http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:54:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41454 luci phyrr Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:27:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41454 <i>[dsquared] agrees with you and I that Al Quaida and those who think like them are a murderous menace</i> Hmmm...are we really so sure? ;) [dsquared] agrees with you and I that Al Quaida and those who think like them are a murderous menace Hmmm…are we really so sure? ;)

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41453 dsquared Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:29:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41453 Fantastic find, Tom. Fantastic find, Tom.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41452 Tom Doyle Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:46:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41452 [The following article addresses some issues related to the subjects discussed in this thread.] Political Research Associates Terms & Concepts: Use with Caution by Chip Berlet (Oct.-Nov. 2001 ?) Islamophobia & Arabophobia, Terrorism, Fundamentalism, Neofascism, Clerical Fascism, Theocratic Islamic Fundamentalism, Apocalyptic Demonization Since the attacks of 9/11, writers and commentators have had problems in finding accurate language to describe complicated and unfamiliar phenomena while remaining sensitive to issues of prejudice. Terms such as Islamist, radical Islamic fundamentalist, and clerical fascist entered public discussion. We hope this article will help sort out some of the confusing and problematic terminology that abounds. <a href="http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html">http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html </a> [The following article addresses some issues related to the subjects discussed in this thread.] Political Research Associates Terms & Concepts: Use with Caution by Chip Berlet (Oct.-Nov. 2001 ?) Islamophobia & Arabophobia, Terrorism, Fundamentalism, Neofascism, Clerical Fascism, Theocratic Islamic Fundamentalism, Apocalyptic Demonization Since the attacks of 9/11, writers and commentators have had problems in finding accurate language to describe complicated and unfamiliar phenomena while remaining sensitive to issues of prejudice. Terms such as Islamist, radical Islamic fundamentalist, and clerical fascist entered public discussion. We hope this article will help sort out some of the confusing and problematic terminology that abounds. http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41451 J Thomas Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:48:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41451 "As far as I know, there’s no alternative term with equivalent meaning to “Islamism,” except possibly “political Islam” which is less precise and has much the same connotations." Perfect! Use "political islam" unless you want the connotations of "islamism". When you say "islamism" or "islamist" you are furthering the concept that most of the muslim world hates us and is in a war with western culture that one or the other must and will completely win. When you say "political islam" you are saying something different, and people know it isn't the same thing simply because you didn't use the term "Islamism". “As far as I know, there’s no alternative term with equivalent meaning to “Islamism,” except possibly “political Islam” which is less precise and has much the same connotations.” Perfect! Use “political islam” unless you want the connotations of “islamism”. When you say “islamism” or “islamist” you are furthering the concept that most of the muslim world hates us and is in a war with western culture that one or the other must and will completely win. When you say “political islam” you are saying something different, and people know it isn’t the same thing simply because you didn’t use the term “Islamism”.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41450 Jonathan Edelstein Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:49:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41450 <i>And one side of [the Thirty Years' War] certainly did think that princes governed by consent of God and that the Pope could remove them at will. The war was actually settled with the agreement that cuio regio es religio - that the local prince could force everyone under his control to adopt his religion.</i> There's a distinction between incorporation of certain religious concepts into the state - e.g., accepting the divine right of kings, using clergy as civil officers, intolerance of minority religions - and regarding religion as an all-encompassing system of law. As far as I know, no medieval European country regarded canon law, or some other form of Christian divine law, as the primary foundation of the state. Instead, European legal systems consisted to varying degrees of Roman law, common law, the law of nations, royal edicts, acts of parliament - and only then, after a long pause, religious law. Nor did the divine right of kings constitute, in practical terms, subordination of the state to religion - in fact, I'd argue that the Thirty Years' War and the previous century's Wars of Religion were fought to make <i>religion</i> the instrument of the <i>state</i> rather than the other way around. You might do better to go back a few more centuries and argue that Boniface VIII's bull <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html"><i>Unam sanctam</i></a> advocated a "Christianist" political position, but even this declaration of papal supremacy recognized a distinction between sacred and secular law. To an Islamist, <i>there is no such distinction</i>. I suppose that, theoretically, a Christian philosopher could imagine a state founded