Islamophobic Boobs

A Calm Voice? Perhaps the view of what Muslim women spoke out for tells more than the words themselves say.

All Out Fuckery

The Arab Spring of 2010 seemed a major blow to Islamic fundamentalism to many of us who lacked an understanding of the nature of the dictatorships under which they lived.  Unable to install our own puppet governments in those countries, the U.S. was disheartened to see Islamists take over in countries like Tunisia and Egypt; both of which lived under more or less secular dictatorships.  While it would have been tremendously unwise to identify as an atheist or Jew in those countries, Christians were welcome(though marginalized) and women had a voice.  Women have become increasingly silenced since the new democratically elected governments have taken over.  The real democratic nature of said takeover isn’t really clear at this time.

Flying in the face of the new Islamist regime, Amina Tyler posted pictures of herself topless on Facebook with slogans like, “Fuck your morals,” and, “My body belongs to me and is…

View original post 1,182 more words

  1. I am disappointed in the quality of the linked post and I think it shows a basic misunderstanding many people have about why islam is such a threat to those of us in the West who would like to be seen as tolerant and reasonable people and so make pathetic excuses based on a misunderstanding of what values we hold that have allowed us to create civilized societies that work.

    For example, the Arab Spring was always doomed to failure not because it was an uprising against the strictness of islamic law and fundamentalists but because it wasn’t. It was a failure because it called for democracy without its essential ingredient, namely, individual autonomy in law as the basis for legitimate authority. What this means is that without recognized rights and freedoms FOR the individual, government elected by majority rule is still a tyranny in the form of mob rule. And this is what resulted: governments elected by the mob to act in its name, governments that installed laws to respect the authority of islam over the individual. Not a single country in the Arab Spring has a majority of the population who is willing to place the individual as the legitimate authority above islam. A PEW survey showed about an 89% majority in the most ‘liberal’ of these countries – Egypt – supported official sanctioning of sharia. Individual autonomy in law was never in the cards, so all those stupid people rooting for the overthrow of local tyrants were part of the problem setting up foreign governments to become islamic states. People out demonstrating for secular rights were never going to hold power because the local populations were and remain too immature, naive, and pious to understand where successful and functioning democratic power here in the West lies: with each of us upheld by law and supported by the sworn oaths of the Armed Forces. What happened throughout the Arab Spring countries has zero to do with us trying to create puppet states or being ‘disheartened’ with seeing islamists come into power.after the local dictators were overthrown and everything to do with real politiks. Naive liberals in the West rarely can get their heads around how the real world operates and it shows with posts like these.

    Also, anyone who thinks that he or she is naturally smarter than Sam Harris has not read him with comprehension. The guy has a very big brain, so when we assume he’s made some silly mistake, it is wise to go back to the source and see if the mistake lies with us. It almost always does.

    Also the drive by smear of Dawkins is absolutely typical of religious apologists known as faithiests, the kind who are rightly famous for starting off their ill-conceived complaints with the , “I’m an atheist, but…” variety. It wasn’t Dawkins who started the Brights idea. It was Dennett, and he was looking for a term that didn’t contain the negativity associated with self-identifying as an atheist. It didn’t take. Whoopty do.

    The women who crave legal autonomy are never going to get it as long as they and a majority of their fellow believers continue to support islam. There simply is no liberalized middle ground for this to happen. What they will get form their neighbours and friends and family is the almost unanimous endorsement directly from the koran, namely, sharia. Secular values cannot compete. Not today, not anytime in the past several hundred years, and it’s crazy to think secular values will poof into existence sometime in the next few centuries within the framework of islam. Ain’t gunna happen. What we will see is the continued attack against secular values from muslim minorities throughout the world, and this will be most successful where its main defenders are misguided liberals here in the West thinking themselves tolerant by attacking those who attack islam. Stupid is as stupid does, and going after Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett and Hirsi Ali and Grayling and Stengor and Coyne and Penn and so on who dare to directly criticize islam for its anti-secular values and anti-human rights practices (how many women have much of a choice wearing a fricken body bag for crying out loud) is just as stupid as stupid can be.

    • Thanks for commenting. What a good comment too. I agree with you except for that part about Sam Harris. I’ve gone to some length to show that we do have free will and he is wrong. You might find it interesting, just search for free will – there is a four part series with part 5 coming up.

      I agree with you about the Arab Spring. I have a friend who is Coptic Christian. Religion ruins everything, and in saying that I specifically mean the big three monotheistic religions. Followers of my blog will know what I find no real harm in earnest belief or searching or even polytheism. The many good things that people claim of religion in defence of the big three are better found elsewhere and there are other belief systems which are not toxic to society and still offer these good things. Humanism is such a proposition, among others.

      I think your criticism of Islam is spot on.

      Thanks for the comment.

  2. I need to clarify that the Brights movement was founded by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert and popularized by Dennett on his book tour when he suggested that those who believed in a god or gods should be called supers. He did this after the release of his book Breaking the Spell in February of 2006. Dawkins, whose book The God Delusionwas published in October of the same year, also talked about needing a suitable replacement word for non believers (atheists, agnostics, humanists, free thinkers, etc.) in a Guardian article that was published a week earlier than Dennett’s article specifically about Brights in the NYTimes. These two together pushed hard to try to establish this word in the lexicon.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: