Religion
Related: About this forumYet Another Horrible New Atheist: Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch: [ɑˈjaːn ˈɦirsi ˈaːli] ( listen); born 13 November 1969) birthname Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Waiays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud;[a] is a Somali-born American (formerly Dutch) activist, writer and politician. She is known for her views critical of female genital mutilation and Islam, and supportive of women's rights and atheism. She collaborated on a short movie with Theo van Gogh, entitled Submission (2004). Critical of Islam, it provoked controversy, and death threats were made against each of the two. Van Gogh was assassinated later that year by a Dutch Muslim.
Hirsi Ali is the daughter of the Somali politician and opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She and her family left Somalia in 1977 for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, settling in Kenya. In 1992 Ali sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands; her misleading application was later the subject of a political controversy. Following graduate work, she published articles on her political views and spoke in support of Muslim women, becoming an atheist. In 2003 she was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis related to the validity of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from parliament, and indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet in 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
These old white men are horrible people, aren't they?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And she and her husband are proud defenders of Western imperialism.
I guess that makes her "outstanding" by your standards.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'd hate to have to go through the experiences she's been through. Walk a mile, and all that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)we should hate. Is it her pigmentation that kept her out? Her gender? What?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)We have folks here who KNOW what religion truly is about who can correct her.
rug
(82,333 posts)This is what Steadman wrote:
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)promoting women's rights would include opposing the beliefs of Islam to some degree, if a person is being intellectually honest and consistent.
rug
(82,333 posts)before popping off.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)While opposing the same, that's for sure.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Instructions for doing so can be found here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Terrible analogy.
stone space
(6,498 posts)But I guess that it's your way of passing up the opportunity.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'll skip the opportunity to follow up your deflections.
stone space
(6,498 posts)You just didn't find the link as useful as I thought you would after reading your comments here.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And why haven't you said what makes it relevant in 3 or so posts?
stone space
(6,498 posts)It's only relevant for those of us who don't support everything our country does 100%.
It's not my place to say whether or not it is relevant to you.
I can just provide you with the information that you need to take action, should you see any relevance for yourself.
rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Not all belief systems have a religious basis. I would surmise most do not.
Citizens in a democracy derive benefits from the democracy.
Citizens in turn have obligations to the democracy.
Hence the draft.
The difference is these beliefs are backed by firearms and prison cells.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)That's the difference.
rug
(82,333 posts)You underestimate the power of ideology in gaining compliance.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Because it's not a belief system.
rug
(82,333 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...of the US university system all about?
Why are pacifists denied student loans and grants?
Why don't I have an undergraduate degree?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)US citizenship isn't a belief system. It doesn't mean you agree with laws, it doesn't say anything about what you believe. It's a legal status.
stone space
(6,498 posts)A whole class of people denied an education because of their beliefs.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...and to purge atheists from the US system of higher education, will you defend those laws as having nothing to do with beliefs?
US citizenship isn't a belief system. It doesn't mean you agree with laws, it doesn't say anything about what you believe. It's a legal status.
Or do you get concerned about laws when they effect you, personally?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Or where you got it, but more power to you.
I'm just stating that US citizenship isn't a belief system. Period.
stone space
(6,498 posts)But it's not a "belief system".
OK.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)None of that fits the definition of a belief system.
Laws aren't what people believe.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Why not allow everybody access to higher education?
Why discriminate against people for their beliefs?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I don't think people should be discriminated against for beliefs in general.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I don't think people should be discriminated against for beliefs in general.
Imagine how much easier life would be for militant atheists if it were to be repealed.
We would become eligible for federal student loans and grants for college, just like everybody else.
Imagine being able to get loans to go to college. That would be like a dream come true!
Wouldn't that be great?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)if you don't have an undergrad degree?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)And teach university-level maths without having an undergrad
stone space
(6,498 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Im interested in this, from an academic perspective
stone space
(6,498 posts)There are much easier methods for militants to get a PhD, such as winning the lottery and using the proceeds to pay for an undergraduate degree first.
The method I used is simply not available to most militants.
I got lucky. Very, very lucky.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Having a PhD without an undergrad?
stone space
(6,498 posts)And the government controls student loans and student grants that tax dollars from militants pay for.
