, and obviously a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I don’t think there’s any need to expound on this point, and I’m honestly sort of shocked that any seemingly sane person could make this argument with a straight face. “Sorry, you can’t worship in the manner of your choosing because we have problems with your specific religion. But it’s not religious discrimination! Also, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.” Okay, moving on…
3. Even ignoring the religion clauses entirely, banning a particular form of ideological expression because you don’t like the speaker’s conclusion is overt viewpoint discrimination, and obviously violates the freedom of speech. Cain’s premise that Islam’s union of church and state is “constitutionally disfavored,” even if true, is completely irrelevant. Shockingly enough, you’re allowed to disagree with the Constitution! You even have the right to speak out in favor of less freedom of speech (and Cain of all people should be thankful for that, given the kind of argument he seems to be making).
4. Cain seems to think that he gets 100 bonus points every time he mentions “the people” — seriously, watch the video and count how many times he uses “well, I’m with the people” as a fully generalizable counter-argument. Now, I’m skeptical enough of “democracy” that this sort of argument pretty much always bothers me — but it’s particularly absurd in the context of the First Amendment. You know, that amendment specifically designed to prevent the people from having their way on religion and speech? If you find yourself constantly stressing the wishes of “the people” in a First Amendment case, you’re on the wrong side!
So again, Cain’s position is much more than coarse, unenlightened Islamophobia. It is a disturbing and egregious misunderstanding of three separate provisions of the First Amendment, and of the purpose and nature of the Amendment as a whole. One almost wishes he threw out some disparaging comments about the freedom of the press and the rights of assembly and petition, just to complete the circuit. Herman Cain obviously isn’t a serious candidate for President, nor do I think the ideas he’s expressing have any serious support — but surely it’s still the duty of liberty-loving bloggers to be on guard against this level of absurdity whenever it arises on a national scale.
*This is a smaller and less obvious criticism, but it’s still a huge pet peeve of mine, and I’m furious that it’s become so common in political discussions. “Communities,” here meaning local governments, do not have “rights.” Individuals have rights. Governments have powers. The Constitution is clear enough on this distinction — you can be too.
Even more terrifying: Herman Cain’s nightmare vision of what constitutes tasty pizza.
‘Herman Cain,’ I like the name; it’s mostly downhill from there. I suspect most people grind their teeth on hearing him speak thinking ‘Did we really have to add 30 affirmative action points to this guys politics score. When it’s over anyway, I’ll get 30 brownie I am not a racist points added to my score.’ Does this make it too impolite to get some basic information on profit and loss and capitalization of his, 2 bit?, pizza chain?
Jay, this is fantastic, btw. I happened to be watching the interview live, and couldn’t really believe he was saying this. Thanking for articulating the absurdity so clearly and thoroughly.
You’ve got to be kidding me-it’s so trasnaprtenly clear now!
Fine, he’s not a very bright Constitutional kind of guy. He probably shouldn’t be POTUS.
But a more fundamental issue is this. Is Islam really a religion? Or rather, is it really just a religion? IMO Sharia law intermingles religion and legal/governmental institutions in a way that should be impermissible in our First Amendment separation of church/state version of a democratic republic. So should it be treated as just a religion?
Is our First Amendment really a suicide pact if it allows sheltering of groups inherently hostile to our system of separation of law and religion, if all they need to do is claim they are a religion? We don’t allow Al Qaeda to open a branch office inside our borders. Nor did we permit enemy organizations to build on US soil during time of hostilities. At what point do we say that hostile factions within a religion have so dominated it as an institution that we can not allow any of it to establish itself with those kind of 1stA protections? Should groups openly hostile to our Constitution be allowed to be protected by it?
Seems to me that you’ve picked the low hanging fruit to show off your legal education, but taken a pass on the really seminal issue. And you haven’t really advanced the discussion, because you’ve gone out of your way to antagonize those who see a real problem with this view, and aren’t willing to become sacrificial lambs.
