Despite the fact that I follow both Cubtown and The Juice and consider both to be quite excellent and well-written, I'd been putting off registering for the toaster blogs for a while...but I feel I should comment on this piece.

Though this was thought-provoking, there are a couple of things I'd like to address. Particularly, the continual lumping together of Judaism with Christianity has always irked me - the phrase Judeo-Christian is misused to such extents that people who don't even intend to imply that they know Judaism's take on a subject use it commonly.

Normative Judaism - that is, the observant mainstream of Jews - has never rejected science or cultural progress in the way you are implying. Throughout history, the common Jew has been literate and educated - and though women were expected to fulfill certain roles in the household, they were often expected to be as well-educated and respected as their husband.

Furthermore, Judaism has ALWAYS acknowledged the value of a healthy sexual relationship (within the realm of marriage). There is a Mitzvah (Commandment), for example, to 'pleasure' one's wife. This is separate from the Mitzvah to procreate. Additionally, withholding sex from one's wife is considered grounds for a Jewish Court to force a divorce should the wife desire it. And while mainstream Judaism does have certain standards of modest dress, there are allowances made for unusual circumstances and it is possible to be comfortable within the guidelines.

I don't mean to nit-pick or get on your case, I'm hoping that you don't mind my comments. Good post, overall.

When I was in Iraq with the Marines in 2003 I saw something that perfectly illustrates the way Muslim culture values their women. We were at a roadblock on a road that had a lot of traffic from Iran so we would stop some cars and search them. One day a four door pickup drove up. In the front seat were the men, father driving and sons next to him. In the rear seat were the sheep and goats. And in the bed of the truck were the women. And this wasn't an isolated incident! That's pretty much all you need to know about Muslim "culture."

Wasn't trying to lump and I do appreciate your comments, Jiraiya, as they are filled with knowledge and reason. You see that is my problem with so much of religion, the following of customs established 2000 years ago or more, without evolving. The more evolved the better, I guess that's why I'm not a high school science teacher in Kansas.

Rory, what a great post. Email me at scott@scottlongonline.com, when you get the chance.

Jiraiya --

While I appreciate the attitude towards learning and intellect in jewish culture that I often find lacking in others (I'm a goy who hooked up with a Jewish woman) -- I don't think you can really exclude Judaism from eccentric, counterproductive behavior. I mean, come on, how many truly religious jews waste hours of their lives on sabbath elevators?

Not to mention the great taste of a bacon cheeseburger...

Thanks for the humor.

http://tektonics.org/parody/whowants.html

Lots of points I agree with here, especially since I'm a recovering Catholic who tries to pursue spirituality with humanity in mind, if that makes any sense. Something here bothers me, though. I perk up when people leave out that the 9/11 hijackers had political reasons for doing what they did. I think it's important to emphasize that they didn't attack us solely for what we believe. They attacked us for what our country had done, whether they were perceived slights or actual ones. This administration conveys that we were attacked because of what we believe, which absolves us of any possible guilt, since belief alone is no reason to attack a country. And, it releases us from the responsibility of addressing our country's actions.

"I would ask these Muslim men who subjugate women to their biblical laws"

Muslims read the Koran. Christians read the Bible.

"The more evolved the better"

In your worldview, who defines what constitutes progress?

dbt, I like your sense of humor.

Steffens- Let me rewrite this. "I would ask these Muslim men who subjugate women to their manaical, Koranical laws."

"In your worldview, who defines what constitutes progress?"
That is way too of a broad question for me to answer in a comments section of the baseball toaster, as it would take a lot of time and thought, only to be ripped by some of the posters as being incomplete. Would be interested in your answer to your own question, though.

Two Points:

First, the position of women in our own society has changed drastically in the last 50 years. It's not impossible that it could change rather rapidly in the Muslim Mid-East in this century. I don't see any signs of it; but let's say you were a resident of, I don't know...Alabama... in 1950, could you have possibly imagined a USA in which women and blacks could be Senators, Supreme Court Judges, Mayors, Governors, etc.??

I think of Mao Tse-Tung who when asked (in the 1970's) what he thought the repercussions of the French Revolution were responded, "I couldn't say, it's too soon to tell."

Second, I like Christopher Hitchen's definition of Faith as "...the willfull supression of rational thought." As an amateur historian (heavy emphasis on the AMATEUR) I'm puzzled how anyone can look into the history of the human race and not see that religion has primarily served as a tool of the rich/powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful and convince everyone else that their version of 'god' wants it that way.

Yes, Chris, I'm sure that the ancient hebrew shepherds were very interested in establishing a power structure. Or the priests in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, who were separated from ancient Israel's 'ruling' class (if one could even call it that) from the time of Moses and Aaron on.

Once again, someone tosses ALL religions together with the one he or she knows best. Use the word Christianity - it won't bite.

All of what you say makes sense to me, Scott, but it seems that a natural extension of such thoughts is that "if all the world was like America things would be a lot better".

Which I know isn't at all what you're saying (I know you're as cognisant of the country's issues as anyone), but seems to be the belief of many on high. It also seems that America (aided by others, of course) is doing such a great job of destroying the planet that none of the important issues you mention will matter soon anyway. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms (albeit one I'd be interested to hear your views on too).

"The world, we are told, was made especially for man - a presumption not supported by all the facts" – John Muir, 1916

I know the Hitchens quote well and happen to agree with it on most levels. Chris, your analogy of Alabama is a good one, the main problem I see in it, though, is the Muslim countries I was speaking about have too many Alabama's and not enough California's, Wisconsin's, and New York's.

Jiraiya, OK, you're right, Jews Rule! (Well, not in the "Jews run the world" mania that many have, but in the the Jewish faith is best) I would agree, overall, but there is still too much of the long beards, must eat kosher foods, and no getting in a car after the sabbath like Joe Lieberman for my liking.

Religion doesn't work for me, but I can respect that others need it in their lives, especially if they use it with some modern rationality. I'm guessing you're one of these people, so shalom.

