FOX News becomes a parody of itself: Reza Aslan edition

This is quite something. Eminent religious scholar Reza Aslan releases a book about the historical Jesus Christ. You'd think the FOX crowd would be interested in that, since they are all about Jesus on the "fair and balanced" network. But instead, Aslan is subjected to a 9 minute interrogation about how and why he could possibly write anything about Jesus, since he happens to be a Muslim.




 I have to say I found that hilarious, and it's a credit to Aslan that he persists with the interview, even if he does feel it necessary to talk as if to a child.

FOX also published an article slamming Aslan's book by John S Dickerson, an author and evangelical pastor, which is of a similarly breathtaking stupidity. Read it here.

The logic appears to be that you cannot trust a Muslim to write objectively about Jesus, since the Muslim religion is opposed to Christian teachings. Which of course implies that you cannot trust an atheist or agnostic either to write about Jesus either, since their rejection of Biblical doctrine is a form of anti-Christian hostility. So who can write objectively about the historical life of Jesus Christ? Well, I guess that just leaves Christians.

This kid is amazing.

Don't quite get what's going on in Egypt? 12 year old Ali Ahmed breaks it down for you.

On Pope Francis

So we have a new Pope. Pope Francis, also known by the rather cooler name Jorge Mario Bergoglio. And lots of people are unhappy that the new pontiff is not some shining light of progressivism. Pope Frankie is a conservative who staunchly opposes birth control, abortion and gay marriage.

And yeah, that's disappointing. But really, what do we expect? Of course a 76 year old man who has never ever had sex is going to have archaic views on sexuality. And no man is going to rise up to the head of an organisation like the Catholic Church without his peers ensuring he has the "requisite" views on those matters. So if you expect anything different, you probably just need to adjust your expectations. In opposing modern attitudes towards sex and sexuality, he's only doing what he's supposed to do as an upholder of the tenets of the Catholic faith. He's a dinosaur, but
being a dinosaur is a prerequisite for the top job. We should expect no less. Just as the new Pope is reputedly a champion of the poor; that's a great testament to the man's character, but at the same time, it should be a prerequisite of any man who claims to represent the ideals put forward by Jesus Christ.

What we ARE entitled to expect from him though, is to also uphold some other principles that the Catholic Church is meant to uphold, in theory. Primarily, that it's not acceptable to molest children, and it's not acceptable to turn a blind eye to those that do. This has been the most glaring failing of the Church in recent history, because it holds such a high standard on sexual morality for others when it comes to such trifling matters as masturbation and premarital sex, yet sets such a low standard when it comes to dealing its own priests' rather more egregious sins of sexually abusing children.

It's a shame that Frankie boy doesn't have more intelligent views on the nature of human sexuality, but I'm not particularly disappointed, because he's just following the official doctrine. And besides, most Catholics, at least in the developed world, are going to go on jerking off, having premarital sex and using condoms anyway. But I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Bible that says it's okay to fuck pre-teen boys. So the bare minimum we should expect from the new Pope is that he puts an end to the culture within the Church of sheltering or excusing paedophilia.

I'd suggest he send out this simple questionnaire to priests around the world.


Question 1 of 1: You find out that a fellow priest has had sexual relations with a number of children in his parish. Do you:
A) Inform the appropriate religious AND secular authorities.
B) Recommend that he pray on the matter.
C) Have him moved to another parish.
D) High-five him and compare notes.

Score: If you answer is anything other than (A), then you are not qualified to be a human being let alone a priest.


Next up, I solve climate change and the Palestine situation in three easy steps.

Aceh is a cautionary example for Indonesia

Since the end of the three decades under military strongman Suharto, Indonesia has emerged as the most vibrant democracy in South East Asia. Yet this new freedom might prove costly to the character of a nation frequently held up as a beacon of moderate Islam. As we are seeing from the Arab Spring, some of the things that emerge after the fall of a dictator are not so nice. The absence of a tough-guy ruler in Indonesia has meant a rise in Saudi-funded Islamic fundamentalism and acts of terror, from bombings targeted at Westerners in Jakarta and Bali, to persecution of Shi'as and Ahmadis.

If Indonesians want a glimpse at a possible future of their nation, they need only peek over at Aceh, a province where Islam reigns supreme. The Acehnese have fought a long struggle for independence, against the Dutch and now against Indonesia, but their fight for self-determination might garner a little more sympathy if they didn't seem so keen to turn Aceh into SE Asia's capital of Islamic lunacy.

The administration of Lhokseumawe, Aceh, is planning to issue a bylaw banning women from straddling motorcycles, arguing that the practice is “improper” in a province governed by Islamic law. Lhokseumawe Mayor Suaidi Yahya said that women should sit sideways on motorcycles, with their legs dangling off to one side. The planned regulation had been discussed with many parties, including local ulema, Suaidi said in his 2013 New Year’s speech. The mayor said that the ban would restore fading local values caused by poor morality and make it easier to differentiate women from men when riding pillion. He said that the planned regulation could in fact uphold the dignity of women in the region.

Unspun has it right. This has nothing to do with what women wear or do, but everything to do with the idea that men are incapable of controlling their basic urges. And when you set such a low standard for men to follow, it's not surprising when they lower themselves to it.

The perils of hairdressing while Muslim

In the list of Islamic contributions to science, perhaps we need to add the discovery of “girl germs”.

TORONTO — In case of competing rights, a Toronto woman has lodged a complaint against a barber who refused to cut her hair because he’s Muslim. In June, Faith McGregor requested a man’s haircut at the Terminal Barber Shop in downtown Toronto. Co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her that his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers in the shop said the same thing. “ 

For me it was just a haircut and started out about me being a woman,” McGregor, 35, told the Toronto Star. “Now we’re talking about religion versus gender versus human rights and businesses in Ontario.” 

She has filed a complaint with Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario because the incident made her feel like a “second-class citizen.” McGregor is not seeking monetary damages, but wants the tribunal to force the shop to offer men’s haircuts to both genders. 

“In our faith, I can cut my mother’s hair, I can cut my sister’s hair, I can cut my wife’s hair, my daughter’s hair,” shop co-owner Karim Saaden told The Star. “We are people who have values and we hold on to (them). I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do.” 

McGregor rejected an offer from the shop to find a barber to cut her hair. “It’s the principle of the matter…This needs to be discussed and now it’s bigger than what occurred with me that one day,” she told the newspaper. [Source]

Thoughts?
To throw one more tidbit of information out there: Saaden and Mahrouk are so strict in their faith that they also serve alcohol at their other barber shop.

I found this an interesting case because while these guys appear to be acting like dicks, is this something for the law to intervene in? You could argue that the bad publicity they will get will be lesson enough – a free market solution rather than a state one.

That said, perhaps this is the sort of thing the organs of the state need to put their foot down about. It may be a pipe dream, but I hope that one day we will see, at least in the West, a secular modernised version of Islam to triumph over the medieval bullshit. This would have to involve Muslims jettisoning a whole bunch of their beliefs and keeping some core ones which are conducive to living in the 21st century – in the same way that Christianity has done. But governments and courts need to play a role in pushing this along. It’d be nice to have a judge decide that freedom of religion does not give anyone license to be a douche.

I wonder what would happen if one of these barbers had to rescue a woman from drowning. Here in Melbourne there was a fuss recently about some Muslim cab drivers refusing to carry blind people and their guide dogs. Just like this case, it gives the impression of Muslims who are so concerned about their own notion of personal purity that they will completely disregard basic civilities.

More (cross-cultural) thoughts on "The Raid"

Just a couple of things I wanted to add to my previous review of Indonesian martial arts flick The Raid.


* Read the subtitles of this film, and it's not shy on swear words. There are plenty of f-words, and at least one c-word. But if you happen to speak Indonesian as well, you'll notice that there's no such thing actually spoken - I didn't make out any Indonesian words that were actually that dirty. Indonesian has swear words, of course, but you don't often see them in movies. A lot of the flavour of Bahasa Indonesia is in the tone and expressiveness of those whose speak it, rather than the words themselves, and so the English translation tries to capture those emotions in words, rather than letting the tone do the work.

So when a character says "Step back!" sternly to his subordinate, the subtitle reads "Step the fuck back!" and so on.

The rudest Indonesian words I noticed were bangsat (bastard), which was translated as the c-bomb by the subtitlers, and anjing (dog), which seemed to take on several different meanings, including "fuck you!"



* By contrast to a lot of the reviews going around which are hailing this as one of the greatest action movies of recent years, respected US critic Roger Ebert panned it and gave it one star in this review.
Now, opinions are opinions; I have a lot of respect for Ebert and can't complain if something is not to his taste. What did interest me though were a few lines in the review that puzzled me and seem to show a US-centric perspective on the world. That's interesting to me because so much of how we evaluate things is due to our upbringing, culture and vantage point. He says:

"What country are we in? The movie never tells us. (It was filmed in Indonesia.) Establishing Rama as a Muslim seems pointless, except as a cheap fakeout in character development."

