In the light of some recent discussions at “Butter”:http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=491 “flies”:http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=492 “and”:http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=493 “Wheels”:http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=494, “Daily”:http://marcmulholland.tripod.com/histor/index.blog?entry_id=377372 “Moiders”:http://marcmulholland.tripod.com/histor/index.blog?entry_id=380130 , “Harry’s Place”:http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/07/22/islamophobia.php, “Normblog”:http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/07/butterflies_and.html , and even here, I thought I’d post a link to “this OpenDemocracy interview with Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan”:http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2006.jsp , which I found of interest.[1] I also see that “Norm has just posted”:http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/07/andre_glucksman.html some lines from Andre Glucksmann on anti-semitism in France which are sort-of relevant, since a polemic against Glucksmann (among others) raised accusations of anti-semitism against Ramadan, a charge Ramadan rejects in the O-D interview.
fn1. Since these are sensitive times, and readers sometimes think that linking suggests endorsement, let me insist, self-defensively and for the record, that I’m not endorsing, just linking to something interesting.
{ 78 comments }
mc 07.24.04 at 2:14 pm
He’s a fine-looking man, no denying that.
Erm, sorry, couldn’t manage anything less controversial than that.
David Sucher 07.24.04 at 3:20 pm
So what exactly did Ramadan say which leads to charges of anti-Semitism? I have browsed the links and I can’t find anything specific.
yabonn 07.24.04 at 3:24 pm
Do they deserve each other.
Ramadan seems to have carefully designed his trollish piece to draw the kind of reaction glucksmann and others had.
Mr glucksmann then accuses him to be an antisemite. With limited success, as accusing anyone not toeing the likud line of antisemitism is what he does all year long.
And all that about the fact that – news flash – some intellectuals’ personnal inclinations/culture makes them lean closer to one side or another about israel and palestine. No kidding, sherlock.
q 07.24.04 at 3:32 pm
_The universal declaration specifies that someone can change his or her religion. People often say that this is not permitted in Islam. There are arguments on both sides, and there are Islamic scholars and ulam who say that it is possible. I agree with them: you cannot label or categorise universality._
He hits the nail on the head with this point.
Many Europeans have gradually tried to give up the persecution of those who turn away, or who become “lost sheep”.
The extent to which a “European Muslim” can comfortably co-exist with some extremely intolerant Islamic communities seems very minor.
Motoko Kusanagi 07.24.04 at 3:57 pm
Here is the text that caused the charges of anti-Semitism (in French).
“On perçoit clairement que leur positionnement politique répond à des logiques communautaires, en tant que juifs, ou nationalistes, en tant que défenseurs d’Israël. Disparus les principes universels, le repli identitaire est patent et biaise le débat puisque tous ceux qui osent dénoncer cette attitude sont traités d’antisémites.”
Bernard-Henri Levy´s critique is here. “le Protocole des Sages de Sion n’est pas loin.”
John Isbell 07.24.04 at 4:06 pm
Levy’s reply seems cheap and demagogic to me.
“let me insist, self-defensively and for the record, that I’m not endorsing, just linking to something interesting.”
You forgot the Heh.
q 07.24.04 at 4:14 pm
I believe that any non-Israeli expressing any criticism of Israel is branded anti-semitic by someone in Israel or Washington.
The term is becoming meaningless.
(Ooops, I think I just made an implicit criticism of some people in Israel. Maybe I am an anti-semite?)
Maddah 07.24.04 at 4:42 pm
I come from two of the three groups that André Glucksmann has blamed for the current wave of anti-semitism in Europe and, until recently, I would have been inclined to attribute his criticism to a dermatological condition. I’m sorry to say, now, that he may be underestimating the problem. Many CT readers belong to the vague category of European left (as do I) and, especially since the run-up to and prosecution of the Iraq war, have probably encountered the kind of socialism of fools that Glucksmann is alluding to. The experience that really shook me was to find how far and deeply the anti-semitism of the “rogue Islamists” had spread among “ordinary” Muslims in the UK, Arabs (like myself) or otherwise. This was in the course of research on a book and the virulence of the responses from members of some communities that I thought I had known well was fairly shocking. This data is beyond anecdotal.
Some credentials: In Lebanon my family were supporters of a Hezbollah-like (Sunni) organization. I have relatives in France but my acquaintance with the French Maghreb community is relatively limited. I grew up during the Lebanese civil war, so my standards of “shocking” are fairly high.
abb1 07.24.04 at 5:05 pm
The term has become meaningless.
However, they still do sometimes make a distinction between so-called left-wing anti-Semitism (or the new anti-Semitism per Abraham Foxman) and traditional anti-Semitism.
Traditional anti-Semitism is a form of racism, while the new anti-Semitism is humanistic criticism of Israeli policies and/or radical manifestations of Jewish nationalism.
Two absolutely unconnected, dissimilar, even, in a sense, opposite phenomena are described by the same word.
Well, except the proles, of course. But who cares?
Andrew Reeves 07.24.04 at 5:27 pm
Argh. Folks, anti-Semitism is not the same thing as anti-Judaism. Tariq Ramadan would happily accept Ariel Sharon himself as a fellow believer if Ariel Sharon were to convert and acknowledge that Muhammed is the Seal of the Prophets and that M’s writings are the revelation of God’s uncreated word. Islam’s feelings towards Jews have almost nothing to do with race. The HAMAS or Hezbollah member will happily accept a Jew who converts to Islam. The anti-Semite, though, considers the Jew’s taint to be in his blood, and will thus accept neither conversion nor assimilation.
Ophelia Benson 07.24.04 at 7:14 pm
“Not everything has yet been revealed. I believe that this silence, which encourages us to be creative, is coming from God. I am not alone here; a whole religious and prophetic tradition tells us that it is from mercy that God remains silent on some subjects.”
Hmmm. Yeah, that God fella is good at being silent – not just on some subjects, one might say, but on all of them. Interesting dodge to make a virtue of it – but of course not an unusual one. There’s a ‘whole religious and prophetic tradition’ devoted to putting a nice spin on God’s silence. Well of course there is.
(Sorry, I know I’m not supposed to say things like that, but it’s hard to let some things pass unremarked.)
