Crazy person in Free Press

[brian]

So, the Winnipeg Free Press decided to publish an article by Jonah Goldberg.

The evolution of religious bigotry
By: Johah Goldberg
Updated: April 6 at 02:00 AM CDT

I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for "strife" or "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and United Nations leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which means fish and also is an acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son, Saviour." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish is "updated" with little feet on the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But it's the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.

Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain't no Darwin fish. Wilders' film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam. Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant," while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it's that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent. The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday).

-- Tribune Media Services

First, as you can tell by the title of his book, Jonah Goldberg is crazy.

This is just the classic Christian persecution complex.  Darwin fish offensive?  What I find offensive is the Christian attacks on science.  The funny part is, all the Darwin fish really says is that Darwin was a good scientist, evolution happened, and fish learned to walk on land.  None of these things should be offensive or even controversial.

And as an aside (although this might make a good debate topic), I don't think it is fair to demand that decent, normal, relatively secular religious people apologize for the actions of the nut job fringe (provided they don't provide cover for it).  Especially when the people doing the demanding only demand it of one religion and defend the nut job fringe on their side.

Although, this talk about nut job fringes has got me thinking about something else...

[Steven]

Here's a clip of that guy on Hannity & Colmes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J30-eYb9SlE&NR=1

[brian]

Here's a clip of that guy on Hannity & Colmes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J30-eYb9SlE&NR=1

Oh...my...god...he...is...fucking...batshit...crazy.  Hitler was not a fucking socialist or a liberal on any sense.  Hitler wend after the socialists and communists first.  I literally smacked myself in the head when I heard him talking at around the 1 minute mark about Hitler being a revolutionary.

Okay, we have a crazy person on a show hosted by a moron and a doormat

[trevor]

This nutbar was on The Daily Show as well. Here's the clip. Very funny interview; I love when Jon Stewart hates his guest and yet remains cordial.

[Katie]

I like the fact that he claims to have 'libertarian views', but becomes a shrinking violet when he sees a Darwin Fish. Most Libertarians seem to be hard to offend. "Have a problem with someone's free speech? Suck it up, and quit whining!"

<sarcasm>Well, Brian. Hitler DID call his party 'the Nationalist Socialist Party', and he was a gad dang vegetarian, so of COURSE he was a bleedin' heart liberal commie Nazi. </sarcasm>

[brian]

letter in todays WFP:

Darwin fish valid

In Jonah Goldberg's Sunday column, The evolution of religious bigotry, he chastises the "secular progressives" and others engaged in "Christian-baiting" for attacking Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent. He seems to imply that since a more worthy target exists (that target being Islam, according to Goldberg), all of those engaged in challenging Christianity are simply interested in exhibiting their intellectual superiority.

I would say that the reason they have reserved their passions for Christianity is the simple fact that Christianity, not Islam, is the religion waging battles for superiority in schools and courts all across the United States. To reject Christianity and live a life without religion still puts you in a small (but growing) minority in the United States, and expressing that choice with a Darwin fish is just as valid an expression of personal views as a Jesus fish is. Any smugness or superiority that Goldberg is detecting is strictly the result of his stereotyped views of who these people are.

I would also remind Goldberg that there does exist in the United States a wide number of fanatical and even violent Christians and Christian groups. I'd imagine that the response to that assertion from any average believer in Christianity would probably be very close to that of the average Muslim -- trying to defend his religion against the views put forth in Fitna.

CHRIS MILLAR

Winnipeg

http://winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/4156294p-4744617c.html

[X]

So another film comes out highlighting the more barbaric side of Islam.
And the Muslims, in their zeal to prove this is not the case, threaten violence.
The moderate Muslims denounce the film with similar intentions, claiming that they are not like the more extremist groups.  But where is the widespread condemnation of the extreme sects?
(For the record, I feel "Muslim extremist" and "Fundamentalist Christian" are somewhat misleading terms. Instead, I would call them "Strong" Muslims and Christians, for all they do is believe wholly and unabashedly in their respective Holy Books, even if the interpretations are different from more moderate sects)


I wonder how much of the fishes history Mr. Goldberg is aware of?

Look, I have no problem if people want to hold religious beliefs.
I do, however, have a problem when said people try to force their religious views on others, or defend blatantly absurd actions by their group, or cry foul when valid (and necessary) criticism is voiced.
I'm not going to go around to everyone I see wearing a cross that they are deluded, wrong, or brainwashed.
However, if those people start spouting that their faith is truth and moral guidance, or criticizing other faiths whilst complaining of criticism of their own, I am going to verbally bitch-slap them.

[brian]

Hmmm... that is an interesting question of terminology.

I don't like the term "strong" Muslims and Christians to describe these people because it implies that the religious moderates have weaker faith, something not necessarily true.  People can be absolutely convinced of the existence of their favourite god and also supportive of secularism, evolution, LGBT rights, etc.  And it can be seen as a pejorative against the "weak Christians"

I'm also not a big fan of the word "extremist" because it carries with it the implication that on any issue there is a range of positions and the people in the middle are correct.  This is obviously not true, sometimes the people on one side are completely wrong (such as the evolution-creation issue) and there is evidence to back them up.  For example, I identify with the radical left in terms of politics, but that doesn't mean that I am crazy and wrong on everything especially when compared to, say, a "moderate" liberal.  Maybe I'm the one who is right about things and the "moderate" is halfway between right and completely wrong, but still pretty wrong.

The term "fundamentalist" is probably the best out of the three, although I am not sure about the accuracy.  I bet liberal Christians would argue that things like hating on LGBT people isn't fundamental to Christianity.  It seems as the fundamental belief is just belief in whatever particular god, and there are questions of interpretation of almost everything beyond that (unless we define fundamentalists as people who don't think there are questions of interpretations).

Although I'm thinking maybe the term should be modified with political vs. nonpolitical and violent vs. nonviolent if we want to get specific.  For example, the 9/11 people are Political Violent Muslim Fundamentalists while a Christian who is a fundie in his personal life but doesn't believe the government should legislate his morality and doesn't go out and commit hate crimes would be a Nonpolitical Nonviolent Christian Fundamentalist.



I think we should be careful about demanding condemnations or drawing conclusions because condemnations are not loudly heard.  It implies sort of a shared responsibility for the actions of a few, which is something to be careful about.  It also seems to be targeted at only one group, no one demands that Jews apologize for and condemn Baruch Goldstein and JDL terrorism.  And it makes it a lot harder for people to get their actual points across if you start by assuming they are guilty by association.  For example, I helped organize the Winnipeg is Not For Sale protest a couple weeks ago, and we never actually got our point across in the media because we were forced to spend all our time criticizing one moron (out of over 100 at the rally) who brought a stupid sign that hardly anyone outside of the media saw.  Even though we did condemn him, it didn't matter, because the papers, B'nai Brith, and even city council still accused us all of trivializing the Holocaust, promoting racism, inciting hatred, etc (most of them without bothering to investigate, just going on biased media stories from the Winnipeg Sun).

But I do agree that faith should be open to criticism and ridicule, although we shouldn't be inciting hatred towards people of a particular religion.