“Should groups openly hostile to our Constitution be allowed to be protected by it?”
Um, yes? That’s sort of the whole point of the First Amendment (not to mention the Due Process Clauses, the writ of habeas corpus, the host of constitutional rights for criminal defendants, etc.). You don’t forfeit constitutional protections just by holding views that are opposed to the Constitution — if that were the case, then the protections of the First Amendment would be cold comfort (“sure, you have freedom of speech and religion, but only that speech and religion that we think is deserving of protection”).
Whether Islam is “really” a religion, or “just” a religion seems to me to be missing the point entirely. Are there some strands of Islam that advocate union of church and state? Sure, of course — but this is true of almost every single religion throughout history, including Christianity (and it’s certainly still true of some strands of Christianity in modern America). Would it be problematic for these ideas to be actually enacted? Yes, of course. If some majority Islamic community somehow convinced the local school boards to start teaching Islam, or required citizens to observe the Five Pillars, these laws would obviously be unconstitutional. But that’s because they would become state action. There are all kinds of ideas that private entities are allowed to hold and advocate that might be problematic if actually enacted — but the First Amendment tolerates those who disagree with certain provisions of the First Amendment.
By way of illustration, I think it’s pretty clear that “separation of church and state” is far more likely to be undermined by well-organized Christians than by small communities of Muslims. Suppose a group of Christians decided that America had strayed from its “Christian” roots, and decided to lobby for a constitutional amendment authorizing prayer in public schools. And in fact, they had meetings, and started groups specifically for this purpose, and advocated and organized and schemed, all for the specific and overt purpose of thwarting the constitutional guarantee of non-establishment. Would such organization be unconstitutional? Obviously not — you’re allowed to disagree with the Constitution.
The point about Al Qaeda not being allowed to operate within our borders seems even further from the mark. The reason we wouldn’t tolerate Al Qaeda is not because of their religious views — it is because of their actions as an active, violent, terrorist organization. No, you don’t get to shield yourself from general criminal liability just because your actions were religiously motivated. Nobody thinks that (at least when it comes to violence against others). Of course, we do tolerate religious and political speech that supports Al Qaeda in its goals, so long as those parties do not themselves give material support to criminal groups. Freedom of speech means freedom for the speech we hate. But this really has nothing to do with whether small communities of peaceful Muslims should be allowed to build mosques and worship as they desire.
Finally, this concern about people becoming “sacrificial lambs” seems rather silly. Small communities of Muslims building mosques do not pose a threat to anyone, nor do they have much of anything to do with terrorism. Nobody is advocating that innocent citizens start lining up to die so that we can profess symbolic commitment to “freedom of religion” (as opposed, say, to those who do ask innocent citizens to line up and die so we can express symbolic commitment to the “war on terror”). That’s simply not what this discussion is about.
I like Jay’s post. I’d also like to add that although this “Islam isn’t a religion” thing is a popular talking point, I don’t really understand how it is at all credible.
To add a historical point I found interesting, the founding generation seems to have been aware of the existence of radical Islam, particularly this phrase communicated to Adams and Jefferson by Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, the representative of Tripoli:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
This was in 1786, so prior to ratification of the Constitution and drafting of the Bill of Rights. It’s hard for me to conclude that the founders didn’t understand radical Islam since they were already dealing with a foreign state proclaiming radical Islam as justification for war.
Thank you for responding to this. I knew that if it hadn’t been dealt with by the time I got home I wouldn’t have been able to control myself, as bad for my health as engaging would have been.
I’ll just add one thing. “Seems to me that you’ve picked the low hanging fruit to show off your legal education.”
Deconstructing Cain isn’t a way to show off one’s legal education. The average American 6th grader could have beat him in a debate on this issue. (Sorry Jay.)