solely upon divine law, but such a state would face two practical difficulties. First, Christian divine law doesn't extend far enough into the secular sphere - there are certain exceptions in the areas of family and criminal law, but not enough to form the basis of a commercial or inheritance code. Compare the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM">code of canon law</a>, for instance - which is probably the most comprehensive Christian divine law system - with sharia or halacha; the former is almost entirely concerned with spiritual matters and the constitution of the church, while the latter extend into all areas of daily life. Second, it's harder to make law in Christian systems. Islamic and Jewish law are both common-law systems in which the rulings of jurists become part of the body of law, and are therefore easily adaptable to new situations. Canon law is equivalent, at most, to civil law; the Catholic Church had legislative bodies, but these were of very limited competence with respect to temporal matters. This distinction has everything to do with the formative periods of Christianity and Islam. I suppose that, if some Church father had got the notion early enough, canon law could have been extended into a complete temporal legal system, but any such intrusion into royal prerogative would have impeded the spread of the Christian faith. In contrast, Islamic law had its genesis in a unified state in which spiritual and temporal were one, and this has remained the Islamic ideal even though dar al-Islam became politically fragmented. It's thus possible to conceive of an Islamic or Jewish religious state with a much greater degree of unity between secular and divine law than a Christian state could have. Note that I'm not arguing that people who believe in such a state are "Muslims we have to kill." I don't think that the issue of killing, or otherwise, should really enter into the definition of a political philosophy. The decision of who to kill should be based on the acts of particular organized groups - i.e., the way in which beliefs are actualized rather than the beliefs themselves. If the only reason we're analyzing Islamic political philosophy is to distinguish between who we don't like and who we have to kill, then we don't really need to analyze it at all. And one side of [the Thirty Years’ War] certainly did think that princes governed by consent of God and that the Pope could remove them at will. The war was actually settled with the agreement that cuio regio es religio – that the local prince could force everyone under his control to adopt his religion. There’s a distinction between incorporation of certain religious concepts into the state – e.g., accepting the divine right of kings, using clergy as civil officers, intolerance of minority religions – and regarding religion as an all-encompassing system of law. As far as I know, no medieval European country regarded canon law, or some other form of Christian divine law, as the primary foundation of the state. Instead, European legal systems consisted to varying degrees of Roman law, common law, the law of nations, royal edicts, acts of parliament – and only then, after a long pause, religious law. Nor did the divine right of kings constitute, in practical terms, subordination of the state to religion – in fact, I’d argue that the Thirty Years’ War and the previous century’s Wars of Religion were fought to make religion the instrument of the state rather than the other way around. You might do better to go back a few more centuries and argue that Boniface VIII’s bull Unam sanctam advocated a “Christianist” political position, but even this declaration of papal supremacy recognized a distinction between sacred and secular law. To an Islamist, there is no such distinction. I suppose that, theoretically, a Christian philosopher could imagine a state founded solely upon divine law, but such a state would face two practical difficulties. First, Christian divine law doesn’t extend far enough into the secular sphere – there are certain exceptions in the areas of family and criminal law, but not enough to form the basis of a commercial or inheritance code. Compare the code of canon law, for instance – which is probably the most comprehensive Christian divine law system – with sharia or halacha; the former is almost entirely concerned with spiritual matters and the constitution of the church, while the latter extend into all areas of daily life. Second, it’s harder to make law in Christian systems. Islamic and Jewish law are both common-law systems in which the rulings of jurists become part of the body of law, and are therefore easily adaptable to new situations. Canon law is equivalent, at most, to civil law; the Catholic Church had legislative bodies, but these were of very limited competence with respect to temporal matters. This distinction has everything to do with the formative periods of Christianity and Islam. I suppose that, if some Church father had got the notion early enough, canon law could have been extended into a complete temporal legal system, but any such intrusion into royal prerogative would have impeded the spread of the Christian faith. In contrast, Islamic law had its genesis in a unified state in which spiritual and temporal were one, and this has remained the Islamic ideal even though dar al-Islam became politically fragmented. It’s thus possible to conceive of an Islamic or Jewish religious state with a much greater degree of unity between secular and divine law than a Christian state could have. Note that I’m not arguing that people who believe in such a state are “Muslims we have to kill.” I don’t think that the issue of killing, or otherwise, should really enter into the definition of a political philosophy. The decision of who to kill should be based on the acts of particular organized groups – i.e., the way in which beliefs are actualized rather than the beliefs themselves. If the only reason we’re analyzing Islamic political philosophy is to distinguish between who we don’t like and who we have to kill, then we don’t really need to analyze it at all.