PT 07.24.04 at 7:36 pm
anti-Semitism is not the same thing as anti-Judaism… The HAMAS or Hezbollah member will happily accept a Jew who converts to Islam
You’re right, Andrew. But I didn’t know that anyone was ever given that choice before the bus blew up.
vernaculo 07.24.04 at 8:49 pm
“THAT the sun go along the seven heavenly circles, which are the, appointment of one hundred and eighty-two thrones, that it go down on a short day, and again one hundred and eighty-two, that it go down on a big day, and he has two thrones on which he rests, revolving hither and thither above the thrones of the months, from the seventeenth day of the month Tsivan it goes down to the month Thevan, from the seventeenth of Thevan it goes up.
And thus it goes close to the earth, then the earth is and makes grow its fruit, and when it goes away, then the earth is sad, and trees and all fruits have no florescence…”
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe155.htm
Book of Enoch, Chapter XLVIII
The unsilent deity here pulling the wool over Enoch’s eyes. Pretending to have made the sun circle round the earth, in keeping with the primitive astronomies of Enoch’s time. So that the illusions of mortal life might be extended, even unto this day, and the prophecies complete.
Ophelia Benson 07.24.04 at 9:18 pm
Yes, the same way the clever rascal planted all those fossils in the rocks to puzzle the poor humans. At least that was Philip Gosse’s helpful thought in Omphalos. He was quite disappointed when everyone merely laughed at his suggestion.
q 07.24.04 at 10:15 pm
_You’re right, Andrew. But I didn’t know that anyone was ever given that choice before the bus blew up._
I think they probably were given the choice to convert to Islam, since the choice is always open especially to Jews and Christians.
If a Jew went along to his local mosque and spoke to a Muslim, and requested to convert to Islam, I do not see why he would not be accepted as a convert.
Very interesting article – Joey Cohen Was A Devout Jewish American living in Israel. Then one day he picked up the Koran: “Shalom and salaam are not very apart”
peter ramus 07.24.04 at 10:33 pm
Sorry, I know I’m not supposed to say things like that, but it’s hard to let some things pass unremarked.
mdash; ophelia benson at 7:14 pm
Yes, there’s the famous tradition that the Creator is silent on a whole range of issues, that rational investigation might go forward despite the intransigent insistence of the People of the Book that the Book comprehensively forecloses all such discourse by it own, well, comprehensiveness: “It is written,” is the formulaic beginning of such exclusive claims to authority.
So the Deists said, no, the Creator is silent in many important respects, and we can achieve enlightenment by using our own powers to make our own way in the world.
Is that not so?
What part of Mr. Ramadan’ analogous desire for some space in what he apparently sees as a stiflingly uncurious tradition are you snarking?
Did he say it the wrong way? Was it too . . . Islamic?
(Sorry, I know I’m not supposed to say things like that, but it’s hard to let some things pass unremarked)
q 07.24.04 at 10:36 pm
Though in Mr Cohen’s case, some Muslims seem to think he may be an Israeli spy.
Ophelia Benson 07.24.04 at 10:46 pm
“What part of Mr. Ramadan’ analogous desire for some space in what he apparently sees as a stiflingly uncurious tradition are you snarking?
Did he say it the wrong way? Was it too . . . Islamic?”
Nope – although that is a cute suggestion. It’s just too religious, that’s all. Too funny to pass up, is another way of putting it. I mean – one can think of other reasons God is silent, after all.
But put it down to Islamophobia if it makes you happy.
PT 07.24.04 at 11:01 pm
I think they probably were given the choice to convert to Islam, since the choice is always open especially to Jews and Christians.
Ah, yes Q…
Let’s see how that would go…
“Ok, everyone, I have 15 kg of explosives around my waist. Anyone wishing to get off this bus — before the bomb goes off — repeat after me, Alahuakbar!”
Hmm, I suppose there were just no takers…
Jonathan Edelstein 07.24.04 at 11:56 pm
Traditional anti-Semitism is a form of racism, while the new anti-Semitism is humanistic criticism of Israeli policies and/or radical manifestations of Jewish nationalism.
You know, I often hear the complaint that Israelis, Jews and/or supporters of Israel equate all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. What I don’t often see is any actual equation of the two. In my experience, nearly all discussions of the “new anti-Semitism” are at pains to state that legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, and to establish criteria for distinguishing such criticism from anti-semitism. The criteria vary from essay to essay and their validity is subject to debate, but they all proceed from the premise that criticism of Israeli policies is not inherently anti-Semitic. If anything, discourse on the “new anti-Semitism” may be too scrupulous in drawing lines; for instance, the question of whether unreasonable criticism of Israel has a spillover effect to the Jewish community has gone largely unexplored.
There may be some utter nimrods who classify all criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitic, but few if any of these are in the political or intellectual mainstream. If I were a cynic, I’d say that the complaints about same are a pre-emptive measure that makes it easier to (1) insulate unreasonable criticism of Israel from charges of bias, and (2) dismiss the existence of real anti-Semitism. I’m not entirely a cynic, though, and I think the complaints are more likely attributable to mutual over-sensitivity.
In any event, the debate over whether criticism of Israel is anti-semitic somewhat misses the point. The key question with respect to such criticism is not “is it anti-semitic?” but “is it fair?” Fair criticism should be heeded and unfair criticism dismissed, regardless of the motivation of the critic.
PT 07.25.04 at 1:53 am
If I were a cynic, I’d say that the complaints about same are a pre-emptive measure that makes it easier to (1) insulate unreasonable criticism of Israel from charges of bias, and (2) dismiss the existence of real anti-Semitism.
Perish the thought!
msg 07.25.04 at 2:07 am
Jonathan E-
I think the point is that the violence and irrational hate that erupt whenever these subjects commence in a public forum stifle even fair criticism, when it’s directed at what many people see as chauvinist intrigue and manipulation, not just Israeli governmental actions.
The Jack-in-the-Box commercial, aired in the US this last week, with its overtly anti-french adolescent taunt, coming immediately after Chirac’s exchange with Sharon over Jewish emigration, needs addressing by those who see only anti-Semitism, and not the insular chauvinism that’s epidemic now.
It’s impossible to address these issues in any public forum, west or east, Arabic or European, certainly not in America. Your plea for fairness and its heeding is worthy of respect, but it would help if you had a suggestion for afterward.
What do we do when there is no dialog, when anything critical of Jews of any description is so dangerously explosive it never gets made?