Out of every often-discussed First Amendment argument, the “we shouldn’t allow free speech of people who don’t support free speech” argument makes the least sense. Suppose you have an Islamic fundamentalist nation, a Communist nation, and a Democratic nation. The Islamist nation would, presumably, allow Islamist speech, while it might ban Communist and Democratic speech. Similarly, the Communist nation would presumably allow Communist speech, while banning Islamist and Democratic speech. Now, if the Democratic nation says it believes in free speech but then follows a “we shouldn’t allow free speech of people who don’t support free speech line”, then it ends up allowing Democratic speech, while banning Islamist and Communist speech. At that point, there really isn’t a principled difference between the three systems, at least insofar as they approach speech, and you really can’t say that one country has free speech but the other ones don’t. The Islamist nation could just as easily claim “We have free speech. We just don’t allow Democratic speech, because such a Democracy would not allow us to have free speech.”
That seems a ridiculous strawman argument. The issue isn’t between nations with different standards, it is how to deal with a nation composed of people with diverse and often contradictory standards of free speech. Combine that with a liberal immigration policy and the world demographics as they exist today, and it turns any secular liberal standard into a suicide pact, as soon as that non-free speech faction gains significant electoral representation. One needn’t look any further than the UK to see how that is playing out. Tolerance is fine so long as the destructive elements you tolerate are minimal; it doesn’t work so well when they become large and democratically influential. Because our democracy was made so adaptable that it contains the blueprints for its own self destruction.
We don’t control what happens in other nations, but our Constitution is suppposed to control what happens in our own. But a classical liberal Constitution should not need to endorse self destructive unbounded principles. (I shouldn’t think I need to point out to readers of this blog that First Amendment freedoms are not unlimited, and in fact have a rich history in trying to determine common-sense limits and how to legally apply them.)
Let’s put it in a different context. Would you knowingly play poker with people whom you know to cheat, when you are bound to play fairly because of your own standards? Especially if they openly declare that they are willing to cheat? At what point does that become a mockery of the rules of poker, and makes any of your standards pointless? What happens when they become numerous enough to alter the rules on their favor? And since we are speaking of government of our nation and not a voluntary poker game, what alternatives may you resort to to insure this doesn’t happen?
I suspect your tolerance of anti-free speech groups, or anti-separation of church and state groups is reasonable so long as they remain a very small (if vocal) minority. But as soon as that is no longer the case, it becomes unsupportable. I’ll repeat the term I mentioned before, because I don’t know any that are more appropriate…suicide pact.
It isn’t much different than the question of what to do about a democractic republic that votes itself into dictatorship. Would a vote to abolish our Constitution be acceptable? Even if it followed all the rules and procedures required for amendments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYbaln3Uqfc&feature=player_embedded
There is a real logic trap here. How can you say you value and defend
your system if by following that systems rules, you destroy it? I’m not saying I have any good solution to this problem. But denial isn’t a strategy, and ridicule is only a tactic of avoidance.
All of the responses thus far to the issue I’m raising seem to bend over backwards to avoid answering it. I’m seeing a lot of naivety and lack of real world experience. You’ve learned the issues by rote and parrot back the approved answers, but I think you misapprehand the weaknesses built into our system of laws. These weaknesses will break us one of two ways; if they are ignored, the anti-democratic theists will use the weight of numbers to wield democracy to abolish us. If they are recognized too late, the backlash will cause us to resort to paranoid nationalism based upon an opposing theist doctrine. (For example, the islamic problem will be met by a counter-weight fundamentalist christian wave, and we’ll be off to the crusades and inquisition again.) I doubt we have the intellectual or intestinal werewithal to walk the knife-edge between these two outcomes.
This seems futile to respond to, but I can’t resist. In short, yes: the Constitution defends those who would try to persuade us to change or replace it. And yes, an amendment that completely replaced the Constitution would be legitimate. (Or are you suggesting that the Constitution is illegitimate and the Articles are still the law of the land?)
To suggest that the Constitution is permanently entrenched is to say we already live in a dictatorship.
