You can’t “Just kill them all”?

| 226 Comments

Battling unsuccessfully against a case of post-Dover syndrome, I wandered over to see Pat Hayes at Red State Rabble.

Scrolling down through his excellent commentaries, I came upon “William Dembski, fascist?”

Strong language I thought. But reading on, I found it was totally appropriate.

And, do read Dembski’s braying pack of sycophants on their urge to kill immigrants and particularly Muslims. There are many familiar cyper-names there; Dave Scott, jboze, DonaldM, and neurode.

Dave Scott offered a “plan” that is familiar to any student of history, no matter how superficial, “However, since we can’t just kill them all (we can kill the worst offenders though) …” He also added this little charming assessment, “Islam is a disease that has no place in the civilized world.” But in Dave Scott’s twisted mind, if such bigoted hate was expressed by anyone about Christ, or America, they would be an evil sort who should be killed.

Professional Christian apologist William Dembski’s notorious penchant for deleting any post he finds offensive has shown him to be a supporter of hate.

One minor point; the Darwin=fascism is clearly belied by these IDiots slavering over the chance to kill.

226 Comments

Davescot[t] is venting right now at Dembski’s blog.

I’m as appalled by the noxious sentiments of Dembski and his minions as anyone else. I’m also mindful of the fact that Intelligent Design Creationism is, and always has been, cryptofascist politics masquerading as science, and that people on either side of the debate who deny this are deluding themselves.

But does this sort of non-science thing really belong on PT? It’s just like the Dover defense oo-ing and ah-ing over Forrest’s ACLU affiliations. SFW? If one wants to draw more concrete connections between Dembski’s anti-science and his odious political views why not run a front-pager on the HIV/AIDS denial in Crux magazine? It seems like that would be far more relevant to the PT mission AIUI.

The full DaveScot quote is even better:

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated.

Sadly, he doesn’t specify what exactly it means to ‘kill Islam’.

Tho Neurode’s following ain’t bad either:

the NY metro region, where disgruntled ethnics tend to be coddled due to the local political climate.

He fails to say what the proper punishment is for being a ‘disgruntled ethnic’, or whether being a disgruntled white person is even an offense.

This isn’t too surprising, tho. Foam-at-the-mouth Islamophobia is the bread and butter of right wingers these days, and Creationism/ID is just another part of the same package.

Gary Hurd, that is all quite over the top, as is Red State Rabble’s musings. Neither Dembski, nor Wretchard whom he excerpts, are fascists; at least not as demonstrated by that snippet. Or, if they are, then so am I and so are most of those with whom I live and work.

For you see, except for DaveScot’s ranting, most of the comments at Dembski’s site about Islam and Muslims reflect the dominant attitude in the U.S. We expect our Muslim citizens to assimilate. and join in – yes – our national identity; to buy into our civil religion as embodied in the Bill of Rights and our sloganeering about liberty and stuff. To accept our rule of law, both in its procedures and its substance. Most of us reject multi-cultural claim that assimilation is wrong or undesirable.

To the extent that Muslims insist on retaining primacy of commitment to a religious system that is as enlightened as Christian Reconstructionism, they should not be welcomed into any Western state. Every nasty (but appropriate) comment ever posted at PT about the Reconstructionists – who lavishly fund DI – applies equally to a large swathe of the Muslim culture. I would not want Reconstructionists in power in the U.S., and I do not welcome their Muslim counter-parts who will not adopt “our ways,” where our ways are the morally superior bequest of the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment tamed Xianity in the West. Unfortunately, it passed by significant sectors of the Muslim world. Noting that fact does not constitute xenophobia, or bigotry, any more than does wringing ones hands over what the Reconstructionists would impose on us if they had the numbers and the power.

If Dembski is a Reconstructionist, he is a fascist. But he is not a fascist by dint of posting the always eloquent and reasonable Wretchard’s rejection of anti-assimilationist multi-cultis vis-a-vis Muslims.

Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, Papal Legate to the Crusaders of Beziers Wrote:

“Kill them all, God will know his own.” [Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.]

See Christianity Today and Positive Atheism for details of the heresy of Catharism and its management by the Church.

Mona, I don’t think you know any actual muslims, and have no idea about Islam beyond scare-stories read on the intaweb. “Large swathes”? “Significant sectors”? This is vile rhetoric. Go away, and bring back some facts.

Actually, NelC, I was very close friends in college with an Iraqi-American woman whom I helped move out of her incredibly repressive home when she was 19. As a female she found life in a Muslim household nearly intolerable. Like me, she now is an atheist. (She could not grasp how her well-educated, biologist father could keep his mouth shut when it was taught at her mosque that eating pork turns women into lesbians. But I made her feel better by regaling her with tales of the inanity I was taught in an arch-conservative, Catholic home.)

Moreover, I know a reasonable amount about Islam, since I majored in religious studies as an undergrad. Additionally, I’ve just finished rereading Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews which is most informative about Islam. While I do read some Internet sites on the subject of Muslims, I believe I sufficiently discriminate among them in terms of quality.

For example, I long ago stopped posting at Little Green Footballs because the comments section is a sewer. Many there delude themselves that Islam is inherently rancid and violent, when the fact is, much that they deplore about it is not that different from how Xians in some times and places carried on before the Enlightenment reined that religion in. I believe Islam should be no less amendable to such taming, but that such taming is well overdue.

In any event, I am rather amused that you think phrases like “huge swathes” or “significant sectors” constitute “vile rhetoric.” I would caution you to avoid all comments at PT that address Xian fundamentalists; your head might explode if you think my rhetoric is vile.

Finally, google “Theo van Gogh” and “Salman Rushdie” for an introduction into how illiberal some sectors of Islam can be. Then move onto “female genital mutilation.” Then try “stoning, women, adultery, Islam.” I have more search term lists after you’ve done all that.

Mona, I find your reasoning a tad off. Just because you and most people think something doesn’t make it true. If you and all your friends think that Muslims need to assimilate and loose their cultural identity, you may wish to consider the idea that you and all your friends are wrong.

At one time, the majority of white Americans believed that blacks were inferior. Anyway, you see where I am going with this.

To call DaveScott a dilettante would be a slur on dilettantes.

P.S. Edward Said is a good corrective to the tenets of Islamophobia.

“He [neurode] fails to say what the proper punishment is for being a ‘disgruntled ethnic’, or whether being a disgruntled white person is even an offense.”

As it happens, there is no punishment for being a disgruntled ethnic (being disgruntled, unlike committing a crime, is merely state of mind). In fact, there may even be incentives for being a member of an ethnic or religious minority who voices his or her dissatisfaction in the right political circles, or in proximity to cameras and microphones. No problem there - I’m a strong supporter of anybody’s right to be disgruntled and talk about it!

On the other hand, and somewhat asymmetrically, there are now substantial penalities for being a disgruntled member of the ethnic majority who imagines himself, rightly or wrongly, to be a victim of reverse discrimination. As we all know, majority citizens who voice such feelings tend to become targets of unpleasant liberal epithets like “racist”, “hater”, “supporter of hate”, “cryptofascist”…even zingers like “IDiot slavering over the chance to kill!”. Indeed, those majority citizens who become sufficiently disgruntled to return the ill sentiment in kind may even be incarcerated for committing a “bias crime”, especially if they’re not careful about who’s in the room when they sound off.

Personally, I think this situation is discriminatory in its own right, and as a consequence, I think you people are reprehensible (even if you did get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning). But just to clarify matters, my main point over at Uncommon Descent was phrased rather clinically:

“Human nature inevitably leads to inequitable concentrations of wealth and power regardless of the system of government in place. This becomes a source of social stress, whence society comes to resemble a rock in a tightening vise. A solid rock, free of hairline fractures along its class divisions, can withstand a good amount of pressure. But cultural boundaries within society are like big, visible cracks in the rock, and when the pressure rises, the rock shatters … To put it in a nutshell, multiculturalism is an oxymoron. Cultures are coherent social environments, whereas collections of microcultures are not; they decohere along the boundaries.”