The debate isn’t so much whether criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, that’s an internal debate, the real debate is whether accusations of anti-Semitism are being used to stifle any criticism whatsoever, and to hide the truth.
q 07.25.04 at 2:40 am
If one man goes to the synagogue and kills the Jews he finds there, and another man criticises something, if we call them both anti-semites it trivialises mass murder and poisons political debate at the same time.
So when a man calls Tariq Ramadan an anti-semite, what does he mean? Is Tariq Ramadan a mass-murderer or a politician? Mass-murder is a crime. Politics is often a mucky business but not normally(?) criminal.
I thought Tariq Ramadan’s comments themselves about the cultural integration of Islam and European Cultures were interesting. More interesting than a banal hair-splitting exercise on the definition of the abused word anti-semite.
Of course the European model of cultural toleration and integration favours neither the religiousist states of Saudi Arabia nor that of Israel, and holds out little hope for extremists be they Jewish, Muslim or even Christian.
This appears to be one of the issues Tariq Ramadan is wrestling with from an Islamic point of view, which is especially potent since the Koran is read in the “original” language and represents not a gospel, but the actual word of God.
q 07.25.04 at 2:51 am
One passage that did puzzle me was this: _The main problem for Muslims now is that their practices are more visible than those of Christians or Jews. Take the month of Ramadan: if we were to meet in October or November, it would not be possible for me to sit with you here. It is visible that I am practising my religion._
Why?
Kyle 07.25.04 at 5:58 am
What do we do when there is no dialog, when anything critical of Jews of any description is so dangerously explosive it never gets made? The debate isn’t so much whether criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, that’s an internal debate, the real debate is whether accusations of anti-Semitism are being used to stifle any criticism whatsoever, and to hide the truth.
What planet have you been living on? On my planet, over the past few years, the streets, the airwaves, the press and the Internet (not to mention the UN and its organs) has been filled with nothing but criticism of Israel. Out of all proportion to… (fill in the rest of the sentence yourself). No other country on Earth is subject to such ceaseless vituperation (forget about “dialog”!). But when someone points out that this constant drumbeat of anti-Israel comment has spilled over into physical violence they are accused of trying to “stifle criticism”. Oh yeah, where? On CT? Maybe at the UN (how many General Assembly resolutions have the Sudan or Chechnya or Kosovo generated; how many have targeted Israel)? And what “truth” is being hidden?
Dave 07.25.04 at 7:08 am
Ramadan has a lot of good things to say. I don’t see any anti-semetism (or anti-Judaism, if you want to make the contrast) in these particular comments.
Also, I think Kyle makes a good point. One can see the amount of criticism directed towards Israel, the blame placed on world Jewry for supporting Israel (even when that support is highly conditional), and the lack of similar criticism of other – in many cases far more horrible – regimes… One has to wonder why it is that Israel takes an inordinate amount of heat, and why it is resulting in often violent anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe.
One more thing – I take strong issue with the following statement by q:
Of course the European model of cultural toleration and integration favours neither the religiousist states of Saudi Arabia nor that of Israel
To even put Saudi Arabia and Israel in the same sentence is just dishonest. Israel is a “religionist” state in the same way that, say, France is a secular one. The laws may be oppressive, and certain minorities (in both cases, Mulsims) are treated as second-class citizens, but at the fundamental level both are democratic states with near-universal sufferage.
The only difference is that Israel is currently occupying foreign land along its borders, while France is not. Israel’s human rights issues flow from this occupation, not from the sort of undemocratic, intolerant, theocratic/autocratic rule you see in Saudi Arabia.
Dave 07.25.04 at 7:16 am
This appears to be one of the issues Tariq Ramadan is wrestling with from an Islamic point of view, which is especially potent since the Koran is read in the “original†language and represents not a gospel, but the actual word of God.
I’m not sure anyone but Muslims make the distinction between gospel and “actual word”.
That said, if he wanted to read it in the original language (as I think you have alluded to with your quotes), he’d have to study ancient Syro-Aramaic. From what I hear, it’s a very different read than the standard, modern Arabic.
Anna in Cairo 07.25.04 at 8:11 am
The Quran is in classical Arabic, which is VERY similar to modern written standard Arabic, not “Syro-Aramaic”. Or are you referring to the Bible?
abb1 07.25.04 at 2:06 pm
Jonathan,
I don’t think “debate over whether criticism of Israel is anti-semitic” misses the point. Mr. Glucksmann says:
He is accusing left of anti-Semitism. Let’s assume for a second that he is correct about the Palestinian replacing the proletarian as an emblematic figure and that delegitimisation of Israel is grossly unfair – but why does Glucksmann call this “anti-Semitism”? This is a state we are talking about, it has nothing to do with any ethnic group.
Now, I know that Israeli leaders and their supporters have been working hard trying to equate the state of Israel with Jewish ethnicity, but I don’t think anyone outside two groups – philo-semites and anti-semites – is buying this concept.
When I hear even the most unfair and ridiculous criticism of France (the state) I still don’t perceive it as a form of racism, as “anti-gallism”. It’s only when I hear a Fox News commentator talking about John Kerry looking French I’m getting this feeling.
So, why not use some other word to label the phenomenon Glucksmann is describing? Well, simple and obvious answer is: he wants to avoid responding to criticism and, instead, trying to delegitimize the critics.
Kyle,
But after the UN charter came into force on October 24, 1945, no other state on earth has been doing what the Israeli government has been doing for as long as they have been doing it.
Quite simply: in the eyes of most people the state of Israel is the worst offender on earth. Isn’t it a good reason for ceaseless vituperation?
PT 07.25.04 at 2:57 pm
the state of Israel is the worst offender on earth. Isn’t it a good reason for ceaseless vituperation?
Hmm, since 1945, eh? So, compared to Israel, all other countries are also-rans? Let’s what paragons of democracy and human rights Israel has relegated to the second division (just off the top of my head): China (for its subjugation of Tibet, for the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, for Tiannamen Square, for the thousands executed in public stadia, etc.), Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo, Yugoslavia, Colombia, Iran, Argentina, Libya, Myammar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Nigera, Indonesia, Iraq (particularly under Saddam), Afghanistan (especially under the Taliban), Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Egypt, USSR/Russia (a wide choice here; Chechnya being just the latest)…
Hmm, quite a list (and I’m sure I missed many)! All “races” represented, all political tendencies. Christians of all varieties. Muslims of all stripes. Hindus, Buddhists, atheists… Just one group missing from this list. Yup, they’re the worst! Only “since 1945”, of course. They were a lot better-behaved before that…
Steve Carr 07.25.04 at 3:08 pm
Of all the stupid comments that have been made in CT threads, this:
“Quite simply: in the eyes of most people the state of Israel is the worst offender on earth. Isn’t it a good reason for ceaseless vituperation?”
has to be the most stupid.
