The first is at Pandagon, where Amanda wrote about Huckabee:
McCain has the Republican nomination, but Huckabee’s continuing ability to win certain states is still a major story. Now that he can’t get the nomination and the schadenfreude pleasure is over, it’s time for us to very carefully examine why an out-and-out ayatollah is so fucking popular in this great, modern nation.
That’s saying, pretty explicitly, this Christian is so misogynist he’s a misogynist as a Muslim.
The other is at The F-Word, a British site. This one probably needs some background. A while back The Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Church of England, the official religion of Britain) gave a speech where he discussed the role that Sharia law could take within civil law in the British legal system. If you’re interested in what he said I’m guess it’s a good idea to read it, rather than a summary, because to say the British Press frothed at the mouth in response to what he said is a vast understatement.* I was shocked at the response on the F-Word. The author of the post said that she wasn’t going to comment, because she didn’t know much about Sharia law, and then said that she thought this anecdote was relevant:
A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a ‘no-go area’ for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: ‘The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn’t want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don’t you people write about this?’
Posting that story, in the context that she did, implies that the central fact here, is the religion of those involved. It treats these sorts of events as a horror which only occur in another culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Families with connections to the medical establishment have been able to do all sorts of things to women by claiming they’re mad(a famous example is Rosemary Kennedy, but it’s not as if she’s alone). Why didn’t the f-word present this story in that context?
I think it’s offensive when white feminists create an ‘other’, which is the . I think it is a vile misuse of feminism when the other they chose serves imperialist goals, as islamophobia so clearly does.
But I also find it mystifying. Feminist bloggers stare down the vile misogyny of the culture that we live in everyday. I don’t understand why any feminist blogger would need to invent an ‘other’, or how she could escape from the fact that her culture hates her.
* I’m personally too lazy to read what he said. I can see the arguments in favour in allowing people to pick the framework they use to decide civil matters. But I think limiting those choices to frameworks based on different religions prioritises religion in a way that I believe is totally unacceptable. In Britain, (or the US, or NZ) it would also leave all those without religion still suck with a framework that is based on Christianity. I don’t think the solution to a legal framework based on one religion is to say ‘we’ll let other religions have an influence in some parts of that framework’. Although I’m willing to be convinced if people want to argue about that issue in the comments.
For a brief description of exactly what he said, and why it wasn’t exactly what the press reported, check out this post from Language Log:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005376.html
Your obsession with political correctness blinds you from reality, as does your assumption that you have the moral high-ground and are perfectly entitled to lecture everyone else in a way that is quite astonishing and arrogant. You’re clearly not interested in having a dialogue and instead, by using words like “vile,” wish to cast “white feminists” in the role of being evil racists. I also think you do all women a great disservice by painting the Muslim patriarchy as victims. If you read the F-Word blog regularly, you should know that they critique patriarchy in all its forms. Your flippant post implies that the F-Word finds no fault with the dominant white culture in Britain and instead just focuses on the “others.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I am an American living in Britain. Women in predominately Muslim communities here suffer violence and abuse that is often beyond the reach of law enforcement, either because the authorities are racist and don’t want to help such women or because they feel they can’t interfere with another person’s “culture.” Many Muslim women here often come from disadvantaged communities as well. I guess white feminists should just let them rot?
You can cherry-pick examples of white women being abused by their families (and any idiot knows women of all races and religions are abused), all the while ignoring a real problem in British society. You see, there is the real world — filled with suffering and injustice — and then there is the theoretical world you inhabit. If all the white feminists ignored the plight of Muslim women and just focused on themselves, you’d surely say that’s racist too.
I’m an Episcopalian. As you might imagine, this has gotten huge play in the Anglican sphere. Archbishop Williams is an academic and does not always fit the presentation of his thoughts to a non-academic audience well. So he’s gotten into trouble before when he’s speculated on things and people have made the supposition that he’s proposing policy. And in fact, his remarks were an actual lecture, not a press release or a political speech.