Rich, if you've read my thoughts in the past on some of the major political issues, you know I'm not a big fan of a our crusade to push our Americana on others, especially when we have some Christian basis behind it. I believe in the power of free speech and the addictive qualites of American pop culture being our most effective weapon in motivating these repressed countries. I still believe these elements were the biggest motivators for helping change the Soviet Union away from it's communist ways. I'm sure we will get into that in the future.

Thank God (or whoever else you like to use in this phrase) that we have baseball. Maybe it's the answer, because I know my life would be less full if soccer was my salvation. (Now that is xenophobic.)

I think it's odd that you would use Lebanon as an example of a poor country with no future in that it's neither poor nor without a bright future. Syria clings to Lebanon because it is the source of most of its wealth. Lebanon, prior to the civil war, was a beacon of hope in the middle east. It retains much of its French influence and as recent events have shown, the majority of Lebanese reject Hizbullah and want democratic rule and are willing to fight for it. As a side note, Egypt has banned female circumcision and it's occurrence is nowhere close to 97%.

Jiraiya,

Actually I'm quite comfortable using 'Religions' rather than specifying any particular one and I'll stand by my statement regarding the use of religion by the powerful to justify one group's favored status over another. It doesn't neccessarily mean that all religions are on the same footing in that regard, but doesn't the Jewish faith teach that the Jews are 'the Chosen People' of God? It would seem pretty hard to interact with non-Jews if you consider them to be inferior would it not?? Believe me, Judaism is not by any means the sole guilty party on that point: all religions are by their nature divisive. That's the problem.

One more question, how many people did the Jews in the Old Testament butcher at their diety's request?? Why were these 'lesser' people slaughtered and who benefitted from these massacres?? I'm not trying to pick on Judaism, I'm just saying that there are plenty of skeletons to go around to fill all the religious closets in the world: ask the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa (if you could).

I'm sure that the ancient Hebrew shepherds were very interested in establishing a power structure

Isn't Exodus keenly about the establishment of a power structure? Heck, I'd even go so far as to say the entire Old (and New) testaments, but certainly the Old. There's a book called Kings. About Kings. And who picks the Kings. God does. I don't see how you can make an argument that does affect the power structure of a society.

Judges, same thing.

>> That's pretty much all you need to know about Muslim "culture."<<

I still find it extraordinary the extent to which people will assume all Muslims have the same culture. I'm restating the obvious here, but 1.2 billion people, every single race, an enormous geographic range, large communities in most developed countries . . . . there are probably no shortage of people who deserve that venom, but in reality there ain't no Muslim culture to broad brush about so indiscriminately.

As it happens I'm married to a gal from Bangladesh, a country which is probably 95% Muslim, and we travel there regularly. It's a very poor 3rd world country with a lot of problems, and like any country has a small minority of fundamentalists, but every woman I've met there is treated as equal, up to and including the president of the place and would roll their eyes at the cartoon image of Muslim marriages so often conveyed. My experience of my South Asian friends and Arab neighbours here in New York has been similar - strong women heading up the household and keeping the fellas in line, no less than Irish families.

I appreciate the emotions behind this post, but it needs to be stated that many women choose to wear the veil (including your neighbour, no doubt) and that Egypt has banned FGM (and I would pretty vigorously challenge that 97% figure, got a link for that?)

"Egypt has banned FGM (and I would pretty vigorously challenge that 97% figure, got a link for that?)"

Here is your link and below is where I got my info, Islam Online.
http://www.islam-online.net/iol-english/dowalia/techng-2000-August-22/techng9.asp

"The practice of female circumcision is widespread in Egypt. According to the Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) done in 1995, 97% of the ever-married females questioned had been circumcised."

Now, let me add that this study was done in 1997, but the New England Journal of Medicine reported that even after the ban, 95% of women were still being butchered.

Maybe my lumping Lebanon in with some of the other countries was somewhat unfair, but it's still a very dangerous place and to use the argument about how is was 30 years ago isn't an accurate picture, because Iran was a lot more open place then, also. Add to this that Casey Kasem is from Lebanon, and there is another major strike against the country.

Look, I'm not interested in being so politically correct that I need to completely censor myself, just so I don't risk offending. I realize that there are some great Muslim people and there are a couple of Muslim nations that don't live in a way which is backward, but very few Muslims have spoken out in defiance of the acts of it's terrorist breathren.

I'm not talking just about 9/11, but also in regards to Israel. As long as these countries official policy on Israel is that all Jews should leave the Middle East, I'm going to have a problem believing they are able to act rationally as a group.

Notice I mentioned how ridiculous the lifestyle of the Amish is, but none of them have attacked me for it. Sure that might be they are not really internet savvy, but my main point is that any religion which makes people behave in a dictate passed down from hundreds of years is ridiculous. Be it non-dancing Footloose Baptists, Catholics against birth control or Muslims who require women to cover their heads, it's all a bunch of mystical hogwash from my comfy chair.

It really is too bad that there are so many in this world who choose to put their faith in something higher than themselves. Maybe if we could get all these ignorant, irrational Christian hicks into some of the world's finer universities, they could learn to be a little more elitist in their thinking. I'm sure that there are some who feel they are living an examined life in faith. They probably truly follow the tenents of the Bible — you know, that whole hogwash about loving their neighbors and stuff. They might embrace technology and science and support major groups who seek to provide health and economic relief to some of the most underdeveloped countries of the world.

Still, I hope you will all join me in lumping them all together as one big mass of devolving sub-humanity. Let's force true believers to be counted among the power hungry, genocidal leaders of the past 2,000 years. Let's look at the facts, so we can know our enemy of reason: all Christians (under our umbrella term) are Republican, uneducated and live in the South. Most can be found planning to beat others who don't share their views on sexual orientation or pregnancy issues. Eric Rudolph was one of millions, and his disgusting actions are part of their fanatical war against reason.