What country are we in? It's interesting that a reviewer would write such a thing, because consider this: do most American movies need to state that they take place in the USA? Sometimes they might state the city, but certainly not always. So why must a movie that is made in Indonesia, and in which the characters are clearly Indonesian and speak Indonesian, point out that it is taking place in Indonesia?

The Muslim thing is also odd. Given that 90% of Indonesians are Muslim, and it's widely known as the world's most populous Islamic-majority country, why wouldn't it show that the main character is a Muslim? Given that the opening sequence shows Rama, up before dawn, preparing himself for the gruelling day ahead, what is odd about seeing him praying? If anything, it just shows him as a spiritual man of good character, who as any religious person would, seeks divine strength for the risky business that awaits him.

That praying scene can be read in another way, though. While it shows the main protagonist as a devout Muslim, it is a minor detail overall. Yet in the current global climate, is writer-director making a statement by having Western audiences cheer for a Muslim hero? I'm reminded of the brilliant series The Wire, in which perhaps its most beloved character is Omar, a fearless stick-up guy who just happens to be gay. His sexuality is just a minor background detail, as you could argue Rama's religion is in The Raid, as if to remind us that people are so much more than whatever category they belong to.

People who like being offended get offended

Late night comedian Jay Leno has been targeted in a new lawsuit after comparing the holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar, to Mitt Romney's vacation home.
The remark during a skit on the 'Tonight Show with Jay Leno,' when the TV host introduces 'a behind the scenes look at all the presidential candidates' homes was condemned by India. But religious organiser Dr Randeep Dhillon, from California, has gone a step further, claiming Leno libelled the Sikh religion with his offence.
According to court documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday obtained by TheWrap, Mr Dhillon, who does business as Bol Punjabi All Regions Community Organization, claims Leno 'hurt the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to those of the plaintiff' with the joke.
He also claims the remark 'clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh'.
Overseas Indian Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi told reporters: 'It is quite unfortunate and quite objectionable that such a comment has been made after showing the Golden Temple.'
Mr Ravi said the Indian embassy would take up the matter with the US state department, the Press Trust of India reported.
He said: 'The Golden Temple is the Sikh community's most sacred place... The American government should also look at this kind of thing.
'Freedom does not mean hurting the sentiments of others... This is not acceptable to us and we take a very strong objection for such a display.'
In response the members of the US Sikh community have now launched an online petition, called 'Stop defaming Sikhs and using derogatory remarks against the Sikh shrines.' Over 3,700 people have added their names to support the cause. The petition says Leno has been guilty of derogatory comments about Sikhs before and that 'Jay Leno's racist comments need to be stopped right here'.
Simran Kaur, a petition signatory wrote: 'Jay Leno must apologise and promise not to make any direct or oblique references to Sikhs or their places of worship.'[Daily Mail]

Hopefully, the petitioners will achieve their apparent objective to ensure that no one in the world ever talks about Sikhism at all, in order to make sure that no Sikh is ever offended. Either that, or we just stop telling jokes from now on. It's too risky.

But seriously... Leno's joke, which was mildly amusing and would have probably been forgotten 10 seconds later by most viewers, was not about Sikhs at all. It was about Romney and his outrageous wealth. The fact that it involved an image of the Golden Temple is immaterial, because virtually no one watching the show would know what the building was. I'd wager less than 5% of the watching public would see that image and think, "Oh, that's the Sikh temple in Amritsar."

So if virtually no one knew it was a Sikh temple, then how is it exposing Sikhs to ridicule or contempt? The irony of Randeep Dhillon's claims is obviously lost on him, because the only thing bringing ridicule and contempt on Sikhs is this lawsuit and diplomatic action, which simply says to the world that Sikhs have no sense of humour and are unnecessarily sensitive.

I should point out that I don't think the majority of Sikhs would really take offense to the Leno bit. But within any population there are those who don't have any meaning in their life unless they can get outraged about some perceived injustice, and who then take it upon themselves to make the rest of their community look bad.

You sometimes hear Christians complain that activists, artists and humorists are quick to attack or poke fun at Christianity, while not having the guts to apply the same treatment to other religions (particularly Islam). And that's a fair point, but the fact that this happens is actually a compliment to Christianity. When someone mocks Jesus or the clergy, no one gets murdered in retaliation, and no one tries to sue for the hurt feelings of Christians worldwide. Most Christians just shrug their shoulders and forget about it, and well they should. It's a grown-up response.

Some things in life are genuinely offensive. But just because you are offended by something, doesn't necessarily mean you are right to be offended. When everything is offensive, then nothing is offensive; the labelling of Leno's joke as "racist" does little but devalues the meaning of the word. Outrage at insignificant things means that folks will stop listening to you next time you complain about something legitimately offensive.

Most of the time, flying into a rage at every perceived insult just makes you look like a dick.

"Pub sorry for evicting patron with turban"

A Brisbane hotel that evicted a patron for wearing a turban is trying to find him so it can apologise. Spirit Hotels, which is a Coles subsidiary, has confirmed to AAP one of its staff members at the Royal English Hotel at Nundah in Brisbane's north on Sunday asked a man to remove his turban under its "no headwear" policy. After the Sikh man refused, he was evicted.
A spokesman for Spirit Hotels said the decision to ask him to remove his turban was an oversight. "Our hotels have a policy where patrons may be asked to remove headwear to help the venue manage security for staff and patrons," the spokesman said. "However, in this particular incident, the patron should not have been asked to remove his turban, and we are attempting to contact the patron to apologise. Hotel staff are being educated again on correct application of the policy."
Queensland Hotels Association chief executive Justin O'Connor said hotels had the right to set dress standards and refuse entry or service to anyone who did not comply with their code or breached laws on the responsible service of alcohol.
"As long as it's not in breach of the anti-discrimination act then they can set a dress code," Mr O'Connor told AAP.
 (Full story)

Nice that this seems to working itself out, but it's odd that this sort of thing is still happening. In a fairly multicultural city like Brisbane, has no one told the staff at the Royal English Hotel that a turban is not just another hat? You'd have to question why the matter is of such importance that it warranted such a drastic step as evicting the man. Was he somehow wielding the turban as a deadly weapon? Was the headgear such a crime against sartorial aesthetics that it was hurting the other patrons? Common sense would say no. You could certainly make reasonable arguments against certain religious paraphenalia, such as the burqa, niqab or the kirpan (Sikh ceremonial dagger). But wearing a turban or yarmulke would not seem to count as a security or safety risk to anyone.

Although as many of the comments attached to this news site indicate, common sense is not all that common.

"he dont deserve an apology this is australia respect out rules and adopt our coulture dont come here and make your own rules"

 "HERE is the answer - BANANAS!! Monkeys love 'em! Just lay some on the ground leading right into the sea and hopefully they will follow and drown!!"

"fit in or piss off. Sick of muslims and other funny hat wearers, if your god is so great kill yourselves and go be with him"

But putting aside the rights of the discriminated Sikh man for a second, let's not forget another minority group whose rights are being trampled upon: the security and door staff and pubs and bars. Is political correctness and multiculturalism trampling on their inalienable right to be assholes to anyone who dares to try enter their venue without being sufficiently cool?
On second thought, I'm sure they'll be okay. As long as they are properly trained to not make an issue of turbans, they can still fall back on usual repertoire: "Sorry, members only tonight," or the classic "Not with those shoes, mate."

"Muslim publics divided: Encounters with anti-pluralism in a democratic Indonesia"

This is an excellent podcast courtesy of the University of Melbourne, about the tug of war between progressive secularists and radical fundamentalists in Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world.

Indonesia has long been lauded as an example of a kinder, gentler form of Islam, and one of the more successful recent examples of democracy in not just the Muslim world, but in Asia as well. Yet so many of the headlines to come out of Indonesia are of religious-based violence and terrorism. Which is the real Indonesian Islam? Perhaps this will enlighten you somewhat.

Is it Islamophobic to ban the burqa?

The French government led by Nicolas Sarkozy has banned the wearing of the burqa and niqab, resulting in protests in Paris and London.

It’s an issue that makes for some strange bedfellows. Left-wing feminists can find themselves agreeing with right-wing xenophobes in wanting it banned. Left-wing civil libertarians find themselves in agreement with right-wing Islamic hardliners in supporting women’s right to wear it.

A common stance you’ll hear is that the current climate of opposition to the burqa and niqab, which has led to debate in the UK and Australia too, is a reflection of a growing feeling of Islamophobia. Is this correct, or is it possible to separate opposition to the burqa from anti-Islamic prejudice?

Let’s establish one thing from the start. Yes, there’s a lot of Islamophobia around. And yes, the French government’s moves to ban the burqa are almost certainly part of a broader agenda that is at least somewhat informed by racism and xenophobia. Thus, many Muslims see the attack on the burqa and niqab as an attack on Muslims in general, and understandably take an “us vs them” position.