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41449 Jonathan Edelstein Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:49:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41449 <i>And one side of [the Thirty Years' War] certainly did think that princes governed by consent of God and that the Pope could remove them at will. The war was actually settled with the agreement that cuio regio es religio - that the local prince could force everyone under his control to adopt his religion.</i> There's a distinction between incorporation of certain religious concepts into the state - e.g., accepting the divine right of kings, using clergy as civil officers, intolerance of minority religions - and regarding religion as an all-encompassing system of law. As far as I know, no medieval European country regarded canon law, or some other form of Christian divine law, as the primary foundation of the state. Instead, European legal systems consisted to varying degrees of Roman law, common law, the law of nations, royal edicts, acts of parliament - and only then, after a long pause, religious law. Nor did the divine right of kings constitute, in practical terms, subordination of the state to religion - in fact, I'd argue that the Thirty Years' War and the previous century's Wars of Religion were fought to make <i>religion</i> the instrument of the <i>state</i> rather than the other way around. You might do better to go back a few more centuries and argue that Boniface VIII's bull <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html"><i>Unam sanctam</i></a> advocated a "Christianist" political position, but even this declaration of papal supremacy recognized a distinction between sacred and secular law. To an Islamist, <i>there is no such distinction</i>. I suppose that, theoretically, a Christian philosopher could imagine a state founded solely upon divine law, but such a state would face two practical difficulties. First, Christian divine law doesn't extend far enough into the secular sphere - there are certain exceptions in the areas of family and criminal law, but not enough to form the basis of a commercial or inheritance code. Compare the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM">code of canon law</a>, for instance - which is probably the most comprehensive Christian divine law system - with sharia or halacha; the former is almost entirely concerned with spiritual matters and the constitution of the church, while the latter extend into all areas of daily life. Second, it's harder to make law in Christian systems. Islamic and Jewish law are both common-law systems in which the rulings of jurists become part of the body of law, and are therefore easily adaptable to new situations. Canon law is equivalent, at most, to civil law; the Catholic Church had legislative bodies, but these were of very limited competence with respect to temporal matters. This distinction has everything to do with the formative periods of Christianity and Islam. I suppose that, if some Church father had got the notion early enough, canon law could have been extended into a complete temporal legal system, but any such intrusion into royal prerogative would have impeded the spread of the Christian faith. In contrast, Islamic law had its genesis in a unified state in which spiritual and temporal were one, and this has remained the Islamic ideal even though dar al-Islam became politically fragmented. It's thus possible to conceive of an Islamic or Jewish religious state with a much greater degree of unity between secular and divine law than a Christian state could have. Note that I'm not arguing that people who believe in such a state are "Muslims we have to kill." I don't think that the issue of killing, or otherwise, should really enter into the definition of a political philosophy. The decision of who to kill should be based on the acts of particular organized groups - i.e., the way in which beliefs are actualized rather than the beliefs themselves. If the only reason we're analyzing Islamic political philosophy is to distinguish between who we don't like and who we have to kill, then we don't really need to analyze it at all. And one side of [the Thirty Years’ War] certainly did think that princes governed by consent of God and that the Pope could remove them at will. The war was actually settled with the agreement that cuio regio es religio – that the local prince could force everyone under his control to adopt his religion. There’s a distinction between incorporation of certain religious concepts into the state – e.g., accepting the divine right of kings, using clergy as civil officers, intolerance of minority religions – and regarding religion as an all-encompassing system of law. As far as I know, no medieval European country regarded canon law, or some other form of Christian divine law, as the primary foundation of the state. Instead, European legal systems consisted to varying degrees of Roman law, common law, the law of nations, royal edicts, acts of parliament – and only then, after a long pause, religious law. Nor did the divine right of kings constitute, in practical terms, subordination of the state to religion – in fact, I’d argue that the Thirty Years’ War and the previous century’s Wars of Religion were fought to make religion the instrument of the state rather than the other way around. You might do better to go back a few more centuries and argue that Boniface VIII’s bull Unam sanctam advocated a “Christianist” political position, but even this declaration of papal supremacy recognized a distinction between sacred and secular law. To an Islamist, there is no such distinction. I suppose that, theoretically, a Christian philosopher could imagine a state founded solely upon divine law, but such a state would face two practical difficulties. First, Christian divine law doesn’t extend far enough into the secular sphere – there are certain exceptions in the areas of family and criminal law, but not enough to form the basis of a commercial or inheritance code. Compare the code of canon law, for instance – which is probably the most comprehensive Christian divine law system – with sharia or halacha; the former is almost entirely concerned with spiritual matters and the constitution of the church, while the latter extend into all areas of daily life. Second, it’s harder to make law in Christian systems. Islamic and Jewish law are both common-law systems in which the rulings of jurists become part of the body of law, and are therefore easily adaptable to new situations. Canon law is equivalent, at most, to civil law; the Catholic Church had legislative bodies, but these were of very limited competence with respect to temporal matters. This distinction has everything to do with the formative periods of Christianity and Islam. I suppose that, if some Church father had got the notion early enough, canon law could have been extended into a complete temporal legal system, but any such intrusion into royal prerogative would have impeded the spread of the Christian faith. In contrast, Islamic law had its genesis in a unified state in which spiritual and temporal were one, and this has remained the Islamic ideal even though dar al-Islam became politically fragmented. It’s thus possible to conceive of an Islamic or Jewish religious state with a much greater degree of unity between secular and divine law than a Christian state could have. Note that I’m not arguing that people who believe in such a state are “Muslims we have to kill.” I don’t think that the issue of killing, or otherwise, should really enter into the definition of a political philosophy. The decision of who to kill should be based on the acts of particular organized groups – i.e., the way in which beliefs are actualized rather than the beliefs themselves. If the only reason we’re analyzing Islamic political philosophy is to distinguish between who we don’t like and who we have to kill, then we don’t really need to analyze it at all.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41446 Dan Hardie Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:13:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41446 'Okay, I’m off.' You mean like Thomas Mann exiling himself from the Third Reich, or like Trotsky fleeing the NKVD? ‘Okay, I’m off.’ You mean like Thomas Mann exiling himself from the Third Reich, or like Trotsky fleeing the NKVD?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41448 dsquared Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:08:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41448 I was not previously aware that "stop accusing us of being apologists for fundamentalists" meant "shut up". My intention was the former; I of course apologise if the message I conveyed was the second. I was not previously aware that “stop accusing us of being apologists for fundamentalists” meant “shut up”. My intention was the former; I of course apologise if the message I conveyed was the second.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-2/#comment-41447 Ophelia Benson Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:58:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41447 "I do hope I’m not going to have to start swearing at people here because you know how much I hate that." A threat. How nice. Shut up or get the 'go fuck yourself' treatment, eh? Okay, I'm off. “I do hope I’m not going to have to start swearing at people here because you know how much I hate that.” A threat. How nice. Shut up or get the ‘go fuck yourself’ treatment, eh? Okay, I’m off.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-1/#comment-41445 dsquared Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:39:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41445 Yes, sorry, the Thirty Years' war. And one side of it certainly did think that princes governed by consent of God and that the Pope could remove them at will. The war was actually settled with the agreement that cuio regio es religio - that the local prince could force everyone under his control to adopt his religion. And I'm sure I don't have to remind you on Arrival Day that non-Christian religions were tolerated almost nowhere in seventeenth century Europe. The point I'm making is that Europe got to that state as a result of a political and historic process in which religion played a part. Similarly, the Arab states plus some South Asian ones, have got to where they are today because of a political and historic process in which Islam has played a part. Using "Islamism" as one's main analytical category unjustifiably puts one in the position of assuming that one part of this history is the "real" issue, which looks to me to be a sure-fire way of getting the most important distinction (the one between Muslims we don't like, and Muslims that we actually need to kill) wrong, and losing a lot of lives as a result. Yes, sorry, the Thirty Years’ war. And one side of it certainly did think that princes governed by consent of God and that the Pope could remove them at will. The war was actually settled with the agreement that cuio regio es religio – that the local prince could force everyone under his control to adopt his religion. And I’m sure I don’t have to remind you on Arrival Day that non-Christian religions were tolerated almost nowhere in seventeenth century Europe. The point I’m making is that Europe got to that state as a result of a political and historic process in which religion played a part. Similarly, the Arab states plus some South Asian ones, have got to where they are today because of a political and historic process in which Islam has played a part. Using “Islamism” as one’s main analytical category unjustifiably puts one in the position of assuming that one part of this history is the “real” issue, which looks to me to be a sure-fire way of getting the most important distinction (the one between Muslims we don’t like, and Muslims that we actually need to kill) wrong, and losing a lot of lives as a result.