Having said that, the analyses of his lecture that I have seen have been that he has apparently advocated that the Muslim communities be able to use Sharia law to make determinations regarding things such as property and custody arrangements in the case of divorce, etc. Apparently this kind of thing already occurs in other religious communities (e.g., Jews) in Britain. One example he brings out for an exception recognizing religion under the law is that under certain circumstances, Christian organizations are able to discriminate against hiring homosexuals for certain positions. I must say, however, that I’m not sure that the actual law names Christianity itself or just carves out a general “religious reason” exception. My guess would be the latter.
I say “what I have been able to find” because I haven’t read the actual text of his lecture. I’ve just found other peoples’ reaction to them, and I am quite leery of running with someone else’s interpretation of his remarks to make a judgment about what he said. If he’s talking about permitting people to submit to voluntary arbitration by a religious group, that’s one thing. If he’s talking about putting elements of Sharia law into the British common law and that Moslems or others would then be subject to it involuntarily, that’s entirely something else. The reaction supposes the latter.
I have found the text of his lecture just now; it’s rather dense prose, and I’ve things to do and no time to read them now. If any of you are so inclined, go for it. I intend to read them myself sometime in the next couple of days.
There is a large body of evidence that specific religious beliefs, practices, and institutions have been detrimental to women’s quality of life and promoted misogyny. This is true for Islam, this is true for different Christian sects (and was even more true in the past), etc. Feminists who point this out have been criticized for lacking tolerance of other cultures, religions, etc. Whether a particular valid Feminist critique was artfully, and carefully constructed in a way that otherwise had complete respect for religion and culture, is not really the point.
There is tension between multiculturalism and feminism. They are fundamentally opposed when cultural practices are detrimental to women. Quality of Life indicators and other tests can empirically prove that certain cultural practices are detrimental to women. It is more difficult to empirically prove the benefits of multiculturalism (incidence of riots, hate speech, violence?). I side with Feminism.
Personally, I would rather live in an Anti-Racist, Feminist secular society.
I think that religious intolerance is endemic to religion in general.
There’s a really rather good discussion at Lenin’s Tomb that talks through much of this in some very illuminating and persuasive ways as well as giving lots of detail on UK-specific stuff which informs the debate.
thank god for people like you who point out the hypocricy, racism, and islamophobia of so many white feminsts on the blogsphere. the best part is, the people spouting the most nonsense usually know the least about the religion, haven’t read a book about it (other than mainstream bullshit like bernard lewis), depend on mainstream media for their information, and are ridiculously ignorant about islam. the whole thing is appalling.
“That’s saying, pretty explicitly, this Christian is so misogynist he’s a misogynist as a Muslim.”
Yes. Yes, it certainly is. But, trust me on this one, you’re not going to get anywhere with the Amero-“progressives” by pointing it out.
“But, trust me on this one, you’re not going to get anywhere with the Amero-“progressives” by pointing it out.”
Um, thanks Chrys. Glad to know you can predict my opinion, and the opinion of many others, before we state them — especially since you’re so inerringly correct, since I wouldn’t even possibly dream of agreeing with Maia. [/sarcasm]
I read this to mean that he is a fundamentalist who wants the US to be a theocracy, which he is and does. I did not read this to be explicity calling him misogynist by implying that Islam is misogynist.
His desire for the US to be a theocracy and his popularity in spite of (because of?) that position is alarming on various levels for several different reasons, only one of them being misogyny.
I just went to the Pandagon post linked at the top of this post. I cannot find that quote in the post or in the comments (the comments written by Amanda). Did she remove it? Did you mistakenly link to the wrong post?
Hey, no problem, Mandolin. Because of course when I wrote this, I was thinking of you and you alone, and IN NO WAY thinking about the generalised response that comes from places you happen to live.
And after all, it’s not as if every freaking time this sort of thing happens, there isn’t a massive rush to rationalise the racism and/or ethnocentrism. “No, she/he didn’t mean it that way,” etc. Yeah, you have every right to be offended.
As many have said before me, if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t fucking wear it. If you aren’t one of those people I was criticising, don’t get all huffy about my criticisms.