John Isbell 07.25.04 at 3:16 pm
I’d like to hear someone defend Levy’s comment about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Justify his comparison. Failing that, I’ll conclude that it is indeed cheap and demagogic in your minds and folks prefer easier targets to their criticism (a perfectly understandable urge).
Mind you, he does have nice hair.
PT 07.25.04 at 3:34 pm
Of all the stupid comments that have been made in CT threads, this:
“Quite simply: in the eyes of most people the state of Israel is the worst offender on earth. Isn’t it a good reason for ceaseless vituperation?â€
has to be the most stupid.
“Stupid”, Steve? I would use a less-charitable word. But I suppose we should be grateful to the poster for having spelled out his (and his ilk’s) position so plainly. Otherwise we would have been accused of putting false words into his mouth.
Dave 07.25.04 at 4:45 pm
The Quran is in classical Arabic, which is VERY similar to modern written standard Arabic, not “Syro-Aramaicâ€. Or are you referring to the Bible?
Some recent research indicates that the text may have been originally composed in a dialect of Arabic that had strong influences from Syro-Aramaic, which is very similar (but not identical to) Classical Arabic. It was transmitted by mouth or on paper without diacritic marks for several centuries until it was finally written down – in Classical Arabic. In other words, many phrases and words were unwittingly transliterated rather than translated. Therefore, there are many sentences that are ungrammatical or words which are confusing in their meaning when read in Arabic. However, when read in Syro-Aramaic, the passages are more consistent, though they sometimes have shockingly different meanings.
Two examples – the passage normally interpreted as requiring women to cover their heads with scarves instead reads that they should keep their belts firmly fastened around their waists. The vision of Paradise, instead of promising ripe virgins, promises a much more Old-Testament reward of a land flowing with milk and honey (and ripe fruit).
Of course, such research is frowned upon (read: can get you killed) in the Arab world, so there hasn’t been a whole lot of it. What has come out, however, has been quite promising in helping us to better understand Muhammed, his era, and the origins of Islam.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3860932748/qid=1090769708/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0100182-4911234?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.secularislam.org/books/luxenberg.htm
http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2003/21/Koran (in German)
abb1 07.25.04 at 5:07 pm
pt,
how do you compare Chechnya – an internal conflict between the federal authority and a breakaway republic – with 35+ years of military occupation and forceful colonization of the WB and Gaza, inflaming and destabilizing whole Middle East for decades? You’ve got to be kidding. And yes – after 1945 – when the old colonial system crashed and was renounced.
I know – I won’t change your mind, but it’s a fact that a large majority of the world views Israel as the worst (well, these days it may be just ‘one of the worst’) and unrelenting offender. Your opinion is a tiny minority opinion. Instead of foaming at the mouth you should take a clue and try to re-examine it.
Cheers.
Ohad 07.25.04 at 6:07 pm
We Israelis really don’t get why there seem to be a fair number of Europeans who say stuff like ” in the eyes of most people the state of Israel is the worst offender on earth. Isn’t it a good reason for ceaseless vituperation” (above).
Moreover, we don’t get why people who think this never make any real attempt to engage Israelis in discussion or attempt mutual understanding – given that they find it easy to “understand” and make excuses for all kinds of other vile behaviour.
But I’m open to hearing why for eg. I should think that the ICJ is an unbiased body applying international law fairly, or that the security barrier’s “grabbing” a small percentage of the West Bank is the most egregious crime against humanity happening currently.
But usually the people who say this stuff are only interested in cocooning with their friends who already agree with them. Cynics think that they just like to masturbate with their sense of moral superiority.
abb1 07.25.04 at 6:20 pm
Ohad,
‘You Israelis’ don’t need to go to Europe to hear this “stuff”. You could easily find plenty of stuff at home without breaking sweat.
Since you mentioned the security barrier, may I suggest: GUSH SHALOM, there is a lot of good stuff there.
So, why don’t you try to “attempt mutual understanding” with your fellow Israelis first? It’s got to be easier.
peter ramus 07.25.04 at 6:22 pm
It’s just too religious, that’s all. Too funny to pass up, is another way of putting it. I mean – one can think of other reasons God is silent, after all.
But put it down to Islamophobia if it makes you happy.
— ophelia benson at July 24, 10:46 pm
Forgive me. I too succumbed to the temptation to couch my comment in a way that was too funny to pass up.
If your irreligious impulse is lent out equally to all faiths, that’s fine by me. Even if you’ve developed a gradient of queasiness by which you chose to rank the competing dogmas and practices of all the religions you’ve come in contact with, I’ve got you beat five ways to Sunday when it comes to irreligion.
Dos that make us Islamophobic? Sure, in some weak yet non–trivial way I suppose it does. We don’t, after all, believe, do we? — which, as these things are measured, is the irreducible test of “phobia.”
Yet there’s always the off chance that some devout someone or other may say something that makes promising sense even from within their own belief system. To my mind at least, Mr. Ramadan’s sentiments, in the context of the interview linked to above, expressed in words we will agree are too religious, can be taken this way, if you chose. Or, not, should you have some as yet undisclosed reason for contending with them.
Yours in Islamophobia . . .
Ophelia Benson 07.25.04 at 6:38 pm
“If your irreligious impulse is lent out equally to all faiths, that’s fine by me.”
It is.
My comment was not remotely Islam-specific. It was addressed purely to the rather obvious overlooking of other explanations for God’s silence, which is the kind of overlooking any theist is liable to. In short it was a tease of theism and special pleading, not of any particular brand of theism. They all do it.
seth edenbaum 07.25.04 at 7:11 pm
I’ve said this before: If Germany had simply annexed half of Poland 60 years ago, in search of what Larry Storch would call “a little lebensraum,” and if they were still an occupying power, we wouldn’t spend much time arguing over the implications of anti German sentiment in Eastern Europe or the rest of the planet. Beyond what point do we owe the victims of a crime our sympathy: beyond the point where they become criminals themselves? That can be said to apply to everyone at some point, but right now there is no equivalence.