And, of course, your fears about the future aren’t based in reality. There is no politically relevant element of this country calling for the Sharia-ization of American law, unlike the very powerful forces attempting to impose Biblical rules through secular law.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If there were ever any meaningful possibility that adherence to the Constitution would lead to the destruction of the nation, the Constitution would be abrogated to the extent necessary to protect the nation. Whether we like it or not, this is true. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently decided, 6-3, that national security interests related to the conflict with Islamic fundamentalism justify some government-imposed limitations on political speech, and constitutional doctrine explicitly accepts the existence of dangers that can override the Constitution. If Islamic fundamentalist religious practices somehow posed such a threat that abrogation of the Free Exercise Clause was required to preserve the nation, the silly debate over whether Islam is or is not “really” “just” a religion would be irrelevant to the outcome.
The problem with Cain’s argument is that there is not any plausible threat that permitting Muslims to live peacefully in the United States in accord with their traditions will lead to the destruction of the nation, democratically or otherwise. Arguments like his are rooted not in a sober evaluation of the real-world threat but in xenophobia and political opportunism. There will certainly never be a a totalitarian Muslim majority in the United States. There are much more plausible things to be alarmist about, demographic and otherwise. (What demographic estimates predict Muslims of any type becoming a majority or plurality of the United States or the world?)
The vast majority of American Muslims are peaceful and are not hostile to democracy and religious diversity; this is a politicians’ cliché but is also empirically true. Indeed, the past year’s experience in the Arab world makes pretty clear that most Muslims worldwide actually prefer not to live under totalitarian regimes of any religion, which perhaps shouldn’t be a great shock to people who think individual liberty has value. America’s reputation as a society that is tolerant, prosperous, and free is the greatest threat to other worldviews, including any sort of religious fundamentalism or communism or totalitarianism. Trends in favor of those American values are clearly visible throughout the developing world. The best way to get recruits for America’s enemies is to dim that reputation. On some policy measures there might be a reasonable debate as to whether enhanced short-term security can justify reputational damage that weakens the spread of liberal ideals, but banning peaceful American Muslims from building a mosque in Tennessee is not one of them. Cain might benefit from seeking to oppose one form of fundamentalism with another, but America does not.
Your link, to a video in which Allen West discusses a line in the Quran that calls for the slaying of idolaters, is awfully weak as empirical support for your or Cain’s arguments. Historically, most influential ideologies – religious, political, or whatever – have called for the killing or forcible conversion of nonbelievers; the European Christians from whom the Founders were descended heeded that command as much as any other group ever has, and the same is true of many secular groups, too. But hardly anyone follows all of the commands of his religion or political ideology, particularly the ones that impose a burden on him with no corresponding benefit; and democratization, secularization, and increased economic prosperity typically reduce willingness to follow burdensome commandments, be they bans on fornication, dietary restrictions, or enjoinments to holy war. If there were any strong evidence that all or most Muslims are committed to killing non-Muslims, then we’d live in a very different world; but the medieval battles cited by West don’t set Islam apart from Christianity or other religions.
That I am “parroting” “approved answers” simply shows that my beliefs are supported by national consensus; it does not indicate that I haven’t thought about them, but only that most people who have done so arrive at the same answers. It surely doesn’t make me wrong or “naive” that others agree with me. Nor does it make Cain right that his views are shared mostly by hacks, conspiracy theorists, and xenophobes. The support is equally strong for minority beliefs about Area 51, Aztec [correction: Mayan] prophecies about the year 2012, and the Loch Ness Monster; I’m not saying that those beliefs are wrong, but the fact that so few people hold them surely is not evidence that they are correct.
You charge lack of real-world experience. But there is no point in our history when the Constitution was adhered to and disaster ensued; no amount of experience with the realities of American constitutionalism would include such an event. At many points the Constitution has been ignored and innocent people have been harmed when the perceived threat was only illusory (the Alien and Sedition Acts, persecution of Mormons, the Red Scare, Japanese internment, bans on interracial marriage, McCarthyism). It seems, then, that even with our Constitution we have more to fear from demagogic politicians and oppressive majorities than beleaguered minorities. Which probably shouldn’t be a great surprise after all.
