Archived blog post

The Secular Islam Summit

Posted by Ben on Thursday, March 08, 2007 | Permalink

This is excellent, and deserves much attention. Via B&W.

Comments [ hide comments ]
"Secualr Islam"

Oh do come on!

The word of the so-called "prophet" is the law, including all the horrible things that happen to unbelievers.

Before anyone is gullible enoughto fall for this greasy collection of soft soap, I suggest that they look here:

And at the main-page above it.

That should set the record stariaght.
G. Tingey, 21.03.2007, 9:20am #
Tingey, have you read the article I linked to? Have you heard of Ibn Warraq, read "Why I Am Not a Muslim"? Basically bothered to do anything that perhaps you should've before posting that typo-riddled speech?
Ben, 21.03.2007, 8:44pm #
Secular and moderate Islamists are the ones who need to stand up to fight radical and fundamentalist Islam.

All the crap the world is going through because of radical Islam is coming from the fight against Western secularism, globalization, westernization, and Americanization. (Insert 's' for 'z' for my across the pond friends.) A good article about this comes from Newsweek (pre-Gulf War II.) Actually, I recommend three articles --

By reading these three articles you can gain a better understanding why I said the above.
JGJ, 26.03.2007, 9:55pm #
No, no JGJ! As Tingey says, we've got to...what does he advise again?
Ben, 26.03.2007, 10:25pm #
I think he is asking us to become Muslims, but don't quote me. :/ Actually, I think he is lumping all of Islam into one great big pot, and concluding there can be no secularism within a religious society, especially a Muslim one. Certainly, there are those Islamists, such as those who follow Wahabbism, whose goal includes the fight against the spread of secular governments, but how does he explain that here in the U.S. there are over 6 million Muslims who live under a secular government without fighting it if all Muslims are completely anti-secularists.

Islam is going through a turbulent period; it is a period not unlike the events that led to the Catholic Reformation. Before the Reformation the Catholics, too, killed those who disagreed. They sought out those who were different and chose persecution over tolerance. Why do they do this? Is it from fear that if those who question their beliefs become loud enough they will be laughed at? No. It is actually simpler than the psyche of a collective. Reason, logic, and even common sense are a threat to their authority and freedom to do what they want, to whom they want. Everyday, the Islamists' backward world is bombarded by the power and attractive modernity of the western world, and they feel threatened by it. Their only hope is to remove the Western world. They cannot stand up to us militarily, face to face, so they use terror. They incorrectly assumed that terror, alone, can bring down civilization. So, 9/11 showed their desire to hit us financially. Strike the infrastructures of government and finance. We can only hope that moderate Muslims, and those Muslims who believe in secular governments, will stand up and speak like what they are trying to do in Egypt.
But, anyhoooo, I'm starting to ramble.
JGJ, 27.03.2007, 4:29am #
1. Sorry about the typos.

2. "Secular islam" makes as much sense as "secular christianity" - if you actually read the recital and the book, you'll find an awful lot of horrible stuff, which "god" (and the prophets various, of course) approve of.

The "rational" christians ( Yes, I know, that is just contradictory bullshit, but I hope you know what I mean ) just dump all that, and hope to concentrate on the Beatitudes, etc.

But, as Dawkins, Dennet et al point out, this viewpoint is not itself consistent, or holdable, for much-discussed reasons.

Islam is in an even worse position, because the "recital" is, as far as muslims are concerned, "The word of "GOD", as dictated by Gabriel (jizriel?) to the deluded paedophile, Mahmud.

Perhaps people should read this article:

by Terry Sanderson of the NSS, before going too much further.
G. Tingey, 28.03.2007, 9:07am #
Ah G., I see where you are going wrong. You are thinking 'secular' is defining part of the religion. It is not, it is defining the way they would like their government, and that is promising.

"We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights."

Certainly, you cannot have secular as part of a religious belief. It would be saying 'a cold heat wave' or 'sexual promiscuity through complete abstinence,' it would not make sense.
JGJ, 29.03.2007, 11:21am #
And, being a religion, and therefore blackmail, it only makes sense in terms of benefitting the self-interest of the religious power-brokers.