Sure, not all Christians fall under the spells of televangelists or cult leaders. Maybe some just seek to better themselves through adherence to a code of values and morality. It may very well be man's nature to believe in a higher power, but surely that archaic notion is pase by now. The call to action is deafening. How can these morons be allowed to go on smiling and thankful? Now maybe I don't know everything about the personal beliefs of every member of a particular religious group. But I firmly believe that I am in the right to generalize about something as personal and specific as individual faith. The 'Church' feared the printing press, Gutenberg (a member) used it to print off Bibles. Maybe he saw a difference between his belief and 'the Church's'. What a fool.

Honestly, it was an interesting and well-written piece. I appreciate and respect Mr. Long's opinion and his right to express it. If I were offended by what someone or some group had done or said in the past, I would write a response to it as well. I guess that's what this is. I believe that Mr. Long is responding to his understanding of religion, and what more could be asked? Consider this a response from my point of view. After several years of agnosticism, I began to change my views. I know that extremism has lead to some wicked atrocities. I've known so-called Christians who would browbeat others for their left-of-center beliefs. I have seen the same thing from so-called enlightened individuals, who would excoriate a well-meaning Christian for Bible — you know, that whole hogwash about loving their neighbors and stuff. They might embrace technology and science and support major groups who seek to provide health and economic relief to some of the most underdeveloped countries of the world.

Still, I hope you will all join me in lumping them all together as one big mass of devolving sub-humanity. Let's force true believers to be counted among the power hungry, genocidal leaders of the past 2,000 years. Let's look at the facts, so we can know our enemy of reason: all Christians (under our umbrella term) are Republican, uneducated and live in the South. Most can be found planning to beat others who don't share their views on sexual orientation or pregnancy issues. Eric Rudolph was one of millions, and his disgusting actions are part of their fanatical war against reason.

Sure, not all Christians fall under the spells of televangelists or cult leaders. Maybe some just seek to better themselves through adherence to a code of values and morality. It may very well be man's nature to believe in a higher power, but surely that archaic notion is pase by now. The call to action is deafening. How can these morons be allowed to go on smiling and thankful? Now maybe I don't know everything about the personal beliefs of every member of a particular religious group. But I firmly believe that I am in the right to generalize about something as personal and specific as individual faith. The 'Church' feared the printing press, Gutenberg (a member) used it to print off Bibles. Maybe he saw a difference between his belief and 'the Church's'. What a fool.

Honestly, it was an interesting and well-written piece. I appreciate and respect Mr. Long's opinion and his right to express it. If I were offended by what someone or some group had done or said in the past, I would write a response to it as well. I guess that's what this is. I believe that Mr. Long is responding to his understanding of religion, and what more could be asked? Consider this a response from my point of view. After several years of agnosticism, I began to change my views. I know that extremism has lead to some wicked atrocities. I've known so-called Christians who would browbeat others for their left-of-center beliefs. I have seen the same thing from so-called enlightened individuals, who would denigrate a well-meaning Christian for his or her beliefs. There is good and bad on both sides, this drawn out plea is for recognition of true faith, which is not always rational, to be recognized when excoriating the irreligious for being 'religious'. I think we can most of our beliefs about members of religions come from the extreme few or from terrible experiences in one from our earlier days. I believe that Baptists are more than Jerry Falwell, Catholics are more than the pope and fundamentalists are more than Eric Rudolph and his murderous ilk.

In case this was lost on anyone, let me repeat what I wrote:
Religion doesn't work for me, but I can respect that others need it in their lives, especially if they use it with some modern rationality.
Morality and religion are not always mutually exclusive and you can be extremely moral and be agnostic or atheist. Separation of church and state are vital to a free-thinking society.

Completely agree that church and state should be separated (although that doesn't mean that others should expect religion not to play a part in one's actions on behalf of the state — in other words, we can't expect freedom 'from' religion).

I also agree that religion does not own the copyright for morality.

I think (and maybe it's my own sensitivity) your statement "I can respect that others need (religion)" is somewhat abrasive. It sounds like you are dismissing it as purely a crutch for weaker-minded individuals. In many, maybe most, cases it probably is ( that's why people cling so tightly to it). But others, including me, see it as enrichment in life rather than justification.

Thanks for the interesting thread

Spageticus- It all comes down to faith, which is something I'm only comfortable in having in myself, as I'm the only one I can completely trust. I'm agnostic, because I don't feel it would be fair for me to rule out a God. This is how I work. It doesn't mean I think someone who believes in God is a wacko. What it means is that I can't share the same certainity which is needed to take that leap of faith.

In regards to your sensitivity, let me say you need to get past that, as I know as someone who lives in a county 90% Republican and a country which believes overwhelmingly in a God that I'm the one who seems like an outcast or oddball when I share my views on the subject. I try not to take it personally, because I don't pretend to have an empirical answers, just that I can't take such a leap of faith.

Considering that the people I am closest to are religious, I don't see it "as purely a crutch for weaker-minded individuals", instead I just ask them not to judge me as immoral, because I don't have the same beliefs. It all seems to work out and there is mutual respect, because they have an open-mind to the subject, just like it seems you do.

I'm glad religion is an enrichment to your life, but I want to say that personally, my life is very rich without it and I have a joy for life that I think is owed greatly to having freewill and not worrying about how I might be judged by a greater power. I guess joy doesn't have to be the kind defined by C.S. Lewis. I'm glad that there are many paths to happiness, even if you are betting on different horses.

Scott: Very well written last comment.

At the risk of offending half of the posters here, I think I can sum up my opinion of religion (all religions) with a tidy little simile:

Religions are like handguns, very dangerous in the wrong hands.

A person can go their entire life as a handgun owner and never once use one in a threatening manner or ever even THINK of using one in a malicious way, but that doesn't change the essential deadly potential of a handgun. Likewise, belief in a system (any system, not neccessarily a religious one: think facism or extreme nationalism) that teaches 'otherness' can lie dormant and un-threatening for generations, but the core belief that 'my' group of people is more 'favored' and 'my' group of people has the 'right' answers to all of life's questions is at its heart very, very dangerous.