It’s also important to note, however, that not every misgiving expressed about the cultural impact of Islam on our society deserves the label of “Islamophobia”. And the fact that a ban on the burqa is supported by some fairly unsavoury xenophobic elements does not mean that it is therefore xenophobic to oppose the burqa. (Hitler was into vegetarianism, but that doesn’t make vegetarians nazis.)

There are plenty of reasons to oppose and indeed ban the burqa, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate and fear of Muslims. It is possible to separate a people from a practice. As an example, FGM (female genital mutilation) is an ancient (and most would argue, barbaric) practice that is prevalent in the Horn of Africa; it has been estimated that around 74% of Ethiopian women (Christian and Muslim alike) have experienced some version of “female circumcision”, usually carried out on children by older women. Now, I quite like Ethiopians and have no problem whatsoever with them immigrating to my country, Australia. But does that mean I think FGM should ever be tolerated in Australia? Hell no.

I don’t particular like the idea of women feeling obligated to wear a hijab (headscarf), but I don’t object if they choose to wear it, and would support their right to do so. Hijab doesn’t really impede a woman in any meaningful way, and allows her to interact with society just like anyone else. But it is not really possible to experience the full range of social interactions that most of us take for granted while wearing a full-body covering. Covering the face is an enormous obstacle to communication with others, and makes it extremely difficult to identify an individual.

It’s also important to note that while wearing the burqa and niqab is something practiced by some Muslims, it is not mandated or even encouraged by Islamic teachings. It is a cultural practice (the burqa is Afghan in origin and the niqab is from the Arabian peninsula). Islam states that women should dress and behave modestly, which may or may not involve wearing a headscarf, but it says nothing about covering one’s face.

Before lumping the anti-burqa crowd together with the Islamophobes, it’s worth reflecting that many Muslim nations have taken a firm stance against the garment. Turkey, Tunisia and Malaysia, for example, have all introduced laws banning or restricting its use. Now, I’m not holding up any of those countries as any kind of benchmark for civil liberties, but they demonstrate that one can oppose the burqa and not be anti-Islam. (Indeed, the majority of French Muslims apparently support the ban.) The aforementioned countries have had no problem declaring that “we are Islamic, but face-covering is not an accepted part of our culture.”

“FREE WILL”

Probably the most common reason for opposing a ban on the burqa/niqab is freedom; in a liberal democracy, we do not have the right to dictate what others wish to wear, even if we personally find it distasteful. This is obviously an essential point to consider. I agree that it is highly problematic to have government-mandated “style police”. Likewise, the wearing of a particular costume is a “victimless crime”, in that if a woman chooses to don it, then she is clearly not being harmed by it, and nor is anyone else.

But this ignores that The State already dictates what we can wear in public. Try walking naked or semi-naked in the jungles of New Guinea and you wouldn’t be doing anything out of the ordinary; yet try it in a public place in a major Western city and see how long it takes before the police arrest you. Likewise, in some rural traditional societies one can openly display a machete or gun on one’s person, yet this would be a crime in a great many cities worldwide.

You could also argue that polygamy between consenting adults is also a victimless crime. Likewise for incest between consenting adults. Yet most countries have strict regulations forbidding these practices. Child marriage? Accepted in some countries, outlawed in most.

There are no outraged cries of Islamophobia from Muslims and civil libertarians that polygamy is outlawed in most Western countries. Because as in all the above cases, the laws reflect that certain practices are simply not compatible with the culture of a nation.

So is it really a woman’s free will to wear a full-body covering? Or is it being forced upon them by men? In Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, it is certainly not a free choice, at least in the majority of cases. What about in the West? That’s a trickier proposition. Some women clearly exercise an apparently free choice to wear these garments. I say "apparently", because I freedom of choice is questionable here. Burqa and niqab symbolise the belief that there is something inherently sordid and temptful about a woman's face, and that it is somehow unsafe for anyone to see it aside from her husband and relatives. It is unquestionably a symbol of male oppression of women, and a woman who chooses to wear it is unwittingly complicit in her own emotional abuse. Think of it as a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Some who wear the garment believe that it is a way of better pleasing Allah, but I'll believe that when Muslim men start pleasing Allah by wearing it as well.

And I have absolutely no doubt that the more women choose to cover their faces, it will lead to more women being coerced to wear them. This already happens with the hijab. In countries where hijab is common but completely optional, there is still frequently a judgement that accompanies those women who choose not to wear it; this kind of social pressure leads to more unwilling wearers of hijab, and I do not doubt that the same thing would happen with the niqab or burqa.

One of the better arguments against banning the burqa is that those women who wear it will be isolated; they will be unable to venture out of their homes, as they can only go outside if they are covered. (This usually comes with the assumption that this isolation is being enforced by their husbands, which says it all really.) I do realise this is a reality and will happen in some cases. However, such a perspective is admitting defeat. I firmly believe that a woman who is unable to wear a burqa and unable to leave the house will soon decide that integrating with wider society is not such a bad thing after all. Even an oppressive husband will most likely come to the same decision due to the sheer impractically of keeping his wife at home all the time.

Rather than looking at wanting to ban the burqa as Islamophobic, look at it this way; the presence of such garments actually increases Islamophobia. Given that the garment and what it represents is abhorrent to most non-Muslims, it is likely to provide fuel for those negative sentiments in the community towards Muslims. In a time when the presence of Muslims in the West is under increasing scrutiny, most Muslims wish to show the wider community that they can fit in, and that despite some differences, “we are just regular people like you”.

Why tolerate something that says exactly the opposite? The niqab and burqa symbolise rejection of the wider social norms, rejection of the possibility of normal social interaction with the vast majority, rejection of the cultural values that people in Western countries hold dear. Women clad in these garments are a walking advertisement for those who believe that there is something so starkly different and backward about Muslims that they cannot fit into Western society. It is very much in the interest of Muslims that these costumes and their accompanying cultural mindset are confined to history.

Happy now, Pastor Terry?

Reports are that at least 12 UN employees have been killed after a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif was attacked by a mob of as many as 2000 people protesting (peacefully at first) against the burning of the Qur'an by Pastors Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp in Gainsville, Florida. While today another 8 people have died and at least 61 injured after young men rampaged through Kandahar.

Last year, when Jones announced he was going to burn the Muslim holy book, thousands took to the streets in Afghanistan to protest, and a NATO base was pelted with stones, while in Kashmir a Christian Church was burned and 15 people killed. And that was only when he SAID he was going to do it (he subsequently decided not to).

For some reason, Jones decided to go through with it last week. And predictably, now that the news has filtered through to some of the most unruly parts of the Islamic world, all hell has broken loose.

Of course, the real villains here are those nutjobs who decided to vent their anger at some obscure attention-seeker from Florida on UN staff who had absolutely nothing to do with him. Let's not forget that.

But we all know these people exist. And if you're smart you don't rile them up. It's a shame that it has to be this way, but we all need to be careful of what we say when fundamentalist fascists are around, because they'll kill somebody.

Of course, Jones' point all along was that Islam is a religion of violence, and the Afghani protestors have clearly done him a huge favour with the predictably violent manner of their rebuttal.

Now personally I think in a perfect world, anyone should be able to burn a Qur'an or any other religious text. But the reality is that freedom of speech has its limits; the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, and what Jones has done is basically the equivalent of this. If it is obvious that your free expression is going to lead to violent unrest (and it was obvious in this case), then you need to face criminal consequences. This incident has potentially far worse consequences than what we have seen today; it could potentially set back UN and US efforts in Afghanistan back a decade.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Pursuing a better, smarter kind of immigrant?

Had an interesting discussion last week via the comments of this post with Razib Khan, who blogs prolifically at Gene Expression and elsewhere. It pertains to whether certain groups of immigrants (and Muslims in particular) are more problematic than others, and whether some kind of policy should be enacted to take this into account. I've included the comments below, after which I'll post some of my own thoughts. I've edited my own comments for length here.

(For the record, Razib is a Bangladeshi-American scientist. I assume he was raised as a Muslim but is now a passionate atheist. He's also considerably to the Right of me politically.)

Razib: whatever the details, i do think people need to be more cognizant of differences between various immigrant groups. muslims in particular, all things equal, are very problematic. specifically, i suspect a lot of the issues are pronounced in muslims from nations where they are a majority, and the culture mores as such that non-muslims are marginalized and "put in their place." muslims who are from india, often ismaili, are much more assimilated into british society than those from pakistan. some of this is due to human capital differentials (ismailis are often secondary migrants from east africa who had a history of being business people), but some of it is surely to the fact that ismailis in india have had to learn to fit in as one group among many, while muslims from pakistan come from a society where non-muslims are being cleansed and subject to de facto "jim crow" practices (because they are "dirty" kufars, with many christians and hindus being "low caste" to boot).