People demonize militants, so the government feels safe in blatantly discriminating against us.
It's not like the folks who demonize us are going to complain about it.
To them, we're evil, and we deserve what we get.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I'm unsure why you're so repeatedly unwilling to answer how you have a PhD without an undergrad. I know sometimes it's hard to keep stories straight, so perhaps that's why you're so reticent
stone space
(6,498 posts)But we can work together to stop the demonization of militants and change these laws.
We can oppose discrimination.
That is, assuming that you actually do oppose discrimination.
You haven't made that clear, yet.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Opposition to that is a HUGE part of my militant atheism.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)A militant pacifist?
stone space
(6,498 posts)People like you who demonize militants make it harder for people like me to be allowed an education.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Is still poor.
rug
(82,333 posts)I will simply rebut.
struggle4progress
(118,306 posts)radical or political Islam. When Hirsi Ali describes a war with Islam, the interviewer asks simply, Militarily? Hirsi Ali responds in the affirmative ... I reported two years ago on an event another award ceremony for Hirsi Ali where she spoke on the advocates of silence. In the speech, she raised the anti-Muslim Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. Hirsi Ali denounces his act, but then gives a credulous voice to the justification Breivik used: He says very clearly that it was the advocates of silence. Because all outlets to express his views were censored, he says, he had no other choice but to use violence ...
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/196399/no-brandeis-isnt-silencing-ayaan-hirsi-ali/
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)She's also experienced people close to her being murdered by Islamic extremists for the most trivial of reasons.
I don't expect an unbiased view from her. One might similarly ask the Garner Family how they feel about Police Officers and procedures right about now. You're not likely to enjoy the answer.
Some people are carrying massive burdens, and that should be taken into account when you encounter their opinions.
stone space
(6,498 posts)If the Garner family has advocated taking military action against the police, and continues to advocate it even after a reasonable time period to process their grief, then expect that their views will be met with a bit criticism, however much pain and anguish such views may result from.
But I really want to be careful here and not assume that they have done so without some actual evidence.
Otherwise, we are dealing with nothing but a vicious slander against the Garner family.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I could have been a little more specific though. My point was about bias, imwasnt saying the Garner family was advocating violence.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I posted the below.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Garner family has bias.
But when you added this (my bold below), I wasn't exactly clear on what it was about the answer that we were "not likely to enjoy ".
(Whatever it may mean to "enjoy" comments from people whose lives have been touched by violence, but that's something else...)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Expected and normal.
They will be so, for some time. Hirsi on the other hand, is exposed to information from people she knows, whom still live in those conditions, every day. Imagine the state of the Garner family if they lost another family member to the police every day, or even every month or once a year? Bad enough there's a hole in their family that can never be filled.
I was not articulate in my original response though, I do apologize that it appeared I was casting the Garner's as being violent or advocating violence. They are not. Mea Culpa, I'll choose my words more carefully in the future. It was not the best analogy.
stone space
(6,498 posts)What exactly are you expecting reasonable folks to object to here?
NEW YORK -- Eric Garner's widow said she will not accept an apology from the New York City Police Department officer who put him in a chokehold as he repeatedly screamed "I can't breathe" minutes before he died. Esaw Garner said she is determined to obtain justice for her husband, the latest victim in a series of recent police killings across the nation that have ignited debate over excessive force and how law enforcement officials treat black men.
"Hell no. No, I don't accept his apology," Esaw Garner said Wednesday night at a rally in the historically black neighborhood of Harlem in New York City hours after a grand jury decided not to bring charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo. "This fight ain't over, it has just begun. I'm determined to get justice for my husband. He should be here celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas. Somebody who got paid to do right, did wrong. As long as I have a breath in my body, I will fight to the end."
Gwen Garner, the victim's mother, joined her daughter-in-law in calling for greater police scrutiny. "I don't know what video they were looking at. Evidently it wasn't the same one that the rest of the world was looking at," she said, referring to a widely circulated video that showed Panteleo choking Garner, 43, as he gasped for breath. She also urged supporters to avoid the violence and rioting that broke out in Ferguson, Missouri, in recent months after the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in August. A white police officer also will not face criminal charges in that case.