Think of all the genocidal activities that humans have participated in over the last 200 years; can anyone honestly say that the commision of these atrocities was not made easier by the belief that the 'other' guy isn't a tad bit inferior in some way?? Religions teach that other humans are 'inferior' (or in some instances, 'goin' to hell') simply because their ideas on the supernatural are false, but our group's notions on the supernatural are obviously correct; this faith in one's own certainty regarding the eternally UN-certain will always be a stumbling block in human relations.

[steps off soapbox]

Of course, genocides are made easier by the belief that the "other" is inferior. That's the whole point of genocides. But it's a far cry to say that religion is the only source of feelings of superiority. Race, ethnicity, and culture come into this as well. More to the point, it was secular Marxists who murdered the most people in the 20th century. Religion can be dangerous, but so can any other form of identity (Hutu, White, Proletariat).

Agreed:

"...Likewise, belief in a system (any system, not neccessarily a religious one: think facism or extreme nationalism) that teaches 'otherness' can lie dormant and un-threatening for generations, but the core belief that 'my' group of people is more 'favored' and 'my' group of people has the 'right' answers to all of life's questions is at its heart very, very dangerous..."

The Soviet disaster is a great example of what I was talking about; my point is just because "Pastor Dan" down the street is a great fellow it doesn't mean that the ideology behind "Dan's" religion isn't dangerous. I bet there were nice Communists too.

*commenter seen tearing-up in recognition of good times gone by*

Scott,

I like how you conveniently omitted this bit from your "Egypt likes to cut off clits so all Muslims like to do it" argument:

"In the Middle East:

Female circumcision is not practiced in the Middle East, or in the countries of the Arab Peninsula, with the exception of Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman.

In Bahrain, genital operations are rapidly decreasing, and consist of a cut made over the clitoris.

It is not practiced in the cradle and of Islam, namely Saudi Arabia. Neither is it practiced in Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia."

That's from the very website you cited.

You may think that you are an enlightened person, but you are little more than a bigot, labeling people from certain parts of the world as backward and uneducated when you have never been to those places and don't know people from those places. You people should stick to talking baseball so you don't seem so stupid.

Scott,

Please keep eating your cheeseburgers, coke slurpees, enchiladas, and other All-American foods. Hopefully it'll keep your fat mouth shut and your fat hands occupied so you can spare us from the bullshit of your thoughts. And, so you and your wonderfully enlightened, partially hydrogenated oil-filled, fast-food crap eating, friends, can ensure yourselves an untimely, unnatural death and prove to the whole world how great American life, with all its obesity-related epidemics, truly is. Freedom to you simply equals all you can eat, fuck, and watch on TV. Ah, the joys of the simple-minded. Life is great when you've been brainwashed to have such tragically limited aspirations.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, let's see average American male lifespan is in the mid-seventies which is higher than pretty much the rest of the entire world...partially hydrogentated oils aren't exactly AIDS now are they?? Did you castigate Zambia as well, yasy343? (if that is your real name ), their average llifespan now hits the ripe old age of 33!!

I'll take the "Big Mac" death anytime, moron.

I apologize for the venom in the last comment...that was the beer talking.

Sam, I did use a broad stroke, but as long as Muslim countries policies are against Jews, I'm going to have a real hard time seeing them as total partners in a world economy. I am an enlightened person and I celebrate the individual, as I abhor jingoism. As long as fundamentalism rules the fates of so many Muslims across the world, they will be held back in fully joining the global economy.

I have American Muslim friends, but the one thing I have gotten into it with them about was their unenlightened views about women. Granted this is from a sample size of 3, but their views were pretty consistent on this topic. From your comment of "In Bahrain, genital operations are rapidly decreasing, and consist of a cut made over the clitoris", I would say, "well congratufuc#*inglations to the people of Bahrain who are so wonderful they cut women in such a "humane" way.

The bigot charge I figured would come from someone who has their head buried in the sand like yourself, who states that most Muslim countries aren't backwards. Please, the only country in the Middle East which has a modern Democratic society is Israel. While it still has it's fundamentalist battles, I will give you that Turkey is a place that the rest of the Middle East should try modeling. Hopefully, the people will rise up in these countries and fight the powers that be. This article is one which is encouraging. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/Dacey_25_4.htm

yasy343- Everything you mention, would have some accuracy, except the parts about me being fat and the part of having "tragically limited aspirations". I've written a book, put out a comedy cd and continue to spout my views on stage and on this blog. I don't hide behind a fake name, so I have to be accountable for my viewpoints. I'd like to hear about your so much more fulfilling life.

Oh and I eat whatever I want during lent, have no problem eating pork during Passover and I guarantee you I celebrate Ramadan by gorging on 6 Dollar Burger from Hardees/Carls Jr. (Not a fan of a Big Mac, so your argument completely is fictional.)
You see, I'm not going to let some book tell me what to eat and what not to, though if I was it wouldn't be a religious text, it would be the New England Journal of Medicine.

Scott,

You missed my point about the website, but that isn't surprising. The website YOU cited (and therefore NOT my comment, but actually yours) to say that Muslims are backwards stated that FGM basically had nothing to do with Islam. And if you knew anything about Egypt, you'd know that the lower half has more in common with Africa than the Middle East. In fact, most of the clitorectomies are done by Christians in the South. And I don't think anyone thinks FGM is a Christian problem.

My head is not in the sand. There is a problem of facism in the Middle East and in many parts of the world which are predominantly Muslim. But you are a bigot because you ascribe these problems to the faith itself and not the history or geography of these places. That's not surprising because you probably would never take the time to learn these things.

And congratulations for knowing such a whopping numbers of Muslims. Perhaps it is no shock to you that I am one. And I can tell you that every woman in my family dating back to my great-grandmother has a college degree. Can you say the same? Does my family fit your mold? My girlfriend is also Muslim and, shockingly enough, she doesn't wear a veil. She has a law degree and every woman in her family currently living has a college degree. So exactly how are we oppressing women in our families? And I can tell you about many, many more Muslim families that are the same.