Eurasian Sensation: I do actually agree that Islam presents a challenge to multiculturalism in a way that [other, non-religion-specific] immigrant groups do not, since in its stricter interpretations it is incompatible with sharing a society with "kufar". However I also think that people who are Muslim have made valuable contributions to the fabric of my country. So having Muslim immigrants is not really the problem per se; it's how they are managed in their new home.

Razib: muslim immigrants from pakistan, unless appropriately sifted, *are* a problem. "moderates" in pakistan are not moderates like you and i would find congenial. moderates from turkey are less problematic. because of the influence and prestige of anti-pluralist muslim subcultures in the core of the arab world islam as a whole has a problem. if senegal was the model there wouldn't be a problem, but due to its marginality it's a deviation, not the expectation.

both racialists and multiculturalists elide these critical distinctions, because they make their positions easier to defend. after wall, who wants to defend a "crazy racist position" or the "crazy anti-white leftist position."

Eurasian Sensation: Your phrase "unless appropriately sifted" intrigues me. I'm opposed to racially discriminatory immigration policy, yet at the same time I want us to be more discerning in who we let in. How you do propose this sifting is done?

Razib: well, if you don't want to be culturally biased, filter on intelligence. real educational qualifications. the reality is that a lot of the most radical islamists are upwardly mobile, but their radicalism is in part a function of their lack of appropriate economic reward in societies where patronage and nepotism of entrenched elites keeps them from getting their just desserts

the main issue with education isn't that it makes people more liberal as such. *but*, if you are a professional it is almost impossible not to be socially integrated, and therefore see the "kufar" as a fellow human being (i.e., if they're your patients, clients, etc.).
that's why the working class pakistani proletariat in britain is terrifying. they live in their own subculture, and interact lot with "back home." and the amount of coddling they get from the british liberal mainstream is shocking. e.g., their persistent cousin marriage practices result in a genuine burden on the NIH way out of proportion to their numbers because of recessive diseases.


p.s on the last part about coddling. i went through britain last spring, and the working class pakistanis who adhere to conservative muslim values have their own place in that nation. it's accepted, tolerated, and encouraged. but they're nearly as sociopathological as the drunken british lower classes (in a different way). the white lower classes are not given the "space" that the pakistani working classes are, and that's because the latter are viewed as a "different culture," with "their own ways."

I don't really have any good solutions here but I'll throw out a few ideas. I'm speaking from an Australian perspective but the same roughly applies to other Western nations.

Immigration brings changes to any region or state, and like any phenomenon there will be both positive effects (added richness and dynamism to the culture, broadening of perspectives and opportunities, etc), and negative effects (environmental strain, ethnic tension, etc). There is no way to ensure that immigration has no negative aspects to it whatsoever. However, it would be negligent not to consider how migration and cultural integration policies could be improved to ensure that negative aspects can be minimised.
The general Left-Liberal position on immigration and diversity is this: that all races and cultures are basically equal. Given the right opportunities, anyone from any cultural background has the potential to succeed in a Western country.

It's an admirable perspective on things, based on a fairly optimistic view of human nature. But is it realistic? Obviously those on the Right would say no. The conservative point of view has long been that those of nationalities very different to the dominant ethnicity (in this case, Anglo-Saxon) are unlikely to be able to sufficiently integrate, and thus their immigration should be restricted.

The elephant in the room that the Left don't want to talk about and the Right often do is that some immigrant groups just don't perform as well as others on key indicators, and some seem far less likely to successfully integrate into the wider community than others. Some are over-represented in crime statistics.

In the Australian context, if we use crime rate as a key indicator, then a number of ethnicities have significantly higher rates of arrest and imprisonment than the locally-born. It's interesting to note that each of those ethnicities has it's own set of circumstances that impacts on crime rate, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to view it in terms of "race". For example, Vietnamese have a higher than average crime rate, yet the Chinese rate is considerably lower than average. The crime rate is high amongst Somalis and Sudanese, two communities based predominantly on refugees fleeing civil war; yet those Africans who migrated here under other schemes (Kenyans, Zimbabweans, Ghanaians, etc) tend to perform far better. This is primarily because they are more likely to be educated and professional, which echoes Razib's point about the educated being better equipped to integrate. Bear in mind as well that those who settle as refugees are more likely to have experienced trauma and have a broken family structure, and because of their poverty are more likely to live in areas in which the crime rate is already high.

Is the solution then simply to take only business migrants and reduce our refugee intake? I am certain that plenty would agree, but it's not an option in my book. Australia has a sometimes shaky record on asylum seekers, but few in politics would seriously look to make significant reductions to our humanitarian intake.

Here's one idea posited by commenter John Comnenus on the blog of Andrew Bolt, who is Australia's best-known conservative columnist. I have real problems with the implications of this, but it's an example of the sort of ideas that are out there:

In my opinion we should accept no migrants from countries that has a serious criminal incidence of more than 50% above the Australian level. The cost to the public in terms of victim costs, policing, justice and jailing means these groups fail the cost benefit test. Given that it is almost impossible to determine who will be a criminal we should have a blanket ban. Countries in this category are coloured dark red in the graph.

Immigrants ethnicity where the rate of serious criminality is more than 25% above the Australian born level should be subject to more detailed and thorough background checking. Countries in this group are coloured pink.
Countries in the gray zone i.e. within 10% of Australian norm should also have more detailed screening.
Australia’s immigration program should be heavily weighted to the countries in the green category, where the rate of criminality is less than half the Australian born rate. Over time such a policy will decrease crime rates, impact on fewer victims, cost less and leave a more positive view of immigration generally. It would make sure that immigration is being run in the national interest not the immigrants’ interest. The diversity in the green countries (China, India, UK) demonstrates unequivocally that this approach is NOT racist, it is colour blind without being behaviour blind.

Whether you like this plan or not is probably linked to your level of optimism about human nature and the prospects of those populations "levelling out" in terms of their crime rate, and immigration policy seems to assume that after some initial teething problems, crime issues within some of those key groups will normalise over time. If you're curious, the countries that Comnenus would exclude according to his plan are Tonga, Samoa, Romania, Sudan, Vietnam and Lebanon. Certainly those communities have produced more than their share of criminals, but they've also produced two Young Australians of the Year (Tan Le and Khoa Do), a former Premier of Victoria (Steve Bracks) and arguably Australia's greatest ever soccer player (Tim Cahill), to name just a few. Obviously, a few famous standouts are not representative of a whole community, but neither should an ethnic group be judged on the actions of its worst elements. And while crime is a serious issue, it doesn't define an entire community. Vietnamese-Australians, for example, have undergone a rapid transformation from a people mostly confined to blue-collar work in the 70s, to a highly-educated group strongly represented in professional fields. It tells you something about Comnenus and Bolt that their impression of Vietnamese-Australians seems to be predominantly as criminals.

Personally, I can't abide the idea of barring people from immigrating because of their race or where they came from. Most people would rightly regard that as racist. Of course, it's not an uncommon phenomenon, and it is really only Western democracies that believe it morally wrong to discriminate based on race. Japan, for example, has no problem doing so. While the introduction of such a policy would no doubt gain significant popular support in Australia, it would be so problematic and divisive that we are unlikely to see any such thing in the near future.

If we were to enforce a more rigid approach to immigration and settlement, it would have to be a non-racist one. Now, while I tend to despise the inevitable cries of "Send 'em back where they came from" anytime someone ethnic commits a crime, deportation does need to be a potential tool for deterring criminals. In some cases it would probably be the best option. Obviously taking up citizenship means that they becomine solely Australia's problem and exempt from deportation, but I'd even propose a "probationary" citizenship period of say, 3 years, in which it can be revoked in the event of serious crime or multiple minor crimes.

So what of the idea, suggested by Razib, of filtering on intelligence? It's an intriguing idea. At what IQ does one draw the line? 100? 90? Let's assume for a moment that this was practical; it still opens up a can of worms about how to measure intelligence, whether it is possible to make intelligence tests that are free of cultural bias, and whether someone with a high IQ must necessarily be a better contributor to society than someone with a low IQ.

It's fair to say that the majority of people involved in anti-social and criminal activities would be located in the low-to-average intelligence range. But it's also worthwhile mentioning that my discussion with Razib above focused largely on Muslims, and moderate vs fundamentalist. How does that equate with intelligence? As one of Razib's own posts details, there is a strong correlation between IQ and religiosity; the less intelligent are more likely to believe in the Bible (or presumably the Qur'an as the case may be) as the literal word of God, and to have a religiously conservative worldview. Higher IQ people tend more towards atheism, agnosticism and religious moderation, as well as liberal and moderate political views. But it should also be apparent that religion often negates rationality. I know numerous highly intelligent doctors who are Creationists. And the hardline Islamic lunar Right likewise seems to have a large number of articulate and intelligent people.

So would IQ-screening filter out all the dangerous nuts and extremists? Of course not. But extremism nonetheless requires a fairly ignorant base to work out of. If you accept that there is a correlation between IQ and social class, and between social class and the likelihood of being a criminal, then there is definitely an argument for testing immigrants for intelligence. In theory, anyway.