"We need peace throughout the support," Gwen Garner said as a crowd of protesters began chanting "boycott." "Yeah, we want you to rally, but rally in peace. Do what you have to, but do it in peace."
snip--------------------
http://www.ibtimes.com/eric-garner-family-wont-forgive-nypd-officer-chokehold-death-1733522
struggle4progress
(118,306 posts)Nathan Lean
Posted: 04/18/2014 6:12 pm EDT
Updated: 06/18/2014 5:59 am EDT
... A "critic."
That's a lukewarm description for someone who has expressed her support for defeating Islam (not extremists, but the entire faith) by military means if necessary. Let's be clear: Such measures do not constitute "criticism." Instead, they are dangerously close to advocating genocide.
Similarly, it is not "criticism" to promote the idea that the 2010 massacre carried out by the Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik, was a result of his supposed censorship. That is dangerously close to justifying an act terrorism that killed 77 and injured more than 300 others.
It is fine to be a critic of Islam or any religion. But Hirsi Ali crosses a line. Suggesting that her views are simply unfavorable normalizes extremism. It also dilutes genuine critiques by lumping them into one vague category that contains calls for military action against Muslims and reasoned negative appraisals alike. And, it legitimizes the idea that reasoned criticism of Islam is enough to warrant the denial of a public platform ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-lean/ayaan-hirsi-ali-neither-a_b_5175604.html
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Not sure what it means to oppose it militarily, but it would be like saying fascism should be opposed militarily. Is that a call to genocide for fascists? Not how I hear it, but religion gets special privilege other ideas don't. Especially considering the idea being opposed worships a God that commits and orders genocide.
struggle4progress
(118,306 posts)http://islam.uga.edu/malcomx.html
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And are women treated differently? Malcolm X had some rose colored glasses, to say the least.
And what is the punishment for leaving Islam?
And who would worship a God that not only commits genocide, but sanctioned slavery?
You would have to lie to yourself and jump through several intellectually dishonest hoops to oppose all those things and subscribe to the Abrahamic religions, and people have spent thousands of years perfecting their rationalization of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)edhopper
(33,592 posts)Remind us again who killed Malcolm?
What group was behind it?
True brotherhood.
stone space
(6,498 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)under Sharia law, you may find it justifiable to oppose the regime militarily.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I'll leave it to your guesswork on who I would be if I wasn't me.
Just trying to be helpful.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Not to my mind.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Or do you have a completely separate definition about what militant means and how it has no connection whatsoever to militarily?
stone space
(6,498 posts)What did we ever do to you?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)
And you, sir, are no militant atheist.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)in some ways than most of the old white "new atheist" imperialists we saw on the other thread, but no mention of her there.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I agree with a lot of what she has said. But she has also written
"Violence is inherent in Islam it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."
and a bunch of other stuff in a similar vein.
I think it's hard to skin that as anything other than simple bigotry - she's not added any qualifiers; she's made no attempt to suggest that she doesn't mean "all Islam, anywhere, as practised by all Muslims", and I think that it's probably that that's because that's what she did mean.
I think that we could do with more, more uncompromising, ruder liberal criticism of Islam *as practiced by most Muslims*, often of kinds that will *offend* all Muslims (it makes me wince when liberals talk respectfully about Mohammed or the Qu'ran). But two things we absolutely *don't* need are
:- Any criticism that state that all Muslims, rather than just a significant majority, hold illiberal and repressive views.
:- Any criticism that hints, even if it doesn't outright imply, that the majority of Muslims are Out To Get Us.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)similar to "The RCC is a bigoted organization" =/= "All Catholics are bigots" it's a subtle, yet important distinction, and the constant "Well, you didn't specify that you weren't talking about all believers, so I'm gonna state that you did and make you defend the strawman" it's tone policing at it's worst, so the one catholic who doesn't follow their church's teachings on the bigotry can get a pat on the head for being a decent person, even though no one said otherwise.
"Atheists are" or "New atheists are" actually is talking specifically about all atheists because it specifies atheists, not atheism.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Why is it that liberals fall into this trap with such regularity? Or, phrased differently, how many decapitations in the name of god are required before we admit that there might be a problem?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)And she is being played like a fiddle by the Imperialists.