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-1/#comment-41444 Jonathan Edelstein Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:07:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41444 <i>Nevertheless, if I were to rock up to the Camden Council social services department and ask what they were currently doing about whores in North London, they would probably inform me that they did not consider it to be a helpful term</i> On the other hand, they'd know what you meant, wouldn't they? Also, with respect to the sale of sexual favors, there's a neutral term ("prostitution") that can be used with no loss of meaning. As far as I know, there's no alternative term with equivalent meaning to "Islamism," except possibly "political Islam" which is less precise and has much the same connotations. As far as I'm concerned, using "Islamism" (while being careful to define it) is better than having no term at all for the phenomenon it describes. <i>Mahathir Mohammed believes that Islamic law should be the fundamental basis of the state, but he doesn’t ban the sale of alcohol or stone women to death. There is no such Platonic entity as “Islamic Law”.</i> There are certainly different <i>interpretations</i> of Islamic law, but this isn't the same as saying that Islamic law doesn't exist. I'm not an Islamic scholar, but from my vantage point there seems to be a broad consensus among Muslims that an Islamic legal system exists and can be divided into certain distinct schools, as well as broad agreement over its sources (Koran, hadiths, jurisprudence, etc.). To the extent that a political philosopher believes that these should be the sole or primary source of law in a modern state, he is an Islamist. Sure, it's a term as generic as "socialist" or "constitutional liberal," but that doesn't make it otiose. <i>These are all gathered together under the portmanteau term “Islamism”, which is fine as far as it goes, but means that it is more or less impossible to make any true statement about “Islamists”.</i> No, this means that it's possible to make a true statement about the common characteristics of Islamist political philosophies, and to contrast them with philosophies that aren't Islamist. It also means that other terms and subcategories are necessary to distinguish between different forms of Islamism. For instance, the term "radical Islamism" has been used on various CT threads - this isn't a term I'd necessarily use, but it serves to distinguish some forms of Islamism from others. In any event, I wouldn't call Mahathir an Islamist at all - his party believes that Malaysian law should reflect Islamic values, but not that sharia should be the sole foundation of the state. That's why PAS - which <i>is</I> Islamist - is in the opposition. <i>If we take the view that it is, as you say, impossible for any similar system to rise out of Christianity, it becomes really quite difficult to understand what the Hundred Years’ War was fought about.</i> Don't you mean the <i>Thirty</i> Years' War? As far as I know, none of the parties to that war or to the Hundred Years' War wanted to impose an all-encompassing theocracy based on Christian law. Nevertheless, if I were to rock up to the Camden Council social services department and ask what they were currently doing about whores in North London, they would probably inform me that they did not consider it to be a helpful term On the other hand, they’d know what you meant, wouldn’t they? Also, with respect to the sale of sexual favors, there’s a neutral term (“prostitution”) that can be used with no loss of meaning. As far as I know, there’s no alternative term with equivalent meaning to “Islamism,” except possibly “political Islam” which is less precise and has much the same connotations. As far as I’m concerned, using “Islamism” (while being careful to define it) is better than having no term at all for the phenomenon it describes. Mahathir Mohammed believes that Islamic law should be the fundamental basis of the state, but he doesn’t ban the sale of alcohol or stone women to death. There is no such Platonic entity as “Islamic Law”. There are certainly different interpretations of Islamic law, but this isn’t the same as saying that Islamic law doesn’t exist. I’m not an Islamic scholar, but from my vantage point there seems to be a broad consensus among Muslims that an Islamic legal system exists and can be divided into certain distinct schools, as well as broad agreement over its sources (Koran, hadiths, jurisprudence, etc.). To the extent that a political philosopher believes that these should be the sole or primary source of law in a modern state, he is an Islamist. Sure, it’s a term as generic as “socialist” or “constitutional liberal,” but that doesn’t make it otiose. These are all gathered together under the portmanteau term “Islamism”, which is fine as far as it goes, but means that it is more or less impossible to make any true statement about “Islamists”. No, this means that it’s possible to make a true statement about the common characteristics of Islamist political philosophies, and