I don't ever see it being a reality. It might be feasible to apply such a test to economic migrants, but it's highly problematic to make someone fleeing torture, persecution and ethnic cleansing sit an IQ test in order to be granted safe haven. Likewise, is discriminating against the less intelligent (or more pertinently, those who don't perform well on IQ tests) really that much better than discriminating against someone because of their race? There are plenty of working-class folks who would bomb out on an IQ test, yet run their own businesses, employ many other people, and contribute greatly to society.


So beyond some minor tweaking of immigration controls we have now, there may be little else that may be done to guarantee we are letting in the right kind of migrant, at least without contravening some of our basic principles of fairness and equality. Thus it becomes essential that the right kinds of social policies are enacted to encourage an integrated society.

Is multiculturalism the problem? That largely depends on your interpretation of what that term means. "Culture" encompasses a whole list of things both good and bad, and it is possible to have a society made up of many ethnicities, yet firmly reject some of the practices that they may bring with them. Examples are polygamy, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, which occur in a wide variety of cultures worldwide; these are all outlawed in Australia, yet they are still tacitly accepted by some communities and thus persist covertly. As important as it is to respect and accommodate everyone's cultural perspectives, this can only go so far, and some things must be unequivocally rejected. (And in many cases, are rejected; for example, the consumption of dogs, cats and parts of endangered animals is all part of Chinese culture, but that is unlikely to be considered acceptable in the West, ever.)

I'll return to the topic of Islam. As I stated earlier, I agree with Razib that Muslim immigrants present a greater challenge to the fabric of society than other immigrant groups. Yet it is essential to distinguish between moderate and hardline here. The great majority of Muslims in the West are moderate and fit in without any major problems. Moderate Muslims realise that certain aspects of their religion are incompatible with modern life and can be conveniently ignored (in the same way that mainstream Christians don't adhere to the bit in the Bible where it says anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death). But of course, in any religious population there are hardliners, and Muslim hardliners tend to be a whole lot more worrying than Buddhist hardliners or Christian hardliners. Even without taking into account the potential threat of violence, Islam in its stricter interpretations makes it virtually impossible to integrate into a Western society, since it mandates separation from non-Muslims. A sensible government policy creates conditions in which the hardliners are marginalised to the point of insignificance; poor government policy allows hardline ideas to flourish and infect the moderate religious population.

Razib rightly points out that the UK stacks up poorly in this respect, whereas Australia, the US and Canada  seem to have done somewhat better. Surveys seem to indicate that young British Muslims are actually more conservative than their parents' generation, and more conservative than their counterparts in the other Anglophone countries. For example, one indicator of extreme views is whether a person believes that apostates (those who abandon Islam) should be punished by death. According to this Pew Research Centre study, 84% of Egyptian Muslims and 76% of Pakistani Muslims agree with this, whereas in Turkey, Lebanon and Indonesia this was the view of only 5%, 6% and 30% respectively. Yet amongst British Muslims aged 16-24, according to this article, 36% believe in the death penalty for apostasy. 13% of young British Muslims expressed support for Al-Qaeda, compared to only 5% in Turkey. (I'm not saying I put total faith in these surveys - the figure for Indonesia seems high to me - but that's what we have to work with.) In other words, despite their proximity to Western liberal values which emphasise freedom and tolerance for diversity, Britain is breeding a generation of young Muslims that is more extreme than numerous countries which are almost entirely Muslim. It is telling that Umar Abdulmutallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) acquired his extremist mentality not in his native Nigeria, but while studying at University College in London.

If Turkey (99% Muslim) can apparently be so much more progressive and secular than Britain's Islamic community, then it shows that the presence of Muslims does not mean extremism; it is the culture of that society that allows extremism to flourish. I'm not going to proclaim Turkey as any kind of champion of human rights and tolerance, but it has steadfastly maintained a moderate interpretation of Islam which has little room for extremism. So how has Britain managed to nurture a Muslim community where extreme beliefs are allowed to fester?

To an extent it is because Westen countries draw their Muslim migrants from some places with far more medieval attitudes than Turkey. But largely it is because multiculturalism is often too tolerant of intolerance - or at least a certain kind of intolerance. The age of political correctness has rightly turned white people's xenophobia into a taboo, yet it has too often given non-whites (or non-Christians) a free pass. Western governments' tolerance has allowed some mosques to import imams from overseas to preach violent and intolerant versions of Islam, and often thrown in the funding to do it with, all in the name of diversity. In Britain, crazed Islamist activist Anjem Choudry is allowed to publicly endorse terrorism and violence while picking up a social security cheque from the same government he so despises.

I'm firmly in support of a society in which all ethnic groups and religions can intermingle. But that only works if those various groups are prepared to play along. Expecting white Australians to embrace and accept cultural diversity is hollow if migrant groups are patronisingly viewed as exempt from having to be tolerant. Multiculturalism as fine with me only so long as it doesn't forget this.

Should countries give official recognition to minority religious holidays? The Malaysian example

So I'm in Malaysia right now, it's Christmas Day, a public holiday, and virtually all the shops are still open. No problem there, it's just a contrast to the way in which the commercial sphere almost completely shuts down in Australia every Christmas. More interesting to me is the fact that Malaysia even makes a somewhat big deal out of Christmas at all, enough to make it a public holiday at least. Only 9% of Malaysians are Christian, with the majority (60%) being Muslim. It strikes me that I do not know of any Western countries that have enshrined the holy days of minority religions as public holidays. Even France, with a Muslim population approaching 10% (probably the largest non-Christian group in any Western country) has Christian holidays but not Muslim ones.

Now I'm not saying that they should. But once a religious or cultural minority reaches a certain proportional level of the population, it is only logical that there will be a strong push for their holidays will be acknowledged, with recognition as a public holiday. What is that threshold? Probably more than 10%, for sure. Consider that Diwali, the Indian festival of lights, is an official public holiday in Caribbean countries like Trinidad & Tobago and Suriname, where the ethnic Indian communities are around 40% of the population.

Is it feasible, or desirable, to envision a future where say, Chinese New Year became an official holiday in Australia, or Diwali an official holiday in New Zealand? What about the UK taking a day off to celebrate Eid ul-Fitr?

It's probably important to acknowledge that Christmas in many societies has lost much of its religious significance, and is celebrated more as a secular day of togetherness and gift-giving, rather than one of the holiest days of the Christian faith.

Now to Malaysia. It is hardly the most shining example of a harmonious multicultural utopia, but it is an interesting example given its culturally and spiritually diverse population. Its public holidays reflect that, and it may be an example of what will happen as Western societies shift a little further from their European Christian roots.

MALAYSIAN PUBLIC HOLIDAYS (CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS SPECIFIC)
Chinese New Year - 2 days
Prophet Muhammad's Birthday (Muslim)
Deepawali/Diwali (Indian)
Vesak Day (Buddhist)
Eid al-Adha (Muslim) - 2 days

Maal Hijrah (Muslim new year)

In addition, there are some cultural public holidays particular to some states only, including the birthdays of local Sultans. For example, the Hindu festival of Thaipusam is only celebrated in 7 states, presumably those with significant Indian communities. Good Friday is only a public holiday in the states of Sarawak and Sabah in Borneo, where the indigenous groups are strongly Christian. There are also numerous secular public holidays which are not specific to any religious or cultural group, such as Labour Day, New Years Day and Malaysia Day.

RELIGIOUS BREAKDOWN
Muslim - 60%
Buddhist - 19%
Christian - 9%
Hindu - 6%
Other Chinese religion - 2%

ETHNIC BREAKDOWN
Malay and other Bumiputera - 65%
Chinese - 26%
Indian - 7%

So that's one example of how a country caters to its various cultural groups. The number of culturally based public holidays is roughly proportional to the demographics of the population. Of course, such a model isn't going to be appropriate in every country. Aside from it's particular demographics, several factors should be added for context. Firstly, Malaysian society is not really locked in to the traditional Western notions of a 9-to-5 Monday-to-Friday working culture, with many shops typically open til 9 or 10 at night for much of the week. Secondly, Malaysia has a LOT of public holidays, which is probably related to the first point. And finally, tying in both factors, Malaysian public holidays rarely shut down the entire commercial sector as happens in some countries.

But nonetheless, it is one possible glimpse into the direction Western societies might go in the future.

We can't let schools teach kids anything they don't already know

Ok, now here's a thought: given the amount of stuff in the school curriculum that kids learn that they'll probably never use, how about making it part of their education to learn about the religious traditions of some non-Christian faiths?

Doesn't seem like a particular outrageous concept. After all, given that we live in a fairly diverse society, you don't want your kids to grow up thinking Ramadan is something like a papadam, or thinking Passover is a some kind of ball game.

Or perhaps it is outrageous, judging from this story in Australia's most popular newspaper this week.