Essentially, my argument boils down to this: If someone judged you based on what they saw on Jerry Springer, how would you feel? How would you react if people decided there was something deficient and backwards about America because of that show? Or Al Jazeera for that matter?

No matter how you spin it, you are absolutely a bigot, and the worst kind at that because you use idiotic phrases like "the world economy" in the wrong place in a desperate attempt to make yourself seem intelligent.

Scott, I wasn't hiding behind a fake name. My name is Yasmin. And for all I know Scott Long is a fake name. Anyway, I don't see how revealing your name adds any credibility to your frivolous hate-filled commentaries. I love how your argument again concludes with the endless option of fatty greasy foods you can eat. You just proved my point that that is what freedom means to you. And congratulations on making a CD, want a cookie? You'll have over 1000 varieties available in the good ol' US of A, I'm sure. Ah, the luxuries of "freedom." Did you burn your CD on your computer? Sadly, my accomplishments don't amount to yours. At the ripe old age of 25 I have only managed to graduate Magna Cum Laude from a top 15 law school, secured a Federal Clerkship where I currently work, and a job at a top law firm for next year. Yes, indeed, I should cry for shame at the lack of my achievements. Maybe if I burned a CD I'd feel that great fulfillment I've been seeking all my life.

One more thing. Pay attention to who says what. The ever enlightened Chris from Illinois mentioned his love of "Big Macs." If you read my comment carefully (and I know 5 lines might be too much for you to handle), I simply referred to "cheeseburgers," of which I believe your reference to the "6 dollar burger" qualifies. In either case, please continue to exercise your hard won liberties, and keep in eating!

Got to love smug people especially when they're wrong: yasy343, I didn't say I loved Big Macs, I said:

"I'll take the "Big Mac" death anytime, moron."

Notice the quotation marks around Big Mac?? I was trying to encapsulate your churlish dismissal of an entire culture in a single phrase. I'll stand by the spirit of my entire remark which essentially stated that for a nation with 'epidemic' levels of obesity related diseases we sure do live a long time. I'm guessing that for the majority the unfortunate souls of sub-saharan Africa dying of coronary disease at 78 must seem like a wonderful, impossible dream.

For the record I think Big Macs are nasty.

Glad you posted, Chris, I've been meaning to get back to you. Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to compare the US and its self-imposed obesity epidemics to the tragedy of AIDS in sub-saharan Africa? Just because Americans have the great fortune of having eradicated many diseases and educated the population on AIDS awareness, doesn't mean that we should sit back and say "I'll take a 'Big Mac' death anyday." This is exactly they type of narrow-minded thinking I was referring to. For many of the victims of AIDS, who were born with the disease or were raped and thereby acquired the disease, there was no choice involved. For you and all the other fast food lovers in the USA, there is a choice. How can you be so obtuse as to even compare those two things? It's amazing that you mark America's success in longevity against countries riddled with such a tragic disease. For a more fair comparison, pick a European country or pick the portions of the American population who are health conscious and who have the same advantages as the fatties who stuff their faces. No one is saying it's better to die of AIDS than coronary disease induced by a love of lard. But with one there is a choice and my comment only had to do with that. And if you don't love Big Macs and are not a fatty, then why were you so offended by my comment?

By the way Scott, how did you publish a book when you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's." Well, let this Muslim girl who you think is so backwards teach you something. I'll feel more fulfilled and accomplished, even though I haven't made a CD yet. "Its" is used to describe the possessive relationship, such as when you say "Its seat was green" instead of saying "The car's seat was green." "Its" replaces "the car" in that case. "It's" on the other hand, simply makes use of an apostrophe to shorten "it is." A simple trick to distinguish between the two and see if you are right is to replace "it is" whenever you spell "it's" and see if it sounds right. For example, when you wrote "While it still has IT'S fundamental battles," you messed up. When you substitute "it is" for the "IT'S" in your sentence, you find yourself with meaningless garbage, much like most of your writings. Brought to you by a backwards Muslim girl with a law degree, who by the way has her clit and knows how to use it!

If I may humbly make a suggestion: It may be time to consider closing this thread to further comments.

Just my .02.

Sam, You call me a bigot because I ascribe blame for facist states because of the Fundamentalist Muslim religion, instead of considering history or geography. While these 2 factors you site have something to do with the facist states, the way these countries keep their people from rising up is by using the Koran to find ways to stomp on dissent.

Both of you continue to ignore the issue of how anti-semitism is official policy and how it's used in most Muslim government's to provide ground cover for not having anything close to equal rights for its citizens. I'm glad that both of you live in the United States where you have the freedom to expose your views, especially Yasmen who feels free to rip me for a punctuation mistake. If you were my wife in most Middle Eastern nations and you had publicly berated me for this, I'm guessing I would have the right to smite you in some way. Hey, maybe all Muslim fundamental customs aren't all bad.

"Brought to you by a backwards Muslim girl with a law degree, who by the way has her clit and knows how to use it!"
My response- Now that was hot, but it's that kind of talk that shows you have been poisoned by American culture. Personally, I happen to like it and I appreciate your shots on me about my CD, as they made me laugh. When I wrote it, I knew it sounded a bit pompous and I respect your academic achievements. Of course, I would ask if you are such the COMPLETE defender of Muslim culture and values across the world, why are you in not in a Muslim country doing a job helping create freedoms for your fellow Muslim women who have not been as fortunate to experience them? My guess to what keeps you here is that you would miss the McNuggets, Mr. Misty's and Taco Bell Grande's too much.

Gosh, a law degree!! I suppose I should just roll over and surrender to your superior intellect right now....nah....

I'm not particularly offended by your remarks, I was merely pointing out that your particular Newsweek-style 'crisis-of-the-moment' rant was a bit narrow minded.