And to Ophelia Benson (again):
We communicate by stories not by facts. There are those who want to label their stories true and others’ false; some people are a bit literal, but that’s the risk we take. We cannot in fairness legislate against the workings of unsubtle minds. Others are not interested in stories but in facts, and that’s all well and good, though it limits their ability to communicate. But in defense of their interests, and to help spread the word, these people have no choice but to tell stories about facts, and some of them begin to refer to facts as truths, giving them the weight of a metaphysical argument.
There are stories, and there are facts, and it takes one to communicate anything of value about the other. I know the ambiguity makes you nervous, but there’s nothing either of us can do about it. What makes me nervous is your argument for truth, which attempts to combine the vulgar literalism of the Taliban with the rigor of a scientific logic. But numbers cannot be made to replace words. You’re making a religious argument against religion, and it doesn’t work. And since you are opposed storytelling as a value in itself, there’s not much else to enjoy (or learn from.)
mc 07.25.04 at 8:04 pm
q – on the passage that puzzled you, I guess they were probably sitting in a cafe while having the interview, maybe drinking tea or something. Or maybe the fact the interviewer was a woman, though I’m not sure what kind of fasting rule that refers to. I’d go for the tea explanation.
Now, at the risk of sounding a bit too superficial and inadequate for this ponderous debate, I’d like to contribute an alternative reading of Tariq Ramadan’s spat with André Glucksmann & co. I mean, you’ve just got to be blind not to see what really annoyed those grey, dusty, boring French intellectuals that found such terrible faults with his charismatic persona. A university professor enjoying such popularity among the young and hip, that’s something that for Gluckmann’s generation is now only a very distant memory. You know how the French mythologise ’68. They just wish. So, is this really about antisemitism, or sheer envy? as always, the evidence never lies: Tariq vs. André. You be the judge.
Simple answers to complex questions, people…
mc 07.25.04 at 8:10 pm
Also, everybody, the whole debate is so 2001. Since 2002, the new anti-semitism is called anti-americanism. Try and keep up at least! Especially if you’re planning on writing books about it. I wouldn’t bet my money on yet another essay about views on Israel. America is where it’s at.
Ophelia Benson 07.25.04 at 11:04 pm
Oh, yawn, Seth Edenbaum. Give it up. You’ve been whining at me (only intermittently of course) in this vein for months now. The ambiguity doesn’t make me ‘nervous’. If you want to argue with people, argue, don’t impute motives, especially not to people you wouldn’t know if they bumped into you on the street. I’m not trying to replace words with numbers. (It really looks as if I am, too! I wonder how many words there are on B&W – quite a few, I should think.) No I’m not making a ‘religious’ argument – that’s just rhetoric. And I’m not opposed to story-telling! That’s just ludicrous.
Yeah I get that you intensely dislike rational argument. But that kind of handicaps you when you try to argue yourself. You just pour out a lot of irrelevant nonsense. So, yawn.
John Isbell 07.25.04 at 11:51 pm
I am delighted that no-one is defending Levy’s Elders of Zion comment. It strikes me as indefensible.
Jim 07.26.04 at 3:40 am
Some of us might have ventured a reply to Seth, Ophelia, had we been able to decipher what he was trying to say. Oops, I hope that won’t generate an (equally nonsensical) “explanation”!
Gilles 07.26.04 at 4:06 am
Don’t flatter yourself, John; your “challenge” was simply not worth a response. Perhaps your French is too rudimentary. I’ve read Tariq Ramadan (the article in question along with several others, not to mention seeing him on tv and hearing him in person – at a meeting for Muslims: my wife is Tunisian). Lévy’s critique strikes the right note in my opinion. Ramadan is a dangerous demagogue, a very slick propagandist for Islamism.
John Isbell 07.26.04 at 4:13 am
Gilles, I speak fluent French. You can look up my publications in French. Perhaps you should restrict your urges to data-free speculation. I note you have done nothing whatever to justify Levy’s remark, despite your tone. I await that justification with curiosity.
Gilles 07.26.04 at 4:28 am
Neither my comments, nor, to be sure, those of B-H Lévy, need your approval. Other CT-ers can judge for themselves.
mc 07.26.04 at 11:17 am
gilles – “Ramadan is a dangerous demagogue, a very slick propagandist for Islamism.”
That’s a pretty easy definition to attach, especially if you don’t explain why you pick those terms. Dangerous, or influential? Demagogue, or public figure? Slick, or charismatic? Propagandist, or popular? Islamism, or Islam?
Let’s take Bernard Henry-Levy, is he not a demagogue and a propagandist for… himself? I’ve seen him on tv quite a lot, he’s such a celebrity, I was disappointed not to see him on Big Brother. Here comes Henry-Levy, make room, ooh, aah, he’s so full of himself it’s not even funny. He’s got a bit of a temper too, now I’m being too dismissive maybe but this is just my own view, I’m not too keen to pay much attention to anyone who has to get into shouting matches with his opponents in a debate on a talk show. I’d watch Jerry Springer for that. He recycles other people’s ideas and pretends they’re his own. He loves polemics and publicity above anything else, but only if it’s him doing it. Am I being unfair? maybe, I simply don’t like the guy and think he is a pompous jerk, and indeed that “protocol of Zion” comparison just goes to show how cheap his arguments can be.
I dislike Glucksmann equally, and I’ve heard him speak a lot and read some of his stuff enough to form an impression. He is so irritatingly pretentious. On the war in Iraq, he was all patting himself on the back for taking a pro-war position and oh, the difficulty of doing it in France, how painful for the isolated intellectual – nevermind there’s a whole bunch of those types all over Europe that write books and columns lamenting how isolated they are and then you see them everywhere… Pushing the most demagogic arguments that even Tony Blair would be ashamed of making. Almost. Every time it was back to the selfishness of the anti-war parties, why didn’t they want to see Iraq liberated and the Middle East reformed, cos that’s what Bush and Blair were really about, you know, and the plebs in Europe just didn’t get it cos they’re not as clever or sensitive to the plight of oppressed people, plus, they’re all anti-americans and antisemitic, of course. He was speaking as if the entirety of America and Israel shared his own positions, and that legitimised his views.