Schools should embrace Ramadan as well as Christmas - Muslim leaders

SCHOOLS that celebrate Christmas should also embrace other non-Christian religious festivals, Muslim leaders say.
Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, called on the Victorian Education Department to include the traditions of other religious faiths as part of the formal school curriculum.
"Schools have religious programs - but generally they're elective, they're not compulsory," he said. "To have an awareness of these festivals can be very enriching for all students, including people who go to secular schools."
His comments follow Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu's recent move to protect Christmas celebrations at state schools so that all children can enjoy the "simple pleasures" of the holiday.
Mr Trad called on Mr Baillieu to extend the same level of support to other religions as well. "When the Premier of the state makes a statement in that manner, one can't help but feel that he is giving an official stamp to one religion to the exclusion of the other," he said. "To be a Premier for all Victorians, I look forward to his instructions to schools to teach about the important religious festivals for all faiths."
Mr Trad added that Muslim people should be able to take leave from work during Eid, the three-day holiday that marks the end of Ramadan.
Sherene Hassan, vice-president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, also endorsed the incorporation of Ramadan and other religious festivals in the classroom.
"Conversations about increasing awareness of different cultures and religions are already taking place and have been happening for some time among educators," she said. "The ICV believes this is a positive way of fostering respect between children."
Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem, spokesman for the Australian National Imams' Council, said that schools could hold anything from lessons to full-blown celebrations, depending on the number of pupils of that particular faith.
"Christmas here is celebrated, although the majority of Australians are not Christians but probably consider themselves to be secularists or atheists," he said.
"Exposure to other cultures in a multi-racial country is a good thing, especially in schools."
Mr Baillieu and the Victorian Education Department declined to comment when contacted by the Herald Sun.

Now what they are suggesting is hardly radical at all, whether you agree with it or not. But check out the tone of almost all the 491 comments attached to the article:

Jooles Posted at 12:34 AM December 15, 2010
Nope! Not even remotely interested. Muslims came to MY country, I didn't go to theirs. When THEY embrace our cultures and other religions openly and equally in THEIR countries, then we will do the same. Until then, I'm not interested. In fact, not even then. Who cares about Islam? Not me and not many many people around me.
Comment 1 of 491

Gate-Keeper of Vienna Posted at 12:42 AM December 15, 2010
Inch by inch, creep & creep, push & push....this bunch of supremacists has no interest whatsoever beyond one simple outcome - final and absolute victory. There is no second prize, there can be no compromise of any kind. It is written in their blood-curdling prose - read it yourself.
Comment 9 of 491

Mary K of travelling Oz Posted at 6:35 AM December 15, 2010
We can and should accept and respect other religions but dont need to learn about them.I do not think that imported religions should be able to take time off from work during "Eid". Australia cannot, and shouldn't give them or any other religions the holidays they have during their special time, as they are now living in Australia!
Comment 89 of 491

Preston W. of Rowville Posted at 7:10 AM December 15, 2010
do schools in muslim countries celebrate Christmas? No? Well, if you don't like our way of life you can always try elsewhere!
Comment 117 of 491

Mick Ellis of Narre Warren Posted at 7:11 AM December 15, 2010
How many christians blew themselves up in 2010? How many christians declared war on islam? We celebrate christmas as a time of peace and giving to all. Will islam open thier hearts to non-muslims during ramadan in the same way. I know they won't. I've heard muslims singing the turkish national anthem on Anzac day just to be disrespectful. Islam cannot co-exist peacefully with other religions it's not in there nature. They kill thier own as punishment they will never respect anyone else.
Comment 118 of 491

Aussie of Melbourne Posted at 7:41 AM December 15, 2010
How about, no? If you want to celebrate Ramadan, go to an Islamic country. Simple. It seems people come to Australia to infiltrate it, not because it's a better alternative. "Tradition" is now being branded "discrimination". What a pathetic joke.
Comment 154 of 491

Andrew Posted at 11:59 AM December 15, 2010
What next? Main Kampf in school?
Comment 436 of 491

The paper also ran an attached poll, asking "Should schools that celebrate Christmas embrace Ramadan and other non-Christian festivals?"
Of the 6271 respondents, 87.56% answered No.

Now to understand the reaction to this story, a few contextual factors must be taken into account, including the way the story was presented and who is in it.

Firstly: Keysar Trad is the main Muslim leader quoted, and a large photo of his grinning face accompanies the article. Trad is widely seen as a dodgy individual, and he quite simply is a poor spokesman for Australian Muslims. He routinely attaches himself to questionable causes, and every time I see him interviewed on TV he just exudes every negative stereotype the public has of "the shifty Arab". I'm sure he does some good work somewhere, but if the Muslim community in Australia value good PR, they need to shove this guy right to the back.
Because the paper makes him the primary feature of the article, straight away readers are going to have negative associations. And they managed to find the shiftiest-looking photo of Trad available (although in fairness, that's not hard to do). I wonder why they didn't instead choose the much more benevolent-looking Sherene Hassan? Simple: because one suits the image of Muslims that News Limited wishes to focus on.

Secondly: Is this issue one of across-the-board religious tolerance, or is it solely about Islam? Certainly it is being raised by Muslim leaders, but what they suggest encompasses non-Christian religions generally, not just Islam. So the headline, invoking Ramadan, seems to be designed to put a sensationalist spin on the article.

One of the fears that seems to resonate through the comments attached to the story, is that this is "the thin end of the wedge"; Muslims are trying to gradually Islamicise Australia by imposing their customs onto everyone's daily life. Now, I don't doubt that there are some in the Muslim community who do have that agenda. Is it really what the majority of Muslims want? I'm not so sure. Is it the underlying agenda of the Muslim leaders quoted in this article? I don't think so. But for a significant section of the public, the entire Muslim ummah is seen as being engaged in a sneaky campaign to turn the world into a giant Caliphate, and this sort of thing fits right into that theory.

The problem is, that in the case of this story, the nature of the messenger obscures the actual issue. It is worth discussing the role of religion in the school system. Shouldn't young people be taught about religion, at least in an anthropological sense? Since it is such an influential factor in the lives of most of the world, should we not have a better understanding of it? For example, what's the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim and a Hindu? I bet at least half of graduating high school students in Australia would struggle to give an answer to that. Now given that Christianity is by far the most widely practiced religion in Australia, it follows that it should be taught in more detail - it is fundamental to understanding the moral and legal basis of Australian society. But likewise, I think it's essential for people to have a basic understanding of what the major religions are about. Should they celebrate all their holidays as part of the school curriculum? Perhaps not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to learn about them.

The other recurring theme in the comments is that most Muslim states don't teach Christian traditions in their schools, so why should we teach Muslim stuff in ours? Which is sound logic, if you are they kind of person who doesn't think we we strive to be a better society than any other. Hell, why don't we base all our legal principles on what the Saudis do?
I don't want students being proselytised to in the classroom, unless they are attending a specifically religious school. But neither do I like the idea that we should keep religion out of the classroom entirely. Even if religions are mostly a bit nuts, it's still important to understand what they're about. Because, like, school is like, for learning and stuff, innit?

The "Muslim Obama" Saga, part 137

Another example about how certain types of humour don't seem to translate so well across cultures.

Saudi media fall for Obama Muslim joke (AFP)
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — When a US satirist joked that President Barack Obama will admit to Congress that he is Muslim in his latest compromise with Republicans, Saudi media took it seriously.
On Friday the online version of Al-Hayat newspaper and the prominent news website Sabq.org both reported straightforwardly humourist Andy Borowitz's column that began:
"In his latest effort to find common ground with Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama said today that he was willing to agree that he is a Muslim.
"In agreeing that he is a Muslim, Mr. Obama is sending a clear signal that he is trying to find consensus," Borowitz said in the column posted on the Huffington Post and The Borowitz Report websites this week.
Both Al-Hayat, one of the Middle East's most influential newspapers, and Sabq, believed to be controlled by the Saudi interior ministry, apparently missed the joke.
"Obama doesn't mind coming out as a Muslim if that will satisfy the Republicans," the Al-Hayat headline said.
"Obama: 'I'm ready to announce that I am a Muslim,'" led Sabq.
Both repeated Borowitz's "quote" of Obama saying:" My place of birth has been, and will always be, negotiable."
"White House sources indicated today that the president might be willing to meet the GOP (Grand Old Party -- the Republicans) halfway on his birthplace and say that he was born in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean," Borowitz joked.
Despite Obama repeatedly saying he is Christian, because his native-Kenyan father was born a Muslim, and because his middle name is Hussein, many Muslims and even some US Republicans suspect he is secretly Muslim.