If I had to guess how this will play out based on my past experiences, Maia will find herself at the center of a full-blown blogwar, and will herself be accused of being intolerant, racist and, more than likely, anti-feminist. And very, very few will admit that the people whose comments sparked Maia’s post were so much as a bit careless with the way they expressed themselves, much less that those people did anything wrong.
I just checked, and it’s there, in the second sentence of the post. So either there was a mis-link which Maia fixed, or you missed it when you read the post the first time.
Whatever, Chrys. You can see from the comments in this section alone that response is divided.
The shoe doesn’t fit because it’s an irrelevant shoe.
Do you seriously believe that misogyny in the Muslim world and misognyny in the secular West stand on the same footing? Learn something about the status of women under sharia, or about their travails in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. You don’t have to be an imperialist to appreciate the difference.
I don’t think the use of “ayatollah” is a blanket statement about Muslims in general or Islam as a religion. Amanda is referring to leaders of extremely reactionary forms of the religion, such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, implying that Huckabee is the Christian equivalent in terms of his willingness to turn our country into a theocracy with misogynistic and racist consequences of his fundamentalist religious beliefs.
So a fairer reading would not be “as misogynist as a Muslim” but “as misogynist as any number of religious leaders to be found in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.” Drawing the comparison is important because we need to look at what religious fundamentalism has done to Arabic and Persian societies, and take the warning when we seen similarly virulent forms emerging from our own native religions. Also, we should recognize a commonality in struggle against religious and political forces of oppression, one we in the West share with the people in the East.
No, I don’t. I was trying to interpret Amanda’s use of the word “ayatollah” in reference to Mike Huckabee’s fundamentalism. The rest of my comment is to note that there are similarities that should cause us alarm because the present state of misogyny and human rights in general are so deplorable in Saudi Arabia, etc. Conditions for women in the Muslim world and in the West are not on the “same footing,” but it’s certainly nothing to be complacent about. It could change, and there are groups in the USA that would like to push it in that direction.
My mistake! I skimmed too quickly and missed it. Thanks for pointing it out.
Amanda’s reference that’s quoted above didn’t persuade me to read any further.
Well, what will come to people’s minds first when they hear the word, “ayatollah”? Is Christianity or any of its forms on that list?
Why does that comparison need to be made at all because that’s implying that Christianity as it’s been applied and practiced isn’t capable of being racist, fundamentalist, misogynist or imperialist. Or as is stated below.
No, I don’t think that’s it. It’s not about capability, it’s about actuality.
I think it’s implying that Christianity as applied and practiced in the U.S. isn’t generally as racist, as fundamentalist, as misogynist or as imperialist, as is the form of Islam generally practiced by ayatollahs.
Wait, I’m confused. Really confused. I can understand being offended at (real or perceived) slams against Islam. But what are you trying to say about Sharia Law? Please elaborate (or, I’ll have to post based on my assumptions of what I think you mean, and no one wants that, now, do we?)
Seems to me that Amanda is throwing around the word “ayatollah” in a rather presumptive and discriminatory fashion. If I were a Shia Moslem I can see being fairly offended, and that’s not a word I use often. It’s like using the word “rabbi” or “priest” to objectify a bunch of Jewish or Catholic clerics as radical misogynists because of the actions of a few. She ought to do a little reading on Islam before she spouts off in what is in fact a rather ignorant fashion.
Presuming that she’s referring to the misogyny of the more extreme elements of Shia Islam (there are no ayatollahs in Sunni Islam, who form the majority of Moslems world wide), proposing an equality between that and Gov. Huckabee’s views has no validity. Note that I have no intent to vote for Huckabee, BTW, nor do I stand in defense of his views on sex roles and relations.
Of course not, but in the context, in which a Christian leader of a fundamentalist sect is being referred to by the title of a leader of an Islamic sect – which, in terms of those who are currently in power in Iran and Iraq – are also given to fundamentalist extremes, there is an implicit comparison being made.