TITCR
So now your arguments fall back to opinion (which apparently is in disagreement with the poster responding ahead of you – either the Constitution is or is not a suicide pact), ‘consensus’ ( “That I am “parroting” “approved answers” simply shows that my beliefs are supported by national consensus”) and the current static interpretation of the status quo (“The vast majority of American Muslims are peaceful and are not hostile to democracy and religious diversity”)?
I’ll selectively address these: let’s start with this alleged consensus. I doubt if we know what the national consensus is. I’m certainly not willing to concede that what prevails as the secular liberal law school TITCR reflects the national consensus, “best and brightest” not withstanding. I think you both over and under estimate your fellow citizens. Nearly a third of Idahoan’s polled believe the moon landings were faked. And having spent time on law school campuses, I can’t say I think our future crop of legal experts is any less gullible or more intelligent. Get back to me after you’ve completed that national poll.
I’m fully aware that this issue attracts its fair share of “hacks, conspiracy theorists, and xenophobes”. That doesn’t make them wrong, any more than it makes Cain’s views right. Actually, it contributes to the danger of cultural collision. This is where your smug liberal pampered American naivety comes to the fore, but I suggeest that while it may get you approving nods from your law professors, high 5′s from your clique of friends at the law school coffee hangout, reality has a way dealing with such self-assuredness and condescension. A fair look at the past 1000 years of history shows Islam to be an aggressive “religion” wielded by a people pushing out into other countries. And even when they do so peacefully, the disruption on local cultures causes intense friction. Don’t forget that the Balkan Wars of the 1990′s are nothing more than modern versions of the centuries of warfare between Christians and Muslims over Spain. That they are a precursor of the next few centuries of internecine strife in Europe and the US is an open issue. I think you ignore history and the longer trends at your peril. Especially since your argument seems to reduce to “it hasn’t happened yet, so it won’t”.
“If there were any strong evidence that all or most Muslims are committed to killing non-Muslims, then we’d live in a very different world” Discounting the logical protection you think you are getting by using the CYA modifiers “all or most”, I think this goes in the category of willful ignorance. Nothing dictates it need be “all or most” to create a real problem. The troubles of the world do not reliably respond to a statistical analysis – sometimes it only takes one. Many of us believe we are living in that “very different world”.
Nobody here, and I count myself in this number, has said they have a problem with “permitting Muslims to live peacefully in the United States in accord with their traditions “. So long as those traditions are benign. What is at issue is when the traditions, or perhaps more correctly the religious instructions many of them receive, are not so peaceful. And attempts to Sharia-cize our legal system I count as not peaceful. For those of you geeky enough to know Star Trek, there is something very Borg-like about the way a significant number of Muslims interpret and practice Islam. They seek assimilation, not peaceful coexistance. Any demands that our current society conform to their belief system – not peaceful. It is all fine and good to say “There will certainly never be a totalitarian Muslim majority in the United States.” but that is not something you can either reliably predict nor guarantee over the long haul.
The recent events in Norway actually reinforce my points, though I suspect the attacker is mentally ill. Local culture and its proponents resist being assimilated by percieved threats from outside, and respond. (And the first to act upon those threats are often not the most mentally stable.) Xenophobic? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s irrational, or even wrong. One can argue that the attacker behaved criminally, but that doesn’t invalidate his underlying fears that triggered it. If the local culture (including its legal system) appears unable to address a real perceived threat, it will lose its legitimacy and a counter-reaction will develop. This is the second kind of failure I mentioned in my last post. We are not able to walk that knife-edge. I have no interest in living in a country dominated by born-again Christian fundamentalists, any more than I have an interest in living in one dominated by clerics of Islamic jihadists. Both need to be discouraged. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, let me put forth the proposition that the last time a western nation encountered such an aggressive “religion” was 1930′s Germany, and it folded rather spectacularly. So many were willing to go along to get along.