If people are stupid and gullible enough to beleive in their own personal invisible friend - ok.
But DON'T expect to bring it on to the stret, frighten the horses, and then expect anything other than ridicule.
G. Tingey, 30.03.2007, 4:21pm #
datz not 1 shud b allowed to say enefin bwt ene1s religion or their matter hu day r or wot dey believe in n to mock it is anova offence!!!!!!!!! giv dem deir respect rather than insultin dem...............
qq, 25.06.2007, 5:17pm #
Blimey, I'll never take Tingey to task about his spelling again after that tor de fors
Ben, 25.06.2007, 9:45pm #
mike, when you get a chcnae to, take a look at the video. About PBS airing it, from :Last Wednesday, the Oregon Public Broadcasting Service announced it had reached an agreement with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) that seemed, at first blush, to represent a breakthrough: The national Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) would no longer prevent the airing of a film CPB commissioned as part of its "America at a Crossroads" series called "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center." Instead, PBS' Oregon stations would make it available to the more than 350 other affiliates across the country. As one of the film's co-executive producers, I began to receive a number of congratulatory messages from all over the country. Most were from people who had followed the saga of this documentary about moderate Muslims who have courageously challenged co-religionists known as Islamists -- adherents to a totalitarian political ideology seeking to dominate the Muslim faith and, in turn, the world. Like innumerable editorialists, bloggers and ordinary citizens around the country, the authors of these messages had been frustrated and outraged when PBS and its Washington flagship, WETA, culminated months of efforts to alter and then censor "Islam vs. Islamists" by refusing to broadcast it, as planned, as part of the "Crossroads" series rolled out last month. They assumed the Oregon announcement meant national distribution was imminent. Unfortunately, the CPB's arrangement with the Oregon PBS means no such thing. Far from the treatment accorded other "Crossroads" series programs -- nationwide broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service, in prime-time with a substantial promotional budget -- "Islam vs. Islamists" would simply be "made available" to PBS stations. Maybe some would decide to run it over the next few months. Maybe they would do so at 3 a.m. or Sunday afternoons when practically no one is watching. There are no guarantees of pick-up in any, let alone all, major markets. Worse yet, the Oregon distributors have announced they will accompany the film with the equivalent of a consumer warning label -- a "discussion" that will provide "context" for viewers. Presumably, this means the sort of "context" our film's critics at PBS and WETA kept trying to impose on us: Changes they believed would make it, in their words, less "one-sided" (read, fairer to the Islamists) and less "alarmist." If past practice is any guide, those recruited to provide such "balance" will likely be representatives of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Though these groups are well-known Saudi-funded, pro-Islamist fronts, their views were exclusively and highly sympathetically featured in a documentary called "The Muslim Americans." PBS seemed to have no reservations about airing this wholly one-sided film during the "Crossroads" series roll-out in April. In short, now that widespread criticism has made it impossible to sustain PBS' suppression of "Islam vs. Islamists," the anti-Islamist Muslims who are its subjects are to be remanded to decidedly second-class coverage. Call it CPB's version of the "Rosa Parks treatment." Recall that Rosa Parks could have got to her job via public transportation -- as long as she "knew her place" and agreed to ride in the back of the bus. So, too, moderate Muslims can have their stories, as recorded in a film produced with some $675,000 in public monies, shown on the public airwaves -- in at least a few locations at some point in time. But these heroic figures must know their place, too. And their place is not in prime time, nor national distribution. Only Islamists and their apologists are entitled to front-of-the-bus treatment from those like Robert MacNeil (the host of the "Crossroads" series and producer -- thanks to a sweetheart deal -- of "The Muslim Americans" show), Sharon Percy Rockefeller (wife of one senator and daughter of a former senator, Jay Rockefeller and Charles Percy, respectively, and president of WETA) and the handful of others responsible for PBS' rejection of "Islam vs. Islamists." If ever there were a time when the American people are entitled to the most comprehensive presentation possible of information concerning the struggle for the soul and future of Islam, this should be it. After all, last week a Pew Research poll found roughly a quarter of the Muslim-American population thinks suicide bombing is legitimate in at least some circumstances. An even larger percentage claimed not to believe that Arabs perpetrated the attacks of on America of September 11, 2001. The particular irony is that the whole idea behind "America at a Crossroads" was that it was intended to offer the American people 20 programs featuring differing viewpoints and a variety of stories that would, taken together, help inform the public about the post-September 11 world. This creative vision demands that the experiences and warnings of authentically moderate, pro-democratic and tolerant Muslims be treated at least as favorably as the portrayal of those in the Muslim community determined to stifle their voices. Certainly, public broadcasting should not be party to such suppression. A bipartisan group of legislators have called for prompt, national distribution of "Islam vs. Islamists." They have been as impressed by the quality of the film PBS doesn't want you to see as they are outraged by how people entrusted with responsibility for the public airwaves have handled it and those involved in its production. The "Rosa Parks" treatment is not what they have in mind, what the courageous anti-Islamist Muslims deserve, nor what will be acceptable to the national audience that expects to be able to view this documentary without further delay.
Jay, 29.02.2012, 4:00am #

New comments disabled due to spam