I do hope that you folks are capable of understanding that one can make this sort of neutral, factual observation without necessarily deserving to be tarred with the sort of nasty epithets you’re throwing around here.

But if not, then why don’t you go suck rocks?

Additionally, I’ve just finished rereading Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews which is most informative about Islam.

I wonder if Johnson is any more reliable on Islam than he is on evolution.

I’m no huge fan of Islam, but then again I’m no more fond of Evangelical Christianity either. And I dare say that as an American, Conservative Christians are a much more realistic threat to my civil liberties than Moslems. Despite the fantasies of DaveScot and others on sites like LFG, I don’t see American women being made to wear burkas. Ever. It’s right up there with the Cold War fantasies those same guys had of Russians taking over America and forcing everyone to become atheists and turn in their parents to the police.

However, more to the point, I’m really put off by this whole rhetoric about how once you’re in America you’re obliged to assimilate as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Several questions come to mind: WHO are we all supposed to assimilate to? DaveScot? Neurode? Is being white a necessary part of the deal? Being a Christian? Being an Evangelical? Heterosexual? A Republican? I’m an umpteenth generation American, and I know for a fact that these people do not mean people like me when they go on about the wonderfulness of ‘American culture’. They mean people like themselves. So what of us Americans who don’t fit DaveScot’s little mold? Do we get punished or forcibly assimilated in some way as well? Funny, people who seem to hate ‘diversity’ the most always manage to place themselves squarely into the mold of what people are All Supposed To Be Like. They always rig the game so they’re on the winning side.

As for their ranting about immigrants not wanting to learn English, this just shows how willfully ignorant of history conservatives choose to be. This is a charge Americans have ALWAYS made against immigrants. Ask yourself how many Good Traditional Americans welcomed the Irish and their weird religion, or the Italians and their weird religion, or the Jews, or the Japanese, the Chinese, etc. They always received the same hate-wracked anti-immigrant rhetoric, and it always looked like it made sense at the time, but it was always just as nonsensical. Immigrants will learn English because if they don’t their opportunities to make money here are vastly reduced. Immigrants’ children always learn English because they grow up here. And their grandchildren seldom speak anything but English. People assimilate a whole hell of a lot naturally. Just not enough for the folks on UncommonDescent, I guess.

…this just shows how willfully ignorant of history conservatives choose to be.

With all due respect, it’s highly unfair to tar all conservatives by association with the likes of DaveScot.

I wonder if Johnson is any more reliable on Islam than he is on evolution.

Indeed. You really want to find out about Islam from someone who talks trash like this?:

Much of the blame lies with Richard Dawkins, head of the Darwinisn fundamentalists in the country, who has (it seems) indissolubly linked Darwin to the more extreme forms of atheism, and projected on to our senses a dismal world in which life has no purpose or meaning and a human being has no more significance than a piece of rock, being subject to the same blind processes of pitiless, unfeeling unthinking nature. The sheer moral, emotional and intellectual emptiness of the universe as seen by the Darwinian bigots is enough to make mere humans (as opposed to scientific high priests), and especially young ones, despair, and wonder what is the point of going on with existence in a world which is hard enough to endure even without the Darwinian nightmare.

Um, I suspect you can do better.

neurode’s obviously never lived in Toronto.

“Personally, I think this situation is discriminatory in its own right, and as a consequence, I think you people are reprehensible”

Don’t take this the wrong way – because there is only one way to take it – but intolerance of intolerance is intelligence.

Well the whole problem with the LAME arguments from the Uncommon Descent set (a site that I am regularly cut off and all my posts removed) is that the riots are a DIRECT RESULT of “multiculturalism.”

Like ALL riots this one started for one reason (the killing of too yoots , much like the beating of a black man and aquittal of the cops) and then escalated into something that has nothing to do with the original cause. People are coming out of the woodwork, yes, even white French kids, to either “join in the fun” of f-ing shit up, or to try to further their own agendas, whatever they may be.

There is little way to deal with this violence at this point that I can see except to respond with violence, unfortunately. It doesn’t look like any of this is stopped until some of these rioters are gassed or shot. Hopefully no one will die, but the immediate response should be to provide a physical disincentive to continue rioting. Then, maybe, it can be found out if there can be a solution to this, if one exists.

Let me reemphasize and clarify. I think this whole thing started for a reason, but through mob psychology, it has escalated beyond having a “reason” or “root cause.” It looks to me to now be just senseless violence, and any “root cause” has nothing to do with “multiculturalism.” Like I posted at Demski’s blog and has now likely been removed, I’m not making excuses for rioters, but they are using the riots as an excuse to be bigots.

Is it just me or did anyone else see the article Dembski posted about birth rates around the world? The one that ended with him insinuating something ominous about those people. I wonder why he pulled it.

Professional Christian apologist William Dembski’s notorious penchant for deleting any post he finds offensive has shown him to be a supporter of hate.

His line on comments is “just don’t bore me.” Interesting that he should find substantiative criticism “boring,” and not fawning obsequiousness, but to each his own, I guess.

So, whether or not we can say he is “a supporter of hate,” it is certain that he finds it at least entertaining.

“Professional Christian apologist William Dembski’s notorious penchant for deleting any post he finds offensive has shown him to be a supporter of hate.” Now I find this to be REALLY FUNNY!

Is this line of conversation going anywhere productive, and if so, will it have bugger all to do with intelligent design?

Anyone would think these fundies had had a bad week or something..

In America all we need is Super Bowl victory to touch off our powderkeg of multiculturalism.

Is this line of conversation going anywhere productive, and if so, will it have bugger all to do with intelligent design?

It doesn’t seem unreasonably off topic to me. There’s a lot of threads here about examining the social/political motives of IDC types. This is another example.

DaveScot is right - Islam is cancer. But so is any other conservative religion. Is DaveScot a fundy Xian? He should commit suicide then.

Well the whole problem with the LAME arguments from the Uncommon Descent set (a site that I am regularly cut off and all my posts removed) is that the riots are a DIRECT RESULT of “multiculturalism.”

Which is, if you know anything about multiculturalism, is extremely laughable; a large component of the rioting comes from a) inability of the immigrants to JOIN the mainstream in ameaningful way, and b) concerted efforts to promote a single national character. This is A) the exact OPPOSITE of what multiculturalism is supposed to do, and B) way too similar to what nativists want to do in America.

In other words, these arguments are pig-ignorant, and, in fact, are self sabotaging.

Then again, what do we expect from folks who support creationism?

Well.. so this isn’t really so much a creationist issue; it happens on both sides. For example, there is a really scary extreme LGF-head on talk.origins. The creationists don’t at ALL have a monopoly on this kind of behavior.

But, it is very very telling to see how the differing communities react. These kinds of comments get encouraged on Dembski’s blog and in fact to an extent echoed in the blog posts themselves, and this is without question a major pillar of the “ID” community, Dembski is one of the central media players in creationism. Talk.origins, meanwhile, though the resident islamophobe is tolerated in terms of presence and participates in the pro-evolution side of the discussion as generally an equal, the instant he starts dragging out his “america must be destroyed, it’s our culture or theirs” crap he immediately has almost the entirety of talk.origins turning on him and arguing against him. Does this perhaps say something about prevailing attitudes in these two different communities?

But does this sort of non-science thing really belong on PT? It’s just like the Dover defense oo-ing and ah-ing over Forrest’s ACLU affiliations.

So our pointing out their religious intolerance and fascistic leanings is “just like” pointing out Barbara Forrest’s support of the U.S. Constitution?

ID is a “non-science” thing. It’s a political, theocratic movement.

