Liberal Media

Story Link: Latest Issue of the Magazine produced by ISIS or Islamic State.

It might pay to click on and read the above link. In their digital magazine, ISIS states unambiguously why the hate us and what animates that hatred. Spoiler, it is their religion.

So, why is it that this piece of news was for all intents and purposes buried by the mainstream media?
This was largely ignored by everyone except for Fox News and others of their ilk. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that it states implicitly that their religion has everything to do with why they hate us?

Those who know me understand I could not be much more of a liberal/progressive/lefty. And furthermore I am proud of that fact and will expound on related subjects at the slightest prompting.
I tend to believe that, in broad strokes, the liberal position is the more correct. I think this is an understandable view and one commonly shared by my liberal brethren. And that is as it should be. I am confident conservatives (at least the ones who are well-meaning and, you know, not crazy) share similar feelings about their own ideology. And bully for them, let the best ideas win.

 One of the things liberals find maddening or abhorrent about the more extreme conservatives is their tendency to jump on any conservative train without apparent questioning or critical thought. If it smells conservative, no further thought is necessary. I confess that I quite enjoyed thinking this was a trait most likely to occur on "that side" of the fence. However, lately I have noticed a disturbing trend to similar behavior in liberal circles. It does not escape me that some are arguing this is less a result of some sea change and more likely attributable to my taking better notice. A plausible argument to be sure.

It seems clear to me that any number of liberals, having identified a righteous cause, have begun to swallow in toto and without apparent critical thought anything related to or seemingly related to that cause. I suggest far too many of the people who are ostensibly on my team and who feel armored by righteousness now imagine that extra bit of thinking is not required of them. To be clear, I do not think is a good thing.

And back to the original point.

All the following statements can be (and I argue indeed are) true.
At the same time.

Most of the world's Muslims are reasonable humans who simply want to live with their families in safety as they endeavor to prosper.

There are Muslims who practice a more radical or extreme form of Islam that includes but is not limited to, violent jihad, fatwas, a commitment to the destruction of what they consider to be the liberal decadent ways of other cultures that, in their eyes, is an affront to their religion regardless of where it exists.

Both the reasonable moderate Muslims and the Muslims practicing more radical forms of Islam are able to draw inspiration for their chosen paths from the same canon of ancient scripture (largely the Koran).

The claim that Muslims practicing more radical forms of Islam and not true Muslims is specious and fails to bear up under the slightest scrutiny.

For you theater folks, this bit is an aside. Therefore I reasonably infer the above idea has not been met with the slightest scrutiny by either the main stream or liberal media.

The fact that some moderate Muslims (in America and elsewhere) are subject to prejudice and/or hostility is a sad but true situation we should thoughtfully address.

The fact that there are a number of Americans whose ideology is based in prejudice/hate have tried to employ these facts to their own dubious ends is reprehensible.

Acknowledging the facts does not make one a hateful person.

When all these statements are true at the same time the problems become soberingly or even maddeningly complex. And there is the rub. The news media and the politicians and pundits turn the whole business into a cartoon version of reality where there are black hats and white hats. Admittedly they should be serving us much better. However, when they fail, we need to think for ourselves. To paraphrase the First Lady, "When the go low, we (should) go high".

So, by all means, continue on your bleeding-heart-liberal path. No sarcasm intended. I plan to do exactly that. However I also plan to keep on thinking and questioning.

Belief, Violence, and Denial

An article worth reading: Sam Harris on extremists and apologists

I am convinced that otherwise intelligent decent folks end up becoming de facto apologists for religious violence.

How does that happen?

I suggest there are multiple factors in play. First, most of us either know personally, or know of, persons who belong to one of these groups and also exemplify moderation. This creates a gnarly thought branch.  We are confronted with the idea that not everyone who is a member of said group is an extremist. Further, being decent compassionate and open-minded humans, we have no wish to offend the reasonable members of the group by unintentionally lumping them in with the loopy members. Further yet, if the group to which we refer are Muslims (and in the early part of the twenty first century, this is too often the case) many people have a perfectly reasonable fear of offending Muslims- be they loopy or reasonable.

No explanation for trepidation is necessary with regard to the loopy ones. As to the moderates, they divide into two camps. The poor folks who are, mostly, like everyone else and simply wish to get along with others and thrive in the world and the ones who are one news article away from joining their loopy cousins. Now, here is where things get dicey. Non-Muslims simply have no viable way of sorting them out. And, rightly or wrongly, we perceive them as not adequately defining themselves. This leaves us on the horns of a dilemma.

On one hand, we fear the less moderate non-Muslims will simply take matters into their own hands and target Muslims indiscriminately. Need I mention this is a very bad idea on its face, beginning with the vigilante nature of such action? On the other hand we have those who, so wish to avoid judging, (and here’s the tricky bit) even in the presence of overwhelming evidence, they refuse to call out the nutters for fear of offending the others. It is understandable. Folks do not wish to have any spill-over from their judgment taint the good folks. I couldn’t be more sympathetic to that cause. However, what if this thinking results in our failure, on a collective level, to say what is true and act on what is true? In short, what if our apologist attitudes result in worsening the situation in every way? What happens when we fail to see the world clearly, say bravely what we see, and, when the consequences are potentially dire, act appropriately? I suggest it likely emboldens the undesirables on both sides. That is, non-Muslims who are all worked up because they feel like nobody is taking leadership may be emboldened to act out lawlessly. On the flip side of the coin, those who would do us harm perceive our mealymouthed vacillation as opportunity.

All that said, we haven’t yet dared to approach the real prickly bit. Would anyone care to hazard a guess on that score?

Here is what Sam Harris (among others) has said and, more disturbing for many, what he implies. Simply stated, the words in the Qur'an call out to be interpreted in the strictest sense. Why? To believers, these are the words of the Supreme Being. As such, the rules and admonitions are intended to be eternal. If that were not sufficient, the words appear within a highly charged context. This is intentional. The author, regardless if he is perceived to be human or a prophet of God, unapologetically intended for the words to fall as heavily weighted as possible upon the mind of the listener. On this point few, on any side of the question, would disagree. So, we come to the more disturbing bit. Mr. Harris could not, by rational argument, fail to include in his assessments the other books which are universally included in the canon of religious texts. That is to say, the scriptures associated with Judaism and Christianity. As any student knows, from the study of the three major religions to emerge from deserts of the Middle East, they are all related. The history on this is well known and anyone, regardless of formal training, can perform a simple internet search to familiarize themselves with the overlap.

So, what does it all mean?

Because humans have a tendency to be parochial and shortsighted, it is easy to wag our fingers at the “others”. In our time, Muslims make an easy target. Our President recently scratched the surface of an unsettling truth when he referenced the so-called Crusades. In fact, any of us with the shallowest knowledge of history could have cited any number of examples. What kind of examples? Well, basically, examples where the people who were considered to be the most righteous, the most pious, the most devout believers, the ones most likely to have a literal interpretation of their scriptures, acted very, very badly. 

Okay, so it is fair to say that such conflicts are, to some degree, bound up with politics and the acquisition of resources (usually someone else’s). And, it is also fair to say that, the stated justification for the heinous barbarism was the advancement of the religious agenda of the aggressors of either or both sides. For any that cared to read all the way to the end, No! This is not about some prejudice or dislike of Muslims. And, while I’m about it, I am offended if that is what you thought.