Now I have no clue about Tariq Ramadan because all I heard so far was indeed that he was a ‘slick propagandist for Islamism’, a front for radical Islam masquerading as European intellectual, flirting dangerously with the anti-globalisation groups, a sexist and an antisemite and a fundamentalist.
Maybe some of that is true. I don’t know. I don’t think I can form an opinion easily with all those definitions floating around. I would like to read more, but I’m being told it’s better not to, because he is dangerous and deceptive. Ok. And antisemitic. Because such respectable, honest, dignified figures such as Glucksmann and BHL say so. Hmm…
Did he or didn’t he have a point about those intellectuals who defended the war in Iraq in those terms? Of course, he went asking for it, he very skilfully fished for the antisemitic label by anticipating it in his own statement, and by focusing on those pro-war Jewish French intellectuals – but on the other hand it so happens they were precisely among the intellectuals most prominently taking that position he criticised. (And not only in France.) And indeed they labelled as antisemitic entire parts of the opposition to war. Or even Europe at large. Or anyone disagreeing with the Israeli government position. (Do people have such short memories?) And indeed, when it got at that point, they were speaking as if they were the only representatives of both Israel as a whole and all the Jews in the world.
And how does Henry-Levy responds – he obviously goes for the labelling, followed by a call on the anti-globalisation parties to distance themselves from that which has been labelled. Thereby giving yet more proof of that extremely ideologic use of that label. He is making Ramadan’s case for him – I’m a Jewish intellectual, I know antisemitism when I see it, in fact, I have the licence to define it as I please, and no one can accuse me of using my Jewish identity as a self-explanatory basis to support my political arguments, or they’re antisemites. How clever. But when someone uses the “Islamophobic” label just as easily and cheaply, then they’re the first to point that out.
The same thing Tariq Ramadan said could have been said by another intellectual who happened to be Jewish and happened not to agree with Glucksmann or Henry-Levy’s positions. What an odd unlikely thing for them to consider. It’d have been interesting to see what kind of label they’d have resorted to in that case.
mc 07.26.04 at 11:49 am
Here’s Mr Glucksmann lecturing the Spanish on respect for political leaders who, you know, are only human, can make mistakes, shouldn’t we be a bit more patient with them:
And here’s a remarkably rational explanation of how democratic decisions and elections work:
Either follow Bush and Blair and Aznar, or the terrorists have won! Prepare for apocalypse!
This is what passes for political discussion in Glucksmann’s world. He definitely has some authority to speak of the dangerous appeal of extremist ideologies.
mc 07.26.04 at 11:51 am
(here’s the link)
seth edenbaum 07.26.04 at 12:42 pm
“Yeah I get that you intensely dislike rational argument. But that kind of handicaps you when you try to argue yourself. You just pour out a lot of irrelevant nonsense. So, yawn.”
No Ophelia, I’m just sick of your condescending tone. Spend a day in a courtroom then come back to me with your silliness.
Gilles 07.26.04 at 4:19 pm
That’s a pretty easy definition to attach, especially if you don’t explain why you pick those terms. Dangerous, or influential? Demagogue, or public figure? Slick, or charismatic? Propagandist, or popular? Islamism, or Islam?
I just checked my dictionary; all the words I used were there. If yours doesn’t have them, get a better one.
mc 07.26.04 at 4:42 pm
Oh, right, I see, it’s a matter of dictionaries now…
It is easy to provide labels, a bit more difficult to try more reasoned commentary – like this, or this, for instance. Doesn’t seem too hard to get beyond polemics, if one wants to.
But thank god we got those respected and renowned intellectuals to clear up things for us, so we don’t have to bother reading anything more complicated than an insult.
John Isbell 07.26.04 at 5:45 pm
Quite true, gilles, CT readers can and will decide what they think of your character and logic, and what they think of mine. BH-L’s comment I’m sure has also been judged one way or another by readers, since readers do that.
Les lecteurs font cela.
Gilles 07.26.04 at 5:46 pm
MC, I have first-hand experience with Ramadan. My words stand. I have no intention of changing my description to fit your by-the-numbers portrait of the French intellectual landscape.
My end of this tiresome thread is hereby cut.
Ophelia Benson 07.26.04 at 6:27 pm
“No Ophelia, I’m just sick of your condescending tone. Spend a day in a courtroom then come back to me with your silliness.”
Come back to you? Back? To you? Err – there seems to be some confusion here, Mr Edenbaum. This ain’t your site. I wasn’t talking to you. I don’t comment on CT in order to ‘come back’ to you. I don’t even comment on CT in order to tell people what I think of their tone. Imagine that.
PT 07.26.04 at 7:16 pm
Gilles’ “by-the-numbers” quip inspired me to draft, for lazy readers, this simple, 5-point resume of the neo-left position in the current thread (as derived from comments by MSG, Abb1, MC, J. Isbell and Q… did I miss anyone; did I include anyone I shouldn’t have?):
1. The only good Jewish intellectuals are those who were against the war in Iraq and are patently anti-Zionist. 2. They must demonstrate their usefulness by renewing their anti-Zionist credentials regularly. 3. They must never use the word anti-semitism except to accuse others (especially other Jews) of conscripting it to “stifle criticism” of Israel. 4. They must welcome “moderate” Islamists on multicultural and anti-globalization grounds. 5. Any deviation from these rules is just cause for immediate dismissal and blog-attack.
Cut out and save this guide for other threads on Israel, Jews and anti-semitism.
mc 07.26.04 at 7:23 pm
gilles… no one was asking you to change your description or opinions. Just like I won’t change mine on BHL or Glucksmann. I didn’t think that needed spelling out.
No one here is saying Tariq Ramadan is uncriticisable, either. (Department for repetition of the obvious). For a start, I myself don’t have much in common with the views of anyone giving religion such political importance. However, thankfully for the sake of variety, people don’t have to completely agree with someone to find their views worthy of interest and debate. So, even if I may have a completely different point of view to start with, _I just might be interested in what they actually say_; and secondly, in what others think of it, possibly in more reasoned terms than egocentric polemics or cheap non-motivated tags that are meant to pre-empt any debate.