to contrast them with philosophies that aren’t Islamist. It also means that other terms and subcategories are necessary to distinguish between different forms of Islamism. For instance, the term “radical Islamism” has been used on various CT threads – this isn’t a term I’d necessarily use, but it serves to distinguish some forms of Islamism from others. In any event, I wouldn’t call Mahathir an Islamist at all – his party believes that Malaysian law should reflect Islamic values, but not that sharia should be the sole foundation of the state. That’s why PAS - which is Islamist – is in the opposition. If we take the view that it is, as you say, impossible for any similar system to rise out of Christianity, it becomes really quite difficult to understand what the Hundred Years’ War was fought about. Don’t you mean the Thirty Years’ War? As far as I know, none of the parties to that war or to the Hundred Years’ War wanted to impose an all-encompassing theocracy based on Christian law.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-1/#comment-41443 dsquared Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:50:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41443 <i>Being protective of fundamentalists at the expense of for instance feminists and secularists</i> I do hope I'm not going to have to start swearing at people here because you know how much I hate that. Being protective of fundamentalists at the expense of for instance feminists and secularists I do hope I’m not going to have to start swearing at people here because you know how much I hate that.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-1/#comment-41442 Jason McCullough Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:27:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41442 Can I register an objection to "Islamism" and "Islamist" on style grounds? I can't quite nail down why, but they just sound totally stupid. Probably because literally worked out Islamism converts to "the religion of Islam" with "and by the way, it's a religion" tacked on the end. Or maybe it's just the am-ism. Can I register an objection to “Islamism” and “Islamist” on style grounds? I can’t quite nail down why, but they just sound totally stupid. Probably because literally worked out Islamism converts to “the religion of Islam” with “and by the way, it’s a religion” tacked on the end. Or maybe it’s just the am-ism.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-1/#comment-41441 bo Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:21:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41441 Ophelia - <i>too many subjects could be considered (or not even considered but just labeled) ‘contentious’ by people who simply want to eliminate ideas that they don’t like.</i> That's obvious. But I don't think anyone was arguing in support of _eliminating_ contentious ideas, a.k.a. censorship. <i>What I had in mind was the oddity of (part of) the left’s joining hands with its enemies at the expense of its friends. Being protective of fundamentalists at the expense of for instance feminists and secularists.</i> Really? where is that happening, and who is doing it? any instances? It's not a very self-evident statement, so, I'm just wondering what specifically you're referring to. Ophelia – too many subjects could be considered (or not even considered but just labeled) ‘contentious’ by people who simply want to eliminate ideas that they don’t like. That’s obvious. But I don’t think anyone was arguing in support of eliminating contentious ideas, a.k.a. censorship. What I had in mind was the oddity of (part of) the left’s joining hands with its enemies at the expense of its friends. Being protective of fundamentalists at the expense of for instance feminists and secularists. Really? where is that happening, and who is doing it? any instances? It’s not a very self-evident statement, so, I’m just wondering what specifically you’re referring to.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/07/the-crooked-timber-thesis/comment-page-1/#comment-41440 agm Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:14:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2140#comment-41440 This rather like pondering whether Einstein should've asked himself, "Are you sure you want to publish this, Al? Once people realize you can convert matter into energy..." Eventually he did regret a somewhat important implication (one significantly more important than the fact that it might incite a mere mob), but it was too late, he couldn't take back the letter to Roosevelt. In the meantime this particular idea proved to be both one of the grandest and one of the most dangerous concepts ever concieved. The same is even now being done with other ideas and/or other technologies. (Super-smallpox, anyone?) I have to vote for being diplomatic about something (say, avoiding bringing it up while dealing with the mob) but still studying/ talking about it anyways. The dangers are there, but the promise is too. This rather like pondering whether Einstein should’ve asked himself, “Are you sure you want to publish this, Al? Once people realize you can convert matter into energy…” Eventually he did regret a somewhat important implication (one significantly more important than the fact that it might incite a mere mob), but it was too late, he couldn’t take back the letter to Roosevelt. In the meantime this particular idea proved to be both one of the grandest and one of the most dangerous concepts ever concieved. The same is even now being done with other ideas and/or other technologies. (Super-smallpox, anyone?) I have to vote for being diplomatic about something (say, avoiding bringing it up while dealing with the mob) but still studying/ talking about it anyways. The dangers are there, but the promise is too.

]]>