I don’t get that implication at all, particularly considering the source of the post in contention. Rather, Huckabee is swaggering around fomenting his own anti-Islamic bullshit and assuming a morally superior attitude; the comparison at the least contends that “you’re not much better, pal.”
That’s a fair point, at least insofar as acknowledging that there might be ayatollahs who espouse a progressive, feminist, anti-racist, gay-friendly reading of the Koran and Islamic theology. However, we don’t hear from them very often, whereas the influential ayatollahs, at least since the Iranian revolution, have instituted a version of Sharia law that runs in the other direction.
While it is reasonable to categorize Christian dominionist theocrats like Huckabee in the same group as all the Ayatollahs that someone like me or Kevin can name, choosing to call that group Ayatollahs (particularly when you are only specifically referring to Huckabee) is obviously playing off of anti-Muslim prejudice in the US. In the US popular consciousness, Ayatollahs are bad men, so calling Huckabee an Ayatollah is an insult. It doesn’t add any meaningful content to call him an Ayatollah instead of calling him a Theocrat or a Dominionist. The only thing it adds is the ping to the readers’ presumed anti-Muslim bigotry and fear.
I suppose (and Kevin argued this already) that it could be seen as mocking the anti-Muslim bigotry of Huckabee and his ilk, in much the same way that right wing Christians are often mocked using the suggestion that they are closet cases by people who would insist that they are not anti-gay. Painting someone as being something that they themselves hate as a certain appeal, even if the thing they hate is not something that you hate. Still, I’ve never been very comfortable with the habit of mocking right wing Christians as being closet cases either.
I do in fact think that the Iranian theocracy is misogynist. But I don’t know if that’s “othering” so much as pointing out the similarities in our cultures that both harbor religious fanatics of the misogynist persuasion.
“I do in fact think that the Iranian theocracy is misogynist. ”
I don’t think the objection is to that concept so much as tapping Islam as the metaphorical touchstone for all things misogynist — more or less the same problem as the photoshopped burqa of a few years ago.
It’s worth pointing out, perhaps, that Islam is only the current cover for misogyny in those areas; the misogynistic treatment of women in the Middle East far predates Islam, and there are a number of abuses (e.g., clitorectomys) that are widespread and have nothing to do with Islam.
I haven’t been following Gov. Huckabee’s campaign much at all. I understand that at some point he offered his opinion that American law should be in conformance with God’s law (I presume he means Christianity), but I’m not sure what he means by that. When you say that he favors a theocracy, did he actually call for religious leaders to run the U.S.? Or was that hyperbole?
Well, I’m unapologetically hostile to all the major religions and how they’re easily used to justify misogyny. I appreciate that singling out Islam has been used to justify a racist war, but if we restrain all humanist philosophy for fear that it will be contorted by the right, we’ll have nothing left. Example: The way that conservatives try to bend anti-racist thought to argue against affirmative action.
Well said, Maia –
The condescension and racism with which white (and sometimes not white) feminist bloggers address Islam and Muslim women’s issues has long been remarked on. Aaminah Hernandez at writeoussisterspeaks.wordpress.com and Fatemeh Fakhraie sometimes over at Racialicious (www.racialicious.com) talk about this. Why is it so hard to acknowledge the bigotry? The level of denial in the comments to this post is already staggering.
No argument here. :-)
In context, this is a false dichotomy. No one here is saying that all humanist philosophy must be restrained.
However, insofar as humanist philosophy consists of nothing but a one-word cheap shot in a post that had nothing to do with ayatollahs, or using the word “ayatollah” as a shorthand for “woman-hating religious fanatic fascist,” yes, we’d be better off without that. It adds nothing to left wing or feminist critiques of misogyny in religion, while going along with “othering” and with war-mongering.
Yes.
Indeed.
Katie, thanks for the links. I’d recommend them as well.
But I don’t know if that’s “othering” so much as pointing out the similarities in our cultures that both harbor religious fanatics of the misogynist persuasion.
Except Ayatollah isn’t used as a term for Muslim fanatics. The term for Muslim fanatics is…. Muslim fanatics. Ayatollah is a specific role for a minority of people honored by only some Muslims – much closer to a Pope several hundred years ago, or the Dalai Lama before his current incarnation indicated he didn’t want political control.