Borowitz's original piece that caused the confusion is here, and it's well worth a read; it perfectly captures both the current disallusionment on the left with Obama's capitulation to Republicans, as well as the stupidity that underlies the Obama-is-a-Muslim controversy. Borowitz is a funny-ass dude and one of the few people I follow on Twitter, that is on those rare occasions when I bother to glance at Twitter.
The sad thing is that, as you would expect, there will be many in America for whom articles like Borowitz's are not satire, but further proof that they are being governed by an evil swarthy Manchurian Candidate. If you're not familiar with it, the equation is as follows:
Barack Hussein Obama = Arabic middle name + lived in Indonesia + some Muslim relatives + black + doesn't obviously hate Muslims = Muslim = hates America = Terrorist

Muslims and homosexuals - working together to destroy America?

This is a story that nicely exemplifies how religion can be a force for tolerance or for ignorance.

If you are a right-wing American of the particularly small-minded variety, there are two things that you see as an almighty threat to your country: Muslims and gays. Now at last, some genius has concocted a conspiracy theory in which the two bogeymen come together so neatly. (Add in some illegal Mexican immigrants and some Kenyan socialists and it would be beyond perfect!)

Bradlee Dean: Keith Ellison is advancing Sharia law through ‘homosexual agenda’

Bradlee Dean of the religious ministry You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International believes Rep. Keith Ellison’s support for LGBT rights is part of his strategy to bring Sharia law to the United States. On his radio show Saturday, Dean said that members of the LGBT community are fools for supporting Ellison and that the Minnesota Democrat is “adamant about overthrowing the United States Constitution.”

Sharia law is the sacred law of Islam and derives its condemnation of homosexuality from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as do fellow Abrahamic traditions Christianity and Judaism. As with Christian and Jewish approaches to LGBT issues, Muslim interpretations of Sharia laws on homosexuality vary widely, ranging from full support to prescribing a death sentence for it.
“I said time and time again that there is a correlation between the Muslims and the homosexual agenda, and we have a couple of fools in the state of Minnesota that are putting a rope around their neck and they just don’t realize it,” said Dean [audio below]. “Here, let me give it to you this way: Keith Ellison is a Muslim.”
Dean said that Ellison’s support for protections for LGBT people from hate crimes and for same-sex marriage is part of an attempt to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and implement Sharia law.
“Why is he so adamant about overthrowing the Constitution as it is right now? Because if you pay attention to the plow he’s planting the seed,” Dean said. “He’s trying to come through with Sharee [sic] law.”
Raising his voice, he urged his listeners, “Does somebody want to talk to the homosexual community in the state of Minnesota and tell them what he is doing? Go online, folks! You love the homosexuals so much then why don’t you tell them who they’ve appointed as their chairperson? He’s a Muslim!”
He continued, “Hello? Why is he after it? Because he wants to bring in Sharee [sic] law through the homosexual agenda!”
“They are using the homosexuals as a political battering ram to bring forth what? Sharee [sic] law.”
LGBT leaders in the United States are “ignorant,” Dean said, for allowing Ellison to serve as co-chair of the House LGBT Caucus.
“What is Keith up to? I think we have to ask the question, Keith,” said Dean. “I’m just asking the gay communities what’s up with Keith Ellison because they are so foolish, blind and stupid not to figure out that their vice chair is a Muslim. This is no hidden secret, folks. This is in America. Who is this guy working for?”
“Why is this guy advocating the overthrow of the United States Constitution in the state of Minnesota?”
Dean then played an audio clip of an unidentified Muslim who said that Sharia law calls for the execution of homosexuals.
“I would say to the homosexuals: You better keep your eyes peeled. You are playing the fools. I knew there was a correlation. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. And the homosexuals are using the Muslims to do it, and the Muslims are using the homosexuals to do it. The homosexuals are playing the fool to the Muslims.”
He continued, “That’s how foolish these homosexuals are in Minnesota. God is not mocked. You can’t spit against heaven and not expect to fall upon your own back. And that’s exactly what’s happening to those that want to play the devil’s advocate.”
To Ellison, Dean said, “Keith you can call me any time. Let’s see how much of an American you really are.” He added the Ellison’s office has not returned his calls. Ellison’s office has not yet responded to the Minnesota Independent’s query about whether Dean has called or to offer comment on Dean’s statements.

Can you follow Dean's logic? If you can, you are either very smart or very stupid.

Actually, it makes perfect sense if you see the world through the lens of the small-minded Christian conservative right-wing American. This is what you have to believe:

• All Muslims have an agenda to bring about Sharia law in the US.
• All gays have an agenda to undermine the family and the American Way.
• Every Muslim believes exactly the same things as every other Muslim.
• Thus, it is not possible for a Muslim like Keith Ellison to have a view on sexuality that differs from orthodox Muslim doctrine.
• Since Ellison does profess a broad-minded attitude towards sexuality, it cannot possibly genuine; it must be part of a hidden agenda.
• If gay Minnesotans believe Ellison is genuine, they are ignorant. Dean is the only one who is smart enough to see the masterplan at work here.
• All Muslims are sneaky and cunning about their agenda.
• Thus, even though all Muslims hate gays, they would have no problem using them as pawns in their agenda to Islamicize the US.

See? Totally sensible.

Let's hear more about Ellison, who apppears to display the kind of magnanimity and compassion which is so anathema to Dean and his ilk that he believes it cannot possibly be real. Religious faith and homosexuality do not always coexist comfortably, but Ellison's position seems to be a pretty sensible one for a religious person to take.

Ellison has been forthright about his beliefs about Islam and homosexuality, and he has repeatedly said that Islam has taught him the importance of civil rights and social justice.
Earlier this year, Ellison addressed the Unitarian Universalist National Convention in a speech that covered themes of faith, love and abundance. “There’s enough for the straight and the gay,” he said. “There’s enough for the people who were born in America and the new immigrants. There’s enough for the blacks, there’s enough for the whites, there’s enough for the Latinos, there’s enough for the Asians, there’s enough for the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus! There’s enough, everybody!”
And in an interview with the Muslim Peace Fellowship he stated unequivocally that he opposes violence and discrimination against LGBT people.
“I’m not asking people to embrace homosexuality,” he said. “I’m saying it’s wrong and immoral to kill them, beat them or exclude them from working. You don’t have to like them. Leave ‘em alone. Let them live their lives and let God decide if He will judge them, as He will judge us all. That’s all I’m saying.”

Meanwhile, back to our friend Bradlee Dean:

The Minnesota Independent emailed You Can Run But You Cannot Hide for clarification on Dean’s statements about Ellison and whether the group believed Ellison would try to implement Sharia law that would call for the execution of homosexuals.
“Due to the fact that the Muslims are the ones who would enforce Sharia Law and execute homosexuals, and being that Keith Ellison is a Muslim, you should be asking him that question,” a spokesperson replied. “That is our point.”
“I think the problem here is that Bradlee is trying to warn you of your sin before God for your good, and time and time again, you treat Bradlee like he is your enemy for doing so,” the email continued. “He has stuck his neck out for you many times. Bradlee’s heart is out of a sincere and real love to turn all men from sin to God.”
“You should be writing an article about what the Muslims are saying, since they are the ones who want to execute homosexuals. We are here merely to look out for you in that sense. Why do you turn on those who warn you?”
But Dean seemed to applaud Muslims that call for such executions. On his May 15 radio show, Dean said:
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
Dean and his ministry have close ties to the Republican Party and GOP elected officials and candidates including gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Secretary of State and current state Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, and state Rep. Dan Severson. Rep. Michele Bachmann has fundraised for the group extensively in recent years as well.

So while I doubt most conservative Americans would want a bar of Dean's whacky conspiracy theory is, the last paragraph shows just how mainstream and close to power Dean's sort of worldview is.

Koran-burning is cancelled. Angry Muslims are still angry.

Thankfully, Florida pastor Terry Jones opted out of the planned Koran-burning fiesta that created outrage around the world. Whether indeed he did strike some deal to have the Ground Zero mosque relocated (as he claimed), whether he just saw sense, or if shadowy government forces made him an offer he couldn't refuse, he has backed down, for the benefit of us all.

I personally couldn't care less if someone burns a Koran, a Bible or any other holy book, but obviously a lot of people do. And the fact that some of those people are violent extremists means that if the Koran-burning went ahead it was almost certain to lead to an increase of hatred and violence against the West.

And while I have little but contempt for someone like Terry Jones, this whole issue also raises the same old issues about Islam and its role as a modern religion.

A pastor from some obscure church in Florida threatens to burn some Korans, and what happens? 15 people are killed in riots in Kashmir, in which a Christian Church is burnt. Thousands protest in Afghanistan and pelt rocks at a NATO base. And more elsewhere. By contrast, remember in 2001, when the Taliban blew up two massive 6th century Buddha statues in Bamiyan? The reaction from Buddhists the world over was to get a little bit miffed and plead for them not to do it. If today in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Muslim world, an imam organised a burning of Bibles, there might be a story on FOX News about it, but apart from that, no one in the Christian world would do much more than shake their head in disappointment.

Why are these reactions so different? Sure, Terry Jones is a damn fool to provoke the wrath of angry Muslims. But why must they be so angry in the first place?