“But there is no point in our history when the Constitution was adhered to and disaster ensued; no amount of experience with the realities of American constitutionalism would include such an event.” It hasn’t happened before, so it won’t happen in the future? Really? That’s the best you can do? I’m not disputing the statement (well, maybe a little), just it’s relevancy. In fact, I’ll go so far to state that the disasters we have and are currently incurring are due to failures to follow the Constitution. American history demonstrates that most of our deep divisions, incivilities, and inhumanity have occurred during times of waves of immigration or migration causing deep cultural clashes. We would be foolish to invite them with an open door policy and signs of Constitutional weakness encouraging any aggressive religious bloc. Our Founding Fathers probably never envisioned a nation too stupid to defend itself against open aggression from those seeking legal immigration with oft-repeated demands of cultural capitulation.
There is a whole different level of argument on whether it even needs to be a Muslim majority that supports the cultural invasion, since clearly a determined minority can have great influence on the practicability of our governmental processes, not to mention the robustness of our secular culture. The accepted back-of-the-envelope calculation says only 3% of American colonists actually ever took up arms against the British during our own revolution. It takes less than you think. I’m neither foolish nor paranoid enough to not believe that many muslims come to western countries in order to practice their beliefs peacefully and in harmony with those of us already here. That in fact, they aren’t keen on the advantages of an Islamic Republic. And I worry for them, because I doubt we will ever come up with an effective way to distinguish them from the invasive aggressive faction that is unwilling to modify their 9th century belief system in order to coexist. That is a recipe for loss of civil liberties.
In conclusion (I suspect this thread is dying a natural death), I believe that Herman Cain and others of this country look overseas and see the Europeans and Russians struggling with the physically aggressive nature of Islamic culture in what seems to be a period of Muslim diaspora, and they see a real danger. That they are looking for ways to mitigate within our own Constitutional system should be applauded, not snubbed by a bunch of 2L mentality effete snobs. Think about that every time another Muslim “honor killing” or naturalized jihadist training camp graduate makes the news.
I think you misunderstand the Borg. Their goal is not to force others to follow their cultural practices; that is merely a side-effect of their actions. The Borg seek to attain perfection by adding the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to their own. The overriding aim of the collective is to experience and comprehend all the diversity of the galaxy; it is only incidental that when they “experience” your diversity you start looking and thinking like them. The definition of “assimilate” as used by the Borg is “to take in and incorporate as one’s own; absorb” (dictionary.com definition 1).
By contrast, human groups refer to a different conception of “assimilation”: “to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like” (dictionary.com definition 2). Such groups — be they fundamentalist religious groups or jingoistic nationalists — seek to destroy diversity rather than to experience it; they view diversity of thought and culture as perfidious rather than as a step toward perfection. The conception of assimilation that you attribute to religious fundamentalists is virtually the opposite of the conception used by the Borg.
(But none of this should be taken as an endorsement of the Borg agenda.)
Mark, when I first read your Borg stuff, I have to admit my reaction was “Huh. Really?” It seemed so irrelevant and off topic. And maybe indiciative of a little bit of unbalanced thinking. I mean, really, it is just a sci-fi construct to provide interesting plots, and I meant it only as an analogy.
But then it occurred to me; what you claim is the motivating factor behind the Borg (to sample the diversity of the universe through assimilation) is not unlike our logical incongruity with the First Amendment. It is ultimately destructive of the diversity it means to protect/sample.
The Borg destroy that self same diversity as they assimilate it. So why should any other culture care what the motivation is? All they get is destroyed and made part of the dominant group.