Most US people don’t know what an Ayatollah is except “bad” and “Muslim”. How is tapping into that ignorance and bigotry at all acceptable? It would be like trying to take down one of Clinton’s female detractors by pointing out she’s “shrewish” and “a bitch”. Coded bigotry is not okay, no matter what group it is aimed at.
I appreciate that singling out Islam has been used to justify a racist war, but if we restrain all humanist philosophy for fear that it will be contorted by the right, we’ll have nothing left.
Right. I mean, pointing out that Huckabee is calling for a theocracy holds no rhetorical value at all. Being racist is obviously the only alternative, since without racism everyone would be skipping merrily toward a theocracy, singing songs and eating candy. Tapping into ignorance and making use of bigotry is the only possible way to get ahead, and this is in no way like white male progressive tendencies to throw feminist values under the bus at the slightest provocation as a rhetorical exercise. One day, once (white) women are free, we’ll get around to all those Muslim women who are sitting in their homes doing nothing but saying “yes dear” a lot. [/sarcasm]
This has nothing to do with “contorted by the right”. This has nothing to do WITH the right. This has to do with not using bigotry as a rhetorical tool.
Not to be snarky, but… probably not, in the U.S. (What %age of people who might support Huckabee know what “theocracy” means? Any bets?)
The end doesn’t necessarily justify the means; I agree with much of the analysis above. But if you’re trying to reach a population verbally, “theocracy” might not go very far.
I am the editor of The F-Word, the site you mentioned. I do feel like I should point out that we had already posted about this issue, reflecting the perspective you’re putting forward here. Laura’s post may come across differently in that context.
Pandagon didn’t say an “out and out” Muslim, she said an “out and out” ayatollah. Maybe you have a refined understanding of how an ayatollah is just like a bishop (I don’t think that’s quite true), and all that, but the ayatollah that we all know is the one that requires (not tolerates, but requires) Iranian women to “cover” on pain of arrest and other forms of coercion (like, say, not permitting them to attend university). So the main thing is, Maia is “making it up” to prove a rhetorical point. How novel.
Regarding hiding women away in NHS hospitals: It’s bad NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. It’s hard to know how prevalent it was or is now — there should be procedures and standards in place to prevent it from happening ever, and after reading the piece it seems that the main issue for these women is not that they are Muslim per se but that they don’t speak English and it’s impossible for anyone who isn’t likely to be sympathetic to their husband to evaluate the situation. The implication that “only Muslims do or have ever done it” is, of course, historically wrong, and probably even wrong now in at least some places — but it’s most likely that, in the here and now of modern England, non-Muslims that might be tempted to do it are much less likely to get away with it.
The author was trying to point out that Muslim women in England are often vulnerable because they are linguistically and socially isolated and might not be able to protect themselves and that the situation might be worse with Sharia. Do you disagree?
And so, Maia, should we shrug our shoulders at these women because, hey, you know, we used to be just as fucked up so we can’t get help you on account of how that would suggest we think your culture is inferior?
(What %age of people who might support Huckabee know what “theocracy” means? Any bets?)
As near as I can tell, a chunk of the people who support Huckabee WANT there to be a Christian Evangelical theocracy – that certainly seems ot be the goal of the religious right. I wouldn’t expect any rhetoric of that sort to get through to his supporters, except to strengthen their support. Last time I checked, though, they weren’t the audience in question, people who consider themselves “left” were.
I don’t think the objection is to that concept so much as tapping Islam as the metaphorical touchstone for all things misogynist — more or less the same problem as the photoshopped burqa of a few years ago.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge the bigotry? The level of denial in the comments to this post is already staggering.
Just because it bears repeating.
The argument, “well, I’m an equal opportunity attacker of religions, I don’t discriminate.” is strikingly similar to the arguments made by bigots—“it’s ok to say n****r, because I also say h*nky, s**c, d*go, k*ke, g**k, etc. See? I can’t be bigoted, because I insult everybody.” No.