Finally, google “Theo van Gogh” and “Salman Rushdie” for an introduction into how illiberal some sectors of Islam can be. Then move onto “female genital mutilation.”

Nice tu quoque strawman you give there, Mona. But female genital mutilation is associated with African tribal customs, not Islam. You might try to inform yourself (if you have any interest in dropping your preconceptions and biases) by reading up on it: http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 54, byte 54 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Bah… typo. In the above post, instead of:

“America must be destroyed, it’s our culture or theirs”

I MEANT to say

“Islam must be destroyed, it’s our culture or theirs”

Please excuse me. I’m very tired, and anyway, the America-hating Islamofascists and the Islam-hating American Fascists tend to act so similar most of the time that you can hardly blame me for getting them confused once in awhile.

With all due respect, it’s highly unfair to tar all conservatives by association with the likes of DaveScot.

He didn’t; he argued that this is consistent with historical conservative reasoning.

I highly doubt your views on Islam reflect the prevailing intellectual opinion of even the “scholarly” list you refer to.

Um. Sir TJ, the list I referenced in my post to Lenny is “The History of American Communism” at H-Net. Anything posted there about Islam would be entirely incidental and tangential to the site’s subject matter. That would explain why I didn’t cite any authors from there on the subject of Muslims, and instead went to an interview in a magazine I take, an interview with Salman Rushdie. (Altho Stephen Schwartz, whom I listed as worth reading at HOAC, in a convert to Islam, and has written about that elsewhere than that list.)

Got it now?

Most on the side opposite me are simply radicals, which I believe is how you self-identify.

I self-identify as an anarcho-syndicalist. Which most Americans can’t even *pronounce*, much less understand what it is.

To make it easier on folks, I sometimes refer to myself as a “democrat”, with a small “d”. I am definitely NOT a Democrat, with a capital “D”.

oh, gee pardon my confusion that you would cite authority from a list about the history of american communisim when the topic was Rushdie and Islam.

to reiterate:

why do you think Rushdie is such an authority on Islam in general? I sure don’t.

Why did you feel the need to cite him as an authority when your own arguments are show not to have merit?

Got it now?

well, to be fair, while i agree that Mona seems incapable of incorporating a non-biased viewpoint into her own value system, it would be yet another overgeneralization to assume she rejects ALL enlightenment values. In fact, her rejection of ID indicates at least a general acceptance of the scientific method.

Remember, “Muslims flew airplanes into the Twin Towers” is a true statement, but it’s not about all Muslims. I wrote of basic principles of justice that Mona doesn’t subscribe to; she may of course accept other Enlightenment values that don’t depend on such principles. But what we are talking about here are moral values, not epistemological ones. Which is not to say, of course, that she is devoid of all moral values.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 160, byte 361 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

just in case you don’t get what i mean…

what you did would be the equivalent of me citing myself as an expert in communications and internet technologies because i spend time on slashdot, and that somehow makes me qualified to discuss quantum physics.

do you see why I concluded it being so pointless to actually discuss anything of substance with you now?

‘nuff said.

I always liked the Quicksilver Messenger Service’s version of Mona.

Oh come on, Bo Diddley’s original blows them all away!

I mean really, that I should even have to explain this…

Real Islam asked Muslims to kill him, anytime, anywhere.

Gee, and here I thought it was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who did that.

I don’t know how Mona can square that comment with her previous

For example, I long ago stopped posting at Little Green Footballs because the comments section is a sewer. Many there delude themselves that Islam is inherently rancid and violent

It would seem that Mona’s mind is a bit of a sewer, dark and murky and lacking clarity.

This is such basic, common sense, I cannot fathom how a thinking person cannot see it.

Funny how some people see their own inability to fathom something as confirmation of their views, rather than a reason to question them.

Funny how some people see their own inability to fathom something as confirmation of their views

it’s a very well defined psychological phenomenon called projection, classified as a standard defense mechanism, just slightly less prevalent than pure denial.

most of us tend to be guilty of it from time to time, or am i just projecting that?