It’s true that the Borg at least superficially destroy the diversity they assimilate, but one could also understand that kind of destruction as a type of immortality. When you are assimilated into the collective, your thoughts, tastes, and memories are incorporated into an organism that is effectively deathless. Perhaps few would find assimilation an attractive route to immortality, but a number of major world religions are similar in that the immortality or transcendence they offer entails casting off key facets of one’s individuality.
Anyhow, none of this can be said for assimilation by other totalitarian social movements.
I’d recommend two bits of reading for you. Mill’s On Liberty, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
Hi Josh, I am Dan Bloom the bloke in Taiwan who wroet that oped in the CSM and no, the NYT still does NOT lowercase internet, they refuse to lead the way on this and merely wish to follow follow….. re: you wrote: “Apparently the New York Times no longer capitalizes internet (that may be Bill Keller’s doing)….IN FACT, THE NYT still CAPS Internet, and Bill Keller does not know his i’s from his I’s…..smile…. see Tony Long and Dan Bloom’s very good follow up oped in the Washington Times this week. too…. email me for more info at danbloom AT gmail
It hasn’t happened yet in the lower 48, Alaska, or Hawaii, but it’s bound to happen soon: major style guides lowercasing the word “Internet.” And on that day WHEN BUT NOT YET the style desks of The New York Times and the Associated Press finally issue a press release about the need to start lowercasing Internet in all news articles, headlines, and blogs, we will know that America has finally woken up to web-based reality. We don’t capitalize words like Radio or Television or Motion Pictures anymore, do we? Once, of course, we did. Now, we know better. However, regarding the Internet, we are still behind the curve, behind the British, lost in capitalization land. The Guardian and the BBC websites got it right, long ago. We need to play catch up. Now.
I remember on some project I did in college (circa 2003) I failed to capitalize internet and the teacher corrected me. My understanding of grammar has always been crappy, but technically, I was ahead of the curve!
YOU WERE AHEAD OF THE CURVE, Josh and bravo. Wired News finally went lowercase in 2004 thanks to Tony Long but the rest of the USa media still caps the word…wrong wrong wrong,,,it will go down soon,,,but not sure when…another good blog post by YOu on this issue will help tip the scales….Post SOEMTHING AGAIN,
Ruralcouncil,
I note that your most recent response completely omits all discussion of the First Amendment, its legal meaning, and Cain’s claim that it allows communities to ban mosques. I take it that you’ve conceded to Mark and Jay on that point?
Based on the policy arguments you’ve advanced, I have to say that I find it hard to distinguish your depiction of Islam as assimilationist and “an aggressive ‘religion’ wielded by a people pushing out into other countries” from European Christianity throughout the 20th Century, and from many currently popular strains of fundamentalist Christianiaty in the United States. Of course, you claim that you’re equally afraid of fundamentalist Christians, but you haven’t yet called for the right of communities to ban churches (or synagogues? After all, 1930′s Germany did fear and seek to annhilate a religious “threat”). I wonder on what ground you distinguish between communities that deserve First Amendment protections and those that don’t, and who you would entrust to make that call?
You attempt to justify the masscare in Norway. Wow. “One can argue that the attacker behaved criminally, but that doesn’t invalidate his underlying fears that triggered it. If the local culture (including its legal system) appears unable to address a real perceived threat, it will lose its legitimacy and a counter-reaction will develop.” But the only “real” threat here was the Christian conservative revolutionary, not the Norweigen Muslim community!
Finally, I think you should probably avoid the ad hominem attacks. Obviously, you think these bloggers are worthwhile enough that you spend your time writing lengthy responses to their posts.
I’ve conceded nothing. We’ve been predominantly debating first whether to treat it as a religion, and second, even if it is a religion, whether under strict scrutiny it could be restricted. First Amendment protections are limited, and based upon facts and circumstances, it is possible for courts to find a compelling government interest in regulating the spread of Islam within our nation. I don’t think any of that discussion has been decisive. I’m just making the counter-argument.