Is obesity a problem in America?? Maybe, maybe not: all I know is that the media that is telling us that it is a huge problem has some credibility issues. An example: giving the president a free pass on lying his way into a war that has resulted in death on a massive scale with no end in sight. In other words, if the media can't even ask the obvious questions, pardon me if I doubt their ability to analyze and report upon an issue ('Big Macs') that reaches into complex sociological, cultural, biological and medical realms with any level of competance.

Am I callous for comparing Americans with coronary disease with the poor unfortunates in Africa that may or may not have contibuted to their own fate??? Possibly, but my point was that there are greater problems in the world than over-eating Americans and perhaps instead of castigating an entire culture for some media-driven, frenzied non-issue you should, as Scott has previously suggested, apply your vast intellect to helping the people who you are trying to shame me with. Clearly you have the time on your hands, time that could be put to better use than it is currently being employed.

On a lighter note:

If, as Scott suggested, you are too comfy here in America to go out into the world and fight to correct the evils that you are concerned with (which I have no quarrel with) please at least enlighten us as to what you eat on a day to day basis. I'm horribly curious what a sassy, young, Muslim, Law-degree havin', trash talkin', clitoris havin' (and usin') gal like yourself eats for lunch.

A couple other things:

I've got a degree too!! Whee! (sadly no comedy CD though).

Will you feel some outrage for my genital multilation (circumcision) too?

Finally yasy343, please keep your comments to four sentences and under; also if you could use only one word of three or more syllables per sentence, that would be really super as well.

Thanks.

First off, I think this post represents one of the best things about blogs. It allows for an almost immediate response and discussion of the ideas, and it allows the author to clarify his ideas.

Having said that, I think there is a major flaw in your suggestion of a causal role between two things (Islam/religion and fascism) when there is only a correlation. There is very little evidence that one is related to the other. Throughout history (and modern time) there have been fascist/totalitarian states of all types, some religious, and others not. Repressive governments are hardly limited to the Middle East, even if that's where our focus is currently. I would argue that poverty is a much more likely cause. Religion is just a tool like many others (nationalism, bigotry, etc) used by power-hungry leaders to distract their poor populace. Even when you consider so-called religious wars such as the Crusades, or the conflict in Ireland, it really boils down to struggles for power and control with religion serving more as an excuse than a cause. That's not to say that religion hasn't ever caused any problems, there are plenty. I just think that the world would be a better place if people actually followed the teachings of their religions. It seems that very few people realize that the Koran specifically says that "there is no compulsion in religion." Or, that the murder of innocent civillians is never allowed in any kind of war (holy or not). Now, those are 2000 year old values that are still applicable today.

Much of the abuse of women that you talk about is not part of the religion, but is cultural. Muslim countries are hardly the only place where women are mistreated. Other posters have already mentioned sub-saharan Africa, but I have personally been quite surprised by the treatment of women in Japan, a wealthy democracy (all the more shocking because I expected it to be quite progressive).

I think it's also very important to make a distinction between women who wear a veil (very often by choice) and those who are circumcised (never by choice). The majority of muslim women I've met (and I lived in the Middle East for a couple of years) wore a veil by choice, even if it was uncomfortable. One could accurately say that many of those who wear it by choice do so because there are cultural pressures to do so. But, we here in the US do plenty of uncomfortable things due to cultural pressures. For instance, I cringe every time I see a woman stumbling along in high heels, a fashion choice I can't beleive anyone would make without some kind of pressure. Something to think about the next time you see your hot laundry friend (especially since I've seen some women who wear a complete veil with high heels underneath...talk about the worst of both worlds).

One final point regarding the posts by Jiraiya on Judaism. It's hardly fair to start out by excluding all of the Jews who don't follow your liberal, and tollerant interpretation of the religion and then say that Judaism is different and wonderful. It's unfortunate, but when we talk about religions, we have to include all the followers, even the lousy ones that we don't like. As a Muslim, this is especially difficult, and I wish I could just say that all those extremists have nothing to do with the religion and ignore them. In any event, Jews have committed their own fair share of crimes and it's not so unfair to lump them together with the Muslims and Christians.

Ohh, well, I think that this post is probably as long now (and as confusing) as the original.

Adams,
Thank you for your well-thought out post. I really appreciate a lot of your thoughts.
Your comparison of veils versus high heels has some merit, but high heels are not a forced thing, otherwise my wife would be sentenced, as she never wears them. If an American woman goes to some Muslim countries, she is forced to adopt the countries customs, where in the US the only thing we ask specifically, when it comes to dress is to not wear a veil in your driver's license picture.

I would recommend to anyone who wants to learn about the past, all the way up to the present in the Islamic World, they read Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong". In the book it outlines the rich history of Muslim nations, which were powerful and influential up until the last 300 years. I would like to offer something from this great book.

"To a Western observer, schooled in the theory and practice of Western freedom, it is precisely the lack of freedom---freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny---that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world. But the road to democracy, as the Western experience only amply demonstrates, is long and hard, full of pitfalls and obstacles.

If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination, perhaps from a new Europe reverting to old ways, perhaps from a resurgent Russia, perhaps from a new, expanding superpower in the East. If they can abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences and join their talents, energies, and resources in a common creative endeavor, they can once again make the Middle East, in modern times what it once was in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, a major center of civilization. For the time being, the choice is theirs."

Scott,

Thanks for the reply. I think we definitely agree on more than we disagree. My point about the high heels was that in my personal experience (both in this country and living in the Middle East) most of the women I have met who wear a veil do so by choice, much like high heels. And, while they may make this choice due to societal or peer pressure, it is still a choice. And, we should be careful not to condemn people who make seemingly uncomfortable choices because they wish to be part of a group whether it be religious or that of the fashion concious. We should simply fight to ensure that they are free to make those choices.

In regards to Bernard Lewis, I have my problems with him. It's hard to take his scholarship completely seriously after his proposals have been adopted as policy by the Bush administration and have led to one of most misguided adventures in the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq (one begins to wonder how clear his understanding really is). Having said that, though, I do agree with much of what he says in that quote. As I said before I don't beleive that Islam as a religion is the cause of the problems in the Middle East, but this cycle of poverty, abuse, and victimhood (blaming of outside forces) that is the problem. Islam has definitely been a tool used by some to further this, but I also see hope that it can play an even greater role in bringing the region out of its current mess.