It is striking that even in these 54 comments here there’s very little commentary on the views expressed in the interview being linked. The whole discussion on TR, at large, has been by now defined by the antisemitism charge. _That_ is the tiresome thing.
mc 07.26.04 at 7:44 pm
pt, you’ve just given a perfect illustration of the point about pre-empting debate.
I’ll try and put it concisely for you: no, I don’t discard the views of anyone who was pro-war, it’s the arguments they use that I can find more or less irritating and invalid. I would still find BHL or Glucksmann pompous demagogic jerks if they used the same cheap OTT rhetorics to argue the opposite positions. I don’t care about that kind of ‘intellectualising’, whatever its nationality, religion, ethnic group, and hair colour. My likes or dislikes are motivated by what people actually say and how they choose to present themselves and their arguments.
But if you got any more straw men, go ahead. There really is need for more…
mc 07.26.04 at 7:53 pm
And what’s the “neo-left” anyway. And who said anything about Zionism.
And what was Seth Edenbaum on about with that courtroom remark. And what’s his problem with Ophelia?
Weird…
seth edenbaum 07.27.04 at 12:24 am
OBe,
Your tone was mocking. It was not directed at me, but still, I replied in kind.
I’m an athiest, but I don’t mock the faithful. If anything I try to let them be. And my reference to a courtroom was simple. The decision in the OJ Simpson case was arguably absurd, as many others have been. But our justice system works in a way that such absurdity is allowed to exist. We don’t throw out verdicts that we all ‘know’ are silly. Ask a law professor why thisis so.
Similarly I don’t spend all my time yelling at the faithful. I may think faith is silly, but I understand that there are grey areas that others may read into and see significance where I see none. Some people think Bernard Henry-Levy is NOT a pompous ass. How is this possible? Mon Dieu! I have no idea. I think such people are absolutely irrational. FOOLS! I’ll argue with them as I do with you, until I have to give up.
My dentist crosses himself every time he starts drilling one of my rotten teeth. I asked him why. “Just to remind myself that there’s something greater than me.”
“I’m an athiest” I said. “But I thiink of history for the same reason.”
He nodded and laughed.
We all live in glass houses. I only throw rocks at those who think they’re the exception.
And I’ve got a great dentist.
John Isbell 07.27.04 at 1:13 am
pt, you have no idea what my relation to Judaism is. Let me/us know when you find out.
PT 07.27.04 at 2:18 am
John,
I’m an Irish atheist myself (there are some) and have no interest in your religious beliefs. Except, possibly, to think even less of you than your comments above might merit. Pace Gilles, my words stand.
abb1 07.27.04 at 8:07 am
pt,
…my words stand…
They sure do, my friend – as an example of the same kind of ugly demagoguery you were trying to defend here.
Cheers.
mc 07.27.04 at 9:28 am
Atheists, dentists, glass houses, rocks, OJ Simpson, yes, it’s all a lot clearer now! The relevance of OJ’s trial especially. Very.
And I thought Ophelia was only pointing out the irony in attributing to God’s silence something that is very much obviously up to men. The convenience for someone like Tariq Ramadan of using that excuse to abdicate responsibility for change, even as he seems to be wanting change… If that’s “mocking the faithful”… well if an atheist says so, guess it must be so.
We really be shouldn’t having any opinions at all, because there’ll always be someone having a different one, and they may be offended. Or speak for the potential offended. Or something.
Another Chris 07.27.04 at 2:26 pm
Abb1,
You’ve done the discourse on Israel and anti-semitism a great service. This thread will soon disappear as the tide of new posts rises on Crooked Timber. But your comments above will never wash away; they will remain a milestone of stupidity, the very definition of a special sort of bigotry. Whenever people want an example, they will surely be pointed to you.
John Isbell 07.27.04 at 4:03 pm
pt, I wish you well in your adventures with logic and the English language. Not to mention hatred. I advise you to work on letting it go, and that is friendly advice.
Ophelia Benson 07.27.04 at 5:57 pm
“We really be shouldn’t having any opinions at all, because there’ll always be someone having a different one, and they may be offended. Or speak for the potential offended. Or something.”
Just so, MC. An argument I seem to spend all my time making, these days.
“And I thought Ophelia was only pointing out the irony in attributing to God’s silence something that is very much obviously up to men.”
Yup – that’s what I was pointing out all right!
Etheldreda 07.27.04 at 8:15 pm
trudiynwez zlaeoauafte.
seth edenbaum 07.27.04 at 11:59 pm
Lawyers express opinions all the time. That’s what they’re paid for. Or rather, they’re paid to have the opinions of their clients. And we call it “The Justice System.” There’s been a lot written about this…
Rilly! And it’s all about, like, logic, and stuff [?]
I’m thinking of starting a new school of legal theory. I’ll think call it “Law and Anthropology.”
I’ll have to ask Brian Leiter what he thinks.
seth edenbaum 07.28.04 at 12:03 am
“I’ll think call it”
Yeah, well…
abb1 07.28.04 at 10:44 am
Another Chris,
could you elaborate, please.
I see my comments and I see your claims about them being “a milestone of stupidity” and “a special sort of bigotry”, but there is nothing in the middle.
There must be something going on between your ears that leads you to your conclusions. If it’s anything like a cerebral process, then you should be able to express it in words. Why don’t you? Please do. Otherwise I take it as a knee-jerk emotional response, which is fine too, but I am not a psychiatrist.
Thanks.
peter ramus 07.28.04 at 8:19 pm
Ah! A dead horse, and my very own stick!
My objectively churlish attempt to engage one poster in a slightly more substantive evaluation of Mr. Ramadan’s remarks than the equivalent of, “Tee–hee, he said “sacred!” met with no success.
Naturally, no one is obliged to answer my direct questions, or even to have an opinion on the matters I raise one way or another, or believe, even in the event they have such an opinion, that I of all people deserve a reply. Asking twice, and being met with silence on the subject, I let the matter drop.
I was explicitly encouraged to use the term “Islamophobia” if that made me happy, but the only path to happiness I could see in using that term at all was to share equally in whatever limited meaning it may have in describing a mutual unbelief.
For a start, I myself don’t have much in common with the views of anyone giving religion such political importance. However, thankfully for the sake of variety, people don’t have to completely agree with someone to find their views worthy of interest and debate. So, even if I may have a completely different point of view to start with, I just might be interested in what they actually say; and secondly, in what others think of it, possibly in more reasoned terms than egocentric polemics or cheap non-motivated tags that are meant to pre-empt any debate.