You seem to want to open up the debate to a host of other religions, or perhaps I should write “religions”. Fine. But none of that impacts what we’ve been writing about with respect to a culturally aggressive form of Islam. It merely dilutes and unfocuses the discussion. But I suspect that is your intent.
I haven’t justified the Norway massacre. You will need to show much better reading comprehension if you want to pass the bar exam. What I have done is state that these kinds of reactions are unavoidable when we have these sort of cultural collisions. It is exactly this sort of thing that I said I feared would happen when an established culture tries to encompass diversity with an invasive culture at the expense of itself. Diversity is a by-product of deficiencies in mobility and communication; as our world becomes more interconnected, it will dwindle. But not necessarily as a melting pot, but as a competition between cultures and belief systems. We are headed to becoming a global mono-culture, but it may not be one tilted in favor of Western values and morals. People will think that is worth fighting over.
“But the only “real” threat here was the Christian conservative revolutionary, not the Norweigen Muslim community! ” Well, you’ve proven you have paid no attention to the cultural problems going on in Europe over the past decade. Islamic elements have made parts of European cities unsafe for westerners, particularly Jews. I suppose I could provide you links, but I’m sure your research skills are adequate to do that for yourself. Riots in England between the islamic and non-islamic citizens when UK troops paraded on return from duty in Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you think the French have banned burkhas, the Swiss minarets, all just on a whim?
Finally I don’t think you know what ad homenim means. I may have characterized their arguments in less than complementary terms, but I haven’t attacked them personally. Judgmental? Yes. Ad homenim? I don’t think so. I’m sure they are fine people; they just have a lot of growing up left to do.
In a related issue concerning the Frist Amendment …
http://volokh.com/2011/07/26/which-part-of-make-no-law-dont-i-understand/
You seem to want to characterize the Norwegian gunman as Christian. Frankly, I don’t have a big problem with that, since I don’t consider myself as Christian. But I thought you might be interested in this… http://www.verumserum.com/?p=27607
Apparently, he considers himself a “cultural Christian”, not “religious Christian”. Not very fundamentalist.
The media has done a remarkable job in failing to tell us about why he targeted this Norwegian camp. Wonder why?
http://www.theospark.net/2011/07/what-were-those-norwegian-kids-doing-on.html
Because apparently it is a camp for political up-and-comers in the Norwegian Labour Party. And what they practice doing is anti-Israeli political action. Again, I am not justifying the gunman’s actions. I want to be clear on that because you seem to think trying to understand him is the same as justifying his actions – an approach sure to put a chill in the hearts of any military or intelligence analyst. This wasn’t a random target to induce generalized terror, it was clearly strategic. More like an anti-Hamas strike. So actually, I think it argues for a more severe criminal penalty – premeditated and politically motivated and not just a deranged Jared Loughner type.
And yes, I’ve enjoyed the debates. Thank you one and all for your time.
It’s funny that someone thinks Mark and Jay are liberals.
The perception that we have to allow anything and provide First Amendment protection to any organization that self-characterizes as a religion is quite liberal, in the modern meaning of the word.
Thought this might be of interest to you all. Here are some quotes from 8/13/2011 by Sheikh Adel Shehato, a senior official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), you know, one of those wonderful “freedom” fighters we supported over there:
“As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran is our constitution, and that it is [therefore] impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime. I oppose democracy because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians. Simply put, democracy means the rule of the people itself over itself… According to Islam, it is forbidden for people to rule and to legislate laws, as Allah alone is ruler. Allah did not hand down the term [democracy] as a form of rule, and it is completely absent from the Arab and Islamic lexicon…”
The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation…”
We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari’a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions.”
“Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari’a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari’a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah’s help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]…”
“There are Muslims and there are infidels. We will have ambassadors in every country. We want to call all other countries to join Islam, and that will be the task of the ambassadors. If [the countries] refuse, there will be war. We will not tolerate mutual trade and cultural ties with non-Muslims.”