There is absolutely, positively no need to use the word “ayatollah” in this instance. Huckabee is not a Muslim fundamentalist. It’s disingenuous to claim that past practice of pot-shots at any and all religions exempts one from relgious bigotry. Maia was spot-on with her interpretation (“so misogynist, as misogynist as a Muslim”). I live in the United States, and it has been my experience that fundamentalist, protestant, evangelical Christians are far, far more misogynist than the Muslim population here—to the point where it would be better to phrase a critique of Huckabee’s misogyny as “so misogynist, as misogynist as a fundie Christian”. Feeding into pre-existing bigotries and false assumptions about Islam isn’t “progressive”. It’s as progressive as the perennial “where the women bloggers at?” questions. Tired!
Why say it? Why assume that no Muslims could possibly be reading your blog, or if they are, that it is impossible for them to be anything but fundamentalist? Why? Why the cheap shot? Especially during a time when it’s Muslims, not Christians who are under the gun here in the U.S.. I don’t recall hearing of any Christians getting pulled over and searched “on suspicion”, or getting extra scrutiny in the airport, or having their phones tapped. Haven’t heard of any plans to spy on congregants in churches. You know? It isn’t the Christians who are assumed to be terrorists—though we know plenty of “Christians” have committed crimes against humanity that accurately fall under the terrorism definition, right here in the U.S. KKK, anyone? The execreble excuses for “people” that have been burning down black churches (and increasingly, mosques) consider themselves as “Christian” and “doing God’s work”.
That’s all. Just call it like it is. Huckabee isn’t an ayatollah; he’s a Christian fundie whose interpretation of his professed religion is at striking odds with most of the rest of U.S. Christians. Why not work with that, instead of dragging bigotry against Muslims into it?
The central fact is the religion of those involved. The allegation is that because of their religiously inspired views on gender segregation Muslim psychiatrists and GPs and performing inadequate evaluations, and are wrongly sectioning women. It’s a pretty appropriate cautionary tale given what the Archbishop is proposing.
You can bluster all you want about what families with connections to the medical establishment have always been able to do, but these cases have nothing to do with that. Do you really think immigrant Muslims have connections to the medical establishment? This is straight forward mistreatment of women by doctors whose religion renders them incapable of doing their job and treating women fairly.
Thanks for the discussion, sorry for my absence. Looking over the post I don’t think I was clear enough about the context of the discussion on Sharia law in Britain, but it was pretty incidental to my point really. Just to clarify Eliza – I wasn’t really making any argument on Sharia law.
Jess McCabe – I had forgotten that post, and I’m glad you wrote it. But I still don’t think that really mitigates reprinting the Times anecdote and stating that it is ‘relevent’ to the debate on Sharia law in Briain. Reprinting the Times anecdote and discussing the powers the mental health act gives over families would have been quite different. But that post accepting the Times framing as defining rebellious women as mad being something Muslim people did, and I think that’s unacceptable.
Amanda – Other people have pointed out why what you said isn’t replying to what I objected to, so I won’t repeat myself. But there is one thing I’m unsure of, you have shifted from ‘ayatollah’ to Iranian theocracy. Were you treating the two as synonymous, were you expecting your readers to do the same? Isn’t there enough woeful ignorance of Islam already? Do you need to add to it?
Well, I certainly would equate use of the word ayatollah with Iranian theocracy. But then, I’ve litigated asylum cases involving the Iranian theocracy and its devastating, stupid, cruel and tragic consequences for women. I don’t write like Amanda does, though, so I would say exactly what I meant — that Mike Huckabee would impose religiously inspired restrictions and rules that are at least the metaphorical equivalent of throwing stones at women (and gays), or maybe just throwing acid in their faces.
To say that certain religious fundamentalists have nothing in common with each other is frankly stupid — but even that’s not close enough, because it’s not all religions. Buddhists, for instance, don’t do stoning or hanging or even outlawing abortion (from what I know). Now, it happens that women in Buddhist places are still frequently second class citizens, so we know that not all misogyny is religously inspired. Indeed, religion is probably just a cover. But it’s the cover that is most likely to inspire misogynistic rules and laws in our midst, so I think it’s okay to call out Mike Huckabee and others on it.