Had I mc’s way with words, I would have said just that. Unfortunately, all I could come up with was this:
Yet there’s always the off chance that some devout someone or other may say something that makes promising sense even from within their own belief system. To my mind at least, Mr. Ramadan’s sentiments, in the context of the interview linked to above, expressed in words we will agree are too religious, can be taken this way, if you chose. Or, not, should you have some as yet undisclosed reason for contending with them.
mc remarks further on:
The convenience for someone like Tariq Ramadan of using that excuse to abdicate responsibility for change, even as he seems to be wanting change…
Ah, obviously I read Mr. Ramadan’s remarks very differently, seeing them as an overtly Islamic formulation of a desire to slipp past the mind-set that insists inquiry is foreclosed, that all questions are answered and duly written in the Book (which Book in the past was the famous Bible, and which the deists sidestepped with appeals to exactly the sort of silence Mr. Ramadan proposes). Not so much a laughing matter to my mind, even for one who abjures Mr Ramadan’s faith, however politely, but rather a matter of greatest moment in the development of a liveable modern Islam. Put it down to my deficient humors. I’m a crabby kind of guy.
And, I’ve accused myself of Islamophobia in public, too!
(The horse is unmoved)
mc 07.29.04 at 8:53 am
Peter Ramus: Ah, obviously I read Mr. Ramadan’s remarks very differently, seeing them as an overtly Islamic formulation of a desire to slipp past the mind-set that insists inquiry is foreclosed, that all questions are answered and duly written in the Book (which Book in the past was the famous Bible, and which the deists sidestepped with appeals to exactly the sort of silence Mr. Ramadan proposes)
Ok, if you put it like that, yes, of course, saying “God is silent” is a lot better than saying “God is speaking to me”, “God wants me to tell you that it’s so and so”, and “God’s word is not to be discussed”. Absolutely better. :)
But, see, Tariq Ramadan is not an imam or mullah, he’s not a fundamentalist preacher, he is discussing his religion, he is overtly inclined to reviewing traditions, so it is taken for granted he wouldn’t be saying there’s no room for discussion.
I didn’t think Ophelia was mocking anything. Pointing out the irony, yes, but I didn’t read her comment as derisive at all. I think she picked up a very interesting ambiguity.
Tariq Ramadan is going on about political and social factors and attitudes and mentalities, he is very aware of how those factors act, and then on the very thorniest point of how they interact with religious traditions, he passes the ball to God…
It’s a very elegant, very poetic notion, this idea of God sitting in silence on a metaphysical fence while men fight each other mercilessly over what God really means, but it also sounds like a bit of a cop out.
And, _even from a religious point of view_, it does sound like a cruel idea of God, indifferent and aloof, not interested in how people get to massacre each other in his name… what ever happened to “in the name of the merciful and compassionate Allah?” If that’s the God of the Q’ran, how can people assume he’d be silent? Isn’t that projecting human failures on God?
Then again, maybe it is indeed wiser to refer to a divine silence than to join the fight over meaning and authority, except… Ramadan too is already acting within that fight himself. He does talk of re-reading sources, texts and contexts. And he does know there are a lot of entirely human reasons why in the past 15 years that confrontation between “new” and “tradition” hasn’t really produced much. So, the concept that it could be up to something yet to be “revealed” by God who is currently silent sounds contradictory with the rest of his views. Re-reading vs. revelation, which is it? How can they be combined?
Are you sure that he’s talking of the kind of silence that can lead to challenges? Or is it the silence that can be used as an excuse to avoid them?
Is the challenge just about who gets to interpret God’s word with more authority, or about who between God and men should come up with decisions (“revelations”) on matters of human, social, political behaviour? Or both?
I don’t think such a position is easy at all, of course. Someone like Ramadan is in the middle of a much bigger contradiction, he is speaking to and from two very different worldviews, and that can be a very good thing. So maybe we shouln’t be nitpicking on one phrase or reading too much into it. But there just is a very acute irony in it, and I don’t think it’s disrespectful of any religious views to point it out.
mc 07.29.04 at 9:13 am
In other words, Peter, I think you’ve got a very fair point there, but I also think you’re stretching it a bit in seeing a parallel with the deists approach. I don’t think Ramadan is positing a deist rewriting of Islam just because he’s speaking of God’s silence!
It’s an entirely different context.
peter ramus 07.29.04 at 7:28 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful response, mc.
Mind you, my knowledge of Mr. Ramadan coincides exactly with a one page interview posted on the internet.
And, given that he is devout, there will always be in my mind at least an intractable difficulty on his part, or on the part of anyone speaking from within their chosen tradition, in squaring the truth-claims of their faith with the sad facts of history. “Re-reading or revelation, which is it?” you ask, regarding his intellectual journey. I honestly don’t know how those guys do it myself.
Nevertheless, in proposing that his God is silent in this or that important respect, Mr. Ramadan seems to me to be doing exactly what you wish: turning questions over to the efforts of humans to come to an understanding using their own powers rather than appealing to a tradition which more or less resolutely forestalls such inquiry by an insistence on the universal applicability of what’s been previously written.
Being devout, Mr. Ramadan’s argument here is directed at those in his own faith, and it seems unsurprising to me that he would need to make clever use of traditions and texts to bolster such a claim.
I didn’t mean to suggest by my analogy that the goal of Mr. Ramadan’s program was to arrive at the Enlightenment by an Islamic route, but only to point to a very similar tactic employed then in the Christian tradition, appealing to God’s silence, although perhaps the humanists would have been a more apposite example. I don’t pretend to know where Mr. Ramadan is going with this at all. That would require an immersion in the vast seas of Islamic commentary that I’m not prepared to undertake for reasons of, eh, . . . how does “intransigent reluctance” strike you? Better?
Briefly, on irony: when I read that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, the tremendous negotiation between the encompassing Christian tradition and what would make for a more perfect union that went into that phrasing barely registers (on a good day). I do appreciate the consequences a great deal, since they certainly suit my own purposes, but the irony of the situation is directed at me, I think, rather than the writer of the famous words.
seth edenbaum 07.30.04 at 1:19 pm
Thank you, M. Ramus.
Comments on this entry are closed.