That hope may be where we disagree most?

One of the problems with rants like this, and the threads that follow is that they generally rely on various levels of understanding that may differ depending on one's own personal experience and the various sources from where one derives their understanding.

It's fairly unlikely that someone with 3 muslim friends, a copy of Bernard Lewis under his arm and the US media coverage as his knowledge base would come to any other conclusion than the one to which Scott has come. Whether it is right or wrong is not beside the point, but there is a larger point that someone touched upon briefly. By
asctribing the attributes of a minority of a population (in these case fundamentalist extremists) beside anecdotal supporting evidence (a woman out on a hot day fully covered and veiled), transferring these attributes to an entire diverse population is the root of prejudice and a virtual textbook definition of stereotyping.

Whether a stereotype is 'sort of' right, or wrong altogether doesn't change the emptiness and inappropriateness of the logic.

Although it is often over-dramatized (in Alex Haley's 'Autobiography' of Malcom X) when Malcom X made his hajj, he was surprised at the variety of islam in physical appearance and in cultural matters to say nothing about the variety of theological positions held.

But we all know this. How many Jews are Hassidic, or Lubavticher or followers of Kahane? (speaking of using religion for the purposes of muerder)? Not a heckuva a lot.

How many fundamentalist Chirstians are the Eric Rudolph's of this world? Again, not many.

Attributing backwardsness to Muslim nations is silly. How many of the poorest nations of the poor are predominantly Christian? MANY, or Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist? Christian Orthodox? Again, many. The fact is that any 'conservative' thought (conservative here in the sense of resistant to change), is going to have difficulties competing in a world where people must compete, like it or not.

But Muslim societies don't seem to be any worse than predominantly Christian societies or even secular societies - they all make the same basic choices, which is that the powerful, when faced with scarcity screw their (for it is "their") societies to put meat on their tables. Just as Saddam built opulent palaces while people starved...so do we allow Halliburton to "lose" billions of dollars while half out population has no health insurance (or inadequate insurance) and yes, here in the ol' USA kids starve too whilst Hummer sales soar.

'Us' vs. "them" as previously pointed out is a tool to take what we want form "them" or to ease our conscience for having killed "them" or torture them or what have you.

So whether or not Scott's position is wrong - and Lewis has been thoroughly discredited even by competent conservative islamacists even for simple factual errors - but whether it is just to lift phrases from old holy books and pretend that 1.2 billion people follow this to the letter. There are an awful lot of old and new testament directives that would sound equally heinous. I don't think you can get two people of any faith to agree on all the tenets of their religion even if they happen to know those tenets. Mention 'transsubstantiation' to a Catholic and like as not you'll get a shrug of the should even though that concept is a major rhetorical difference between catholicism and protestant faiths.

The reality is that something like 9/11 doesn't occur because of faith, nor because of the ridiculous construction that "we" have better TV programs and "they" are jealous. In the first, the Quran specifically prohitis the activity and in the second, they would've attacked Sweden which has a higher quality of life than the US by a long shot.

The reality is that the dialogue has become "us" vs. "them" and that is a two way street - The west (for lack of better term) and the USA in particular, have prevented progress in the middle east. And we've prevented families from getting adequate food, water or even the slightest glimmer of fruits of for instance, oil. Have their been local agents aiding in that process who have done bad things, sure. But the perception is that "we" put them there (and almost universally these people are western installed) and that the lion's share goes to "us." When you multiply misery and lack of opportunity with a convenient target with an us/them environment, you will generate fanatics. Whether it is Newark of the 60's, the West Bank or Iraq.

Full body covering is not a lack of progress, it is an historical nod to a very favourable mode of dressing in warm climates - you don't strip down in the sun, you cover up, or in days past you die. Likewise prohibitions on pork probably come from people noticing in pre-refigeration times that eating pork led to death. Largely because pork sometimes contains nasty bacteria that aren't killed except at high temperatures, and aren't knocked out by salt curing the way for instance, most beef born bacterium are/were. Lacking labs and not knowing why the pig cooked on the fire killed them while the cow didn't...it's that God is angry with us for eating pig. And so on. Often times there are very valid reasons for what seem to be pointless cultural manifestations.

I appreciate almost every post on this topic and there is a valid point made by Steve that much of my thoughts on this subject are based on having "3 muslim friends, a copy of Bernard Lewis under his arm and the US media coverage as his knowledge base." Since I'm fully aware that my thoughts on the Muslim world aren't being considered on the same level as Thomas Friedman's, I'm about done on the subject, but I do want to mention a couple things to make sure everyone is clear on my points of view.

Since I was not a supporter of the US Invasion of Iraq, I did consider not discussing Bernard Lewis' book, but just because I disagreed with some of what the writer offered, doesn't keep it from being a book that offers a lot to the reader.

I continue to come back to the point that none of the defenders of the Muslim faith want to answer and that is the anti-semitic behavior towards Israel. As long as this is a main tenet of the Muslim faith, I don't see where it's not a serious issue.

Somehow in this discussion it has been seen by some that I'm supporting Christianity above other religions. Uh, read again, I'm a secular humanist. I'm extremely disturbed at the breaking down of the separation of church and state that is taking place in the US. At least this an issue of debate, though, as this separation is a Christian concept, something which is absent in the Koran. (I won't bring out Lewis', but that is where I came to learn this.)

I would agree, Steve that Western nations do share some of the blame in what is going on in the Middle East, but it is small in comparison to what Muslims have done to themselves. I don't care what someone wears, as long as there is a choice and a lot of Muslim women do not have this. Be it because of religious, government, or husband's instruction, it's stupid. (see my take on the Amish, if you think I'm just taking on Muslims) I'm aware of the food prohibitions being based in past history, which is just another reason why treating any text as a literal guidepost that was written long ago is just insanity.