As to the NHS — I can’t even tell what Maia is saying here. That we shouldn’t care about women whose main obstacle (from what I could tell from reading the piece) is that they don’t speak English and therefore can’t be evaluated by English speaking doctors and nurses who are not reflexively sympathetic to the husband) because we in the West were once and might still even be just as bad? Sorry ladies — you must be content with your lot in life at the hands of your husband because we were once just as bad, and those of us who are really well connected might still be just as bad. You lose. Well, that would make ME feel much better about the loss of my freedom, really.
Look, blogs are not a forum in which people speak with nuanced subtlety. If this bugs you, read books instead.
were you expecting your readers to do the same? Isn’t there enough woeful ignorance of Islam already? Do you need to add to it?
Maya, are you saying that, on historical grounds, it is not appropriate to use the word “Ayatollah” to mean “religious scholar participating is a Shi’a theocratic state”? I mean, that may be over the heads of most of people, or most Americans, or most Pandagonians, but … my understanding is that the term Ayatollah itself originally referred to those Iranian religious scholars who participated in the constitutional revolution after 1905. I do not think, for example that Ayatollah and Imam mean the same thing, and I don’t expect that you do, either. Am I mistaken about the origin of the term, or do you claim that it is no longer proper to use Ayatollah as a specific reference to Iranian theocracy, and if so are you arguing for a definition that is defined entirely in relation to religious scholarship without regard to relation to a state? Or are you saying something else?
Thomas, that’s where the term originated, but it’s current usage is for someone who is formally recognized as an expert in Islam law and practices at a particularly high level and has thereby gained the right to (among other things) issue fatwas, or edicts on how to interpret and apply divine law, and to teach and act as a judge of Islamic law.
In Iran there is an actual theocracy. In the U.S. it’s prevented by the closing clause of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
As well as the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws that establish any particular religion as the state religion.
Barbara said:
Religion is often used as a cover to justify whatever people want to do, even when those viewpoints are diametrically opposed. In the early part of American history quotes from Scripture were often used to justify the institution of slavery; but then, they were also often used to oppose it. Indeed, the leader of abolition in England was an Anglican priest, and plenty of clerics in the Northern states led opposition to slavery, and you can’t get anymore mainstream than the Anglican church in England, or the Episcopal church in the U.S. at the time of the Civil War. Here in the present day Evangelical Christians are involved in leadership of efforts to maintain traditional views regarding homosexuality. But there are also plenty of people both lay and cleric in other Christian denominations that are leading efforts to change those views and our laws, such as the Episcopal Church (my own denomination), the United Church of Christ, etc. Religion as a whole in the U.S. is not limited to any one set of philosophical viewpoints or role in political efforts.
It is often presented as a given on left-oriented blogs that religion is wholly repressive and has not been a force for good in society. I suspect people who think this are reflecting only on their own personal experience and haven’t really looked hard at American history.
No, that’s a straw man. Generally, people don’t think that religion has NEVER done ANYTHING good (“Has not been a force for good.”) Rather, we conclude that in the balance, religion sucks, and that if it wasn’t around we’d be (and have been) better off.
Rather, we conclude that in the balance, religion sucks, and that if it wasn’t around we’d be (and have been) better off.
What data do you use as the basis for this conclusion?
(Is it a *conclusion*, in other words, or just an assumption?)
“Rather, we conclude that in the balance, religion sucks”
I’d insert the word “organized” in there.
oh, yes, Mandolin, thanks, I didn’t mean to leave that out. Not that I’m a big fan of non-organized religion either, but it’s certainly caused fewer problems.
Robert, it’s a conclusion. Based on, I don’t know, quite a few years of school, reading news, living in the world, interacting, studying, etc. What do you mean by the question?
(OK, I tried to stop myself, but I can’t resist: Is your belief in god a conclusion or an assumption, and what data do you base it on?)