Islam is often described as a "violent" or "medieval" religion, yet all the world's major religions are all quite medieval and violent in their own ways. To say that the Koran is a hateful violent book and the Bible is a book of peace and love is not only too simplistic, it's just plain wrong. If you follow the Bible closely enough, it says that if your son disobeys and offends you, you should stone him to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The world would be a pretty horrid place if we were to truly use the Bible (the Old Testament in particular) as our guide to running a society. An example is in Uganda, where driven by Christian teaching, many are campaigning for homosexuals to face the death penalty. Go back a few hundred years and Christians were rampantly killing and enslaving people and stealing their land all over the globe, often in the name of God.

Yet while predominantly Christian nations are often as violent as any other (see Zimbabwe, Brazil, The Philippines), their violence is usually based in reasons other than religion. Today, Christians in general tend to live relatively peacefully. They do not righteously slay those who work on the Sabbath, or smite those who have sex outside of marriage. Even though their Holy Book instructs them to, almost no Christian believes any of those things should be applied today.

Both the Koran and the Bible can be used as examples of how to treat one's fellow man with utmost respect and kindness; or equally, to justify some of the most heinous acts and attitudes imaginable, which in the past, people certainly have. The difference is that in today's world, Christianity appears to mostly have evolved past this latter stage, and settled into a secular, mild-mannered groove. Islam, in many parts of the world at least, is anything but mild-mannered.

How do we explain this?

One worthwhile article that touches upon this matter came out this week by Christopher Hitchens, which talks about the process of "civilizing" a religion in order for it to exist successfully in a modern society, something which other religions have had to go through to become ensconced and normalised in the West.

"Those who wish that there would be no mosques in America have already lost the argument: Globalization, no less than the promise of American liberty, mandates that the United States will have a Muslim population of some size. The only question, then, is what kind, or rather kinds, of Islam it will follow. There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present."

It is hard to shake the feeling that Christianity has grown up and settled down, and Islam hasn't, at least not to the same extent. While the majority of Muslims, like Christians, are peaceful people who just want to get on with their lives, the radical fringe among Muslims is not only far more numerous than among Christians, but it so much more radical and aggressive than among Christians. Some of the most vile and hateful figures the contemporary Christian world can produce - like Fred Phelps of the homo-hatin' Westboro Baptist Church, for example - are not half as scary as the thousands of British Muslims who took to the streets demanding the murder of Salman Rushdie after he wrote a book they hadn't read but assumed must have been evil.

One of the great achievements of the Prophet Muhammad was to end the tribalism of the Arabian tribes that had mired them in constant war with each other. He did this by the establishment of the Ummah (the community of Islam), in which all are brothers. The trade-off, however, is huge - he exchanged one type of tribalism for another, more vast variety. The Ummah is now, in effect, one vast tribe; full of Muslims who acutely feel the pain of their brothers being oppressed halfway around the world, and who will mobilise in order to help them, yet there is so often a distinct lack of empathy for those outside the Ummah. The Muslims in various parts of the world who have got steamed up recently over the proposed Koran-burning and the Ground Zero mosque controversy would do well to look at the bigger picture. Despite the Islamophobia on display in the US, they actually have a Christian president who has clearly come out in support of the rights of Muslims. And Muslims in the West have it a whole lot sweeter than Christians in Pakistan or Egypt, for example.

I've long felt that a man who is insulted or offended should be able to rise above it and "be the bigger man", rather than constantly reacting to having one's buttons pushed. The Islamic world certainly has its cooler heads, yet it seems too often they are drowned out by the loud voices of those who work themselves into a frenzy and want to kick someone's ass for every imagined slight. Someone needs to teach them that sometimes the high road is better; just take a deep breath and walk away.

If Obama is a Muslim, maybe I am too...

A lot of things really bug me about the continued speculation in the US about Barack Obama being a secret Muslim. But most of all, it is the extent to which so many people seem incapable of thinking outside their rigidly-defined little box.

Here are just a few reasons why 1 in 5 Americans think he's really a sneaky Islamist.

• He's Muslim because he has relatives who are Muslim.
• He's Muslim because he can remember the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.
• He's Muslim because he was once photographed wearing a traditional Somali garment. The Somali are Muslims, so that makes him a Muslim.
• He's Muslim because he once bowed to the Saudi king. (He also once bowed to the Japanese emperor, so perhaps he follows the Japanese Shinto religion as well...)
• He's Muslim because he has an Arabic middle name.
• He's Muslim because he spent some of his early years in a predominantly Muslim country.
• He's Muslim because he has tried to cultivate good relationships with numerous Muslim countries, and has only been involved in fighting wars against two of them.
• He's Muslim because he thinks the azan (call to prayer) is one of the most beautiful sounds on earth at dusk.

The phrase I see again and again on blogs and articles promoting this idea, is "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck."

Thus all those reasons above might seem convincing to some people. But then again, most of them can just be attributed to Obama being a man with an unconventional life story, and a broad range of interests and experiences. And if we pursue the "quacks like a duck" analogy, then surely Obama walks and quacks more like a Christian duck than a Muslim one. Attending church for 2 decades, raising one's daughters as Christian and anouncing one's devotion to Jesus Christ to the entire world seem far more convincing evidence than any of the reasons listed above.

I guess its not a surprise that this kind of thinking occurs in a nation where some labelled Obama as an un-American elitist because he pronounces Pakistan the way Pakistanis do (Paa-ki-staan) rather than the typical American way (Pack-a-Stan).

The small-minded approach to this issue rankles with me particularly because I relate to Obama on a number of things. Being bi-cultural. Having an anthropologist mother. Growing up amongst different cultures. Having a fairly global outlook on things.

And it thus bugs me that many traits that sane people regard as positive (Obama's cross-cultural awareness, his intellectualism, his diverse range of experiences outside America, his lack of enthusiasm for militaristic aggression) are actually seen as a negative. And that any trait that marks him out as different to the stereotypical white conservative American is taken as a sign of being a Muslim or Socialist or both.

So I started to wonder: What if, in some far-fetched future, it was me running for President of the USA? (Of course this would never happen, not least because I'm not an American.) What if I were faced with the same kind of scrutiny from prejudiced ignoramuses that Obama has faced? Would they conclude that I too was a Muslim? Let's see...

I have Muslim parents!
Although both are closer to being agnostic. My mother is Muslim because she was born as one, but practices barely any of the religion's tenets; my father converted in order to marry her (to please the in-laws), but did not actually embrace any Islamic beliefs that I know of.

I have spent a lot of time in Muslim countries!
I've been to Indonesia around 10 times and Malaysia around 6 times. Most of those times were spent with my Christian Indonesian relatives and my Hindu Malaysian girlfriend.

I did some of my schooling in a Muslim country!
Was it a madrassah? Close enough - it was a Teacher Training College in Yogyakarta where I did an intensive course in the Indonesian language. I also learned about the culture of this Muslim country, including how to make batik designs and how to play instruments of the traditional gamelan orchestra. They never taught us how to be martyrs against the infidel West; I must have been away sick that day.

I can recite some phrases in Arabic!
Let's see... Salaam alaikum... W'alaikum salaam... Allahu Akbar... Insha'Allah... Hummus bi Tahini...

I have been photographed wearing Muslim clothing!
I once marched in the Australia Day Parade, representing Melbourne's Indonesian community. Among other things, I wore a peci, the traditional cap worn by Muslim males in Southeast Asia.

I associate with Muslims!
I'm friends with about 20 of them on Facebook. Plus there's another few hundred friends on there who look a bit brown and have suspiciously foreign-sounding names, so they may as well be Muslim. Oh, and I did date a Muslim girl once. I don't know if she was very religious though; we didn't really do much talking, if you catch my meaning.

I listen to the rantings of hate-filled Islamic preachers!
Well, I own 4 albums by Ice Cube and 5 by Public Enemy. That's got to count for something.

I love the sound of the azan (Muslim call to prayer)!
Well, it's all right. I don't love it if it wakes me up in the morning though.

I have studied Islamic literature!
Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong. A great read. It helped me come to the conclusion that I definitely had no interest in being a Muslim.

I have a Muslim-y middle name!
"Harshawardhana". Actually, its Indian (Sanskrit in origin), but who cares? Indian, Arab, Muslim, its all the same sh*t, right? Damned ragheads.

So by that logic, at least 20% of Americans think I'm a Muslim. Because regardless of the true story behind all the above statements, people can spin things anyway they want, if they are so determined to believe what they want to believe.

In truth, I've been an agnostic most of my life, but more recently decided that Jesus was pretty rad and thus have been finding a gradual accommodation with Christianity.

Or is that just what I'd have you believe, while I secretly plan my jihad on the infidels?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

See also...

The Muslim-ness of Obama's family, and what it has to do with his presidency

More "Obama's not an American" nonsense

Obama bows again. Conservatives are angry. Sensible people couldn't care less.