Scott, the problem here..at least what I see as the problem is that you are reaching for generalizations here. I know of a fact that many of them do not hold, but that's not the point.

Jews both secular and religious - whether conservative or orthodox cannot agree on zionism. There are ultra-orthodox members of the faith that wholeheartedly object to Israel's existence even more vehemently that 90% of Islam which doesn't object to Israel in the slightest or it's right to exist aside from it's apartheid treatment of the Palestinians - which started far before suicide bombers to head off that line of business.

You say: "which is just another reason why treating any text as a literal guidepost that was written long ago is just insanity."

Exactly, almost no Jews, Christians (even the Amish) Hindus or yes, even Muslims believe in literal interpretations of their holy texts. Almost none. But you bring up these literal meanings, as if the woman doing her laundry takes these seriously.

You are probably unaware that in Islam women have many more rights than in Orthodox judaism - including the right to divorce. Including almost every 'denomination.' Orthodox Judaism shares, historically, many of the exact same restrictions on dress and diet as Islam, but it became impractical for ashkenazic and sephardic jews due to climactic and cultural reasons.

It's a big, big, big world out there, and most people are like you and me. We don't accept authority without questioning. We don't follow crap blindly.

Just like everyone. Muslim, Jew, Tasoist, Deist or animist. We take a look at what the priest/rabbi/imam dcitate and say...uhhh...no.

Anti-semitism is not a tenet of any islamic relgiion although, like anti-muslim thought, it is a part of various wacko groups who are fed by west's actions and the intentional impoverishment of these people as much as any other factor.

There is nothing intrinsically backwards about islam, any more than there is about christianity, judaism or any other organized religion. Lumping everyone into the same pot with extremists is fundamentally wrong and worse, is not a path to understanding and realistic action.

It's a path to Iraq wars and to 9/11.

Orthodox Jews are as loony to me as any other extreme religious group, but my guess would be that there are less % wise of them, as there are fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, but then I'm just another uninformed American. As someone who grew up fundamentalist Christian, I could rip your points on Christianity as the ravings of an uninformed bigot, but then I just think they are opinions you have, which have some merit.

90% of Islam doesn't object to Jews? I would like to find out where you got that one, because it seems REALLY hard to believe.

Your final comment really needs some re-working. As I've mentioned before, I was against us going into Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, but to use the Iraq wars and 9/11 in the same sentence is extemely wrong.

Wait, Scott, let me see if I read your last posting correctly. You said "As someone who grew up fundamentalist Christian, I could rip your points on Christianity as the ravings of an uninformed bigot." Yet, in your brilliantly written new post "Turning Off the Bigot Spigot," you actually dispute whether you yourself should have been labeled a bigot by Sam NYC in his comment above. Are you kidding? If what Steve P said could subject him to being called a bigot, which you didn't actually do, but seem to say you justifiably could do, how is it that you are not a bigot yourself? You even started out with "as someone who grew up fundamentalist Christian..." geez, and you can't see why a Muslim person would call you a bigot based on your comments. talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

"90% of Islam doesn't object to Jews? I would like to find out where you got that one, because it seems REALLY hard to believe."

Since I have more than 3 islamic friends and don't have a copy of Lewis' book, what my experience informs me is that almost no muslims object to jews, although many muslims as well as jews by the way object to zionism and Israel's aparthied policies. It's a different issue, although you seem not to know this.

"Your final comment really needs some re-working. As I've mentioned before, I was against us going into Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, but to use the Iraq wars and 9/11 in the same sentence is extemely wrong. "

No it doesn't. Your 'us' vs. 'them' stance and your stereotypical view of islam is EXACTLY what led to 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Congratulations for joining the world after, but you STILL are fueling the attitudes that led to all of these things.

You know nothing of islam, go to Haiti friend and then tell me that it is Islam that retards progress..or Guatemala, or Palestine, or any frigging former ssr.

Blast me as you will - but open your browser, none of this is either a secret nor a conspiracy theory. I personally feel that people of the jewish faith are the most put upon in the world, that's not a get out jail card for guys like Sharon who ARE war criminals (unless participating in slaughtering helpless people refugee camps is OK by you). But objecting to zionism, which is NOT judaism is not the same thing whatever you think of either.

Israel is entitled IMO to be pisssed off that all of their neighbours want to spend their $$$ killing Israel rather than feeding their poor (much like the USA by the way), but this is not the same a Islam hating Jews, anymore than Christians designating all Jews and Muslims to hell and god forbid the Christian Fundamentalists who disgnate any democrat to hell, or the person next door who gave them a cup of bad coffee.

The entire idea that Islam retards a society is really questionable coming from someone who knows nothing at all about the religion, and is militant about not needing to know anything about it, since you 'know' already.

Outside of the middle east, name 3 countries that are Islamic, or have a majority population that follows Islam.

"As someone who grew up fundamentalist Christian, I could rip your points on Christianity as the ravings of an uninformed bigot, "

you could, you would be wrong...but you could...and actually I am not sure what points I made about Christianity that were even slightly controversial....I hardly mentioned it except in catchall it could be this/that or the other situations.

I wonder based on that post whether you understand what 'uninformed' is, or what is 'bigotry'

Q-Why do Arabs hate Israel?
A-To answer this question one should know more about Zionism. Zionist's ideology was that jews should have a nation of their own. They choosed Israel (Palestine) to be their homeland and that choice was based on their beleif. Achieving their goal Zionists were able to have their homeland in Palestine (A.K.A. Israel) by conquering the land with the aid of the west. All jewish all over the world were welcomed to this occupied lands to replace the original citizens and to live in their homes. WHY?? Because according to Zionism "Jews are a nation without a country and should have a country of their own in Israel/Palestine". WHAT ABOUT PALESTINIANS?? Zionists kindly enough gave them a small land to live in and they should be happy.
Imagine someone strange who came and conquered your home not allowing you to enter. What will you do??
Finally, I have to say that not all Jews are Zionists. Therefore we can't say that Arabs hate Jews although we can say that they hate Zionists.