I mean you’re making a very large conclusion; the species would be better off if we hadn’t had organized religion. Well, how do you know? You’ve lived a life – in a culture predicated on ten thousand years of organized religion. I’m not sure that tells you very much. So I’m wondering what you base it on. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just wondering how you know.
My belief in God is based on faith and personal spiritual experiences.
I agree: we have lived our lives on a planet where most people are, or have been, involved in some organized religion or other. But i’m not sure what the followup is.
If you’re saying that we can’t make any meaningful conclusions about the rule of religion, I suppose I’d be OK with that: I’ll stop claiming it’s bad, if others stop claiming it’s good. Sounds like a fair trade to me and I suppose it isn’t especially easy to support either side. I think it’s a reasonable conclusion though, based on the limited evidence and information we have.
if you’re saying that we can’t conclude that it’s bad (but that we could conclude that religion is good) then that makes no sense to me.
I’m not SAYING anything. I’m ASKING how you KNOW that things would be BETTER.
…I should have known the “we’d be better off without religion” rhetoric would overwhelm the “being a bigot is bad and undermines both equality and justice” point. Why people who claim faith-based exercises are inherently damaging to humanity continue to insist on engaging in faith-based exercises to make that claim is really beyond me.
Back to the main point:
Comparing fundamentalists in different religions is a VERY different thing than referring to a Christian fundamentalist as an Ayatollah.
One, depending on how it is handled, can serve as a guide to when any organized group of people starts hurting other people based on rhetoric (something which has occured in attempts to remove religion, as well as within science and other non-religious organized groups). There is a strong history of such studies in Anthropology and Psychology and they are chilling.
The other uses another culture as a rhetorical “worse than us” and “do you want to be like THAT” point that, given the choice of culture being used, is clearly both racist and religiously bigotted. In other words – Not only is Huckabee like a BROWN person who has influence in other countries, but the religion is STRANGE and the media tells us it’s major sacrament involved BLOWING PEOPLE UP.’
The reason why simply using this rhetoric damages the argument in question is that it is hinging on the same bigotry and colonialism which mobilizes the religious right (embodied here as Huckabee). If you want to oppose the religious right, one would think NOT reinforcing their rhetorical points by using them would be a good start.
“…I should have known the “we’d be better off without religion” rhetoric would overwhelm the “being a bigot is bad and undermines both equality and justice” point. ”
While I clearly hold a different perspective than yours on the issue, I do agree that this argument is a distraction from the main thrust of the post.
Who made any allusion at all about the color of ayatollahs? The only ayatollahs I know of are Iranian (it’s a specifically Shi’ite concept that doesn’t even translate to Sunni Islam), and whatever you mean by the use of the word “brown” it is your own thought, coming out of your own head and being ascribed to the thought process of someone who said nothing of the sort. So making sweeping and unjustified allusions seems to be the order of the day no matter which side of this debate you are on. Unless you have a secret decoder ring that allows you but not anyone else to see the word “brown” in the quote in the original post.
Does anyone know of any “ayatollahs who espouse a progressive, feminist, anti-racist, gay-friendly reading of the Koran and Islamic theology”? Because if not, then it seems like a fine way of drawing similarities between “Christians” and their enemies.
hf: Who are the Christian Ayatollahs we’d be comparing the Muslim Ayatollahs too, exactly?
Also, it’s pretty sad when worshippers of YHWH are considered enemies as a matter of course.
Don’t forget, hf, the comparison was made between ayatollahs and Gov. Huckabee. You don’t need “ayatollahs who espouse a progressive, feminist, anti-racist, gay-friendly reading of the Koran and Islamic theology” to make that comparison invalid. Presuming that we substitute Moslem religious leaders who hold the most extreme views regarding Sharia in general and homosexuals and women in particular for “ayatollahs” in that statement, I’d still be surprised if it’s valid. Unless Huckabee has come out in favor of stoning adultresses to death, executing gays, making non-Christians pay special taxes and banning the construction of synagogues and mosques, etc. I bet I’d have read about that somewhere by now.