;)

Arden, returning to the more serious topics of this thread, avowed:

I always liked the Quicksilver Messenger Service’s version of Mona.

Oh come on, Bo Diddley’s original blows them all away!

I mean really, that I should even have to explain this…

I said I always liked the Quicksilver version. I never said the Bo Diddley original wasn’t the best. I would never say that.

My point was slightly different: almost any previous version of “Mona” beats the one we have been hearing here lately, hands down.

Gary Hurd, puh-leeze. Allen Foster, was not merely “accused” of “assaulting” a white woman. Rather, he was sentenced to death in Hoke County NC for murder, and was executed in the state’s gas chamber on January 24, 1936.

“Gary Hurd, puh-leeze. I’m right and you’re wrong because PR put out by the North Carolina Dept. of Corrections is Gospel and your LA Times source is heresy, which is why I didn’t even bother to read it – especially the bit about the ‘murdered’ woman testifying at Foster’s trial.”

Sir Wiggles Wrote: good luck with your overgeneralizations and pigeonholing. I hear that’s a very popular pastime these days… or is that an overgeneralization itself?

Got another thumping, didn’t you, Wiggles?

Reverend Jim Wrote: I self-identify as an anarcho-syndicalist. Which most Americans can’t even *pronounce*, much less understand what it is.

To make it easier on folks, I sometimes refer to myself as a “democrat”, with a small “d”. I am definitely NOT a Democrat, with a capital “D”.

hmmmmmm.…..

The program of anarchosyndicalists, to the extent that one has ever been cohesively formulated, draws from the toolbox of radical labor and anarchist organizing, and applies these tools to contemporary bourgeois society. Capital - by which anarchosyndicalists mean workplaces, factories, equipment, and the wealth used to buy these things - must be wrested mercilessly from the control of their owners, who constitute the ruling class of our era. It is the ownership of these things, sanctioned and guaranteed with the violence of the State, that has led to the current inequality of wealth and living conditions across the globe.

Anarchosyndicalists exist at the point where the labor and anarchist movements intersect. Workers who hate the system, who recognize how they are exploited, bossed around, regimented and treated as drones, only to be used up, disposed, thrown away like garbage, and treated as inferiors every day of their working lives, constitute the strength of the anarchosyndicalist movement. The wealthy men that push for the globalization of corporate power are men who depend upon the eternally continuing subjection of a global class of wage slaves to generate their wealth for them. Anarchosyndicalists are those whose bitterness and desperation have driven them beyond the point of simply talking about how bad things are; anarchosyndicalism is comprised of the ideas of workers willing to act to ensure a swift, immediate remedy to the problems of authoritarianism and economic subjugation.

Veteran anarchosyndicalist organizer Sam Dolgoff stated that “the revolutionary libertarian concepts of class-struggle, federalism, direct economic action, local autonomy and mutual aid – are all deeply rooted in American labor traditions.” Historically, direct action was the only choice of workers who had no say in the affairs of society through either political or economic means. Direct action is the only refuge, and the most democratic expression, of powerless workers to exact change over the material conditions of their own lives.

Sounds like a Democrat to me. By the way, when ya gonna answer my question?

While I’m on about Mona, here’s a charge she makes against Gary Hurd:

You basically hate your own culture and cannot find it to be better even than the Taliban!

This from someone who says “I expect a more civil and reasonable tone at a site where well-educated and intelligent people participate”.

This from someone who says “I expect a more civil and reasonable tone at a site where well-educated and intelligent people participate”.

Gary Hurd wrote that “sadly” the Taliban holds no advantage over the U.S. in terms of heinous killing. Anyone who posits moral equivalency between this nation and the Taliban, hates this culture. Indeed, they are moral idiots.

Well, that seems to be a marvy momment to stop this sillyness.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Hurd published on November 7, 2005 11:39 AM.

Back ‘n’ forth about evolution of virulence and avian flu was the previous entry in this blog.

Dembski’s Lack of Intellectual Honesty is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter