Dhimmitude on the bayou

"just imagine a state college newspaper giving a column to a fundamentalist Christian who uses it solely for the purpose of evangelization. Wouldn't happen."

Rod, if you truly believe that, I know of some lovely "land" near the Everglades swamp that I'd like to tell you about.

"Shouldn't happen."

Ahhh, NOW we get the real truth.

REP: same song, seven-hundred-and-seventy-seventh verse.

I've not read the Byers and Danna columns, but let me be clear I don't at all mind -- indeed, I welcome -- opinion journalists bringing their religious perspectives to bear on their essays. That goes for Muslims, Catholics and everybody else. What I would not allow, were I the editor of a paper like the Reveille (as opposed to, say, the Jimmy Swaggart Bible College Bugle) is a columnist to write a column specifically for the purpose of evangelizing. Which is what this Muslim student did, by her own admission. There is a difference, wouldn't you agree, between writing from the perspective of faith, and writing to advance a specific theological agenda. The latter is propaganda. I'm a Christian, as you know, but I would not have allowed a Christian to write a column for the college paper I edited for the express purpose of winning converts to Christianity. Perhaps this woman deceived her editors -- who should have been able to discern her purpose after a certain number of her columns, anyway -- and if so, they should put in place some kind of procedure to keep proselytizers (as distinct from writers whose faith forms part of their perspective on the world) from getting columns in the future.

But isn't the job of an opinion writer to argue a point? To seek to persuade? Why does it cross a line to argue persuasively for one's religious opinions, but not when one is arguing for a political or economic position?

Posted by: Bill Cork | May 6, 2008 10:25 AM

Good question, Bill. I agree. If you're going to hire a Muslim to write a column about Islam, there's bound to be some proselytizing involved. Rod, much of what you write about Christianity (and conservatism, for that matter) comes across as proselytizing. You seek to persuade your readers that your beliefs are the correct beliefs, right? I happen to agree with you most of the time, so it doesn't bother me a bit. But I'm with Bill – I don't really see much difference between what you do and what this woman did (except that you're a much better writer than she is).

Are you proselytizing when you talk about Christianity--or against Islam--in your DMN columns? When you interview Christians doing good works and they talk about their inspiration, aren't you proselytizing? When the LSU paper runs editorial cartoons mocking the Quran, aren't they proselytizing Christianity (I'd add Judaism, but I doubt that's an issue at LSU)?

I don't know if plastic in general is a problem or not, but I doubt that plastic is what is causing Matthew's problem. Rod said that the child changes rather quickly when he's at his grandparent's house. Don't you think that if exposure to plastic is the problem that it would take more than a few days after reducing his exposure to plastic for his body to eliminate enough of it to actually observe a change in him?

>>>
Now, just imagine a state college newspaper giving a column to a fundamentalist Christian who uses it solely for the purpose of evangelization. Wouldn't happen.
>>>

Could you verify this by contacting the LSU Daily Reveile?

I realize that it is easier to put up an attention-grabbing "Dhimmitude" headline and then sit back and watch the page hits mount up than to do some investigating to back up your assertions, but it sure would be nice.

>>>
3. I don't really care if a newspaper at a state college wants to run a one-off column from a writer arguing that her faith is the one true way -- as long as other members of the community are given equal opportunity.
>>>

Again, you previously asserted that this "wouldn't happen" for a Christian columnist, but have you verified this?

Rod: "The difference is between being a principled advocate for a particular worldview, and being a hack."

But you would agree that this line is very fine. A good advocate for a position, if they present a strong enough argument, should expect at least some who read their work to come away with a changed opinion at a minimum, and perhaps even some level of agreement.

For example, when you write about a given social issue from your religious viewpoint (such as the piece on "The Necessity of a Christian Culture", you are advocating for the position, but are you not also seeking to sway opinion towards an agreement with your position? Do not the two (advocacy and persuasion) often walk hand in hand?

Many years ago I was, briefly, a stringer for a local Jewish paper. That lasted until the first time I tried to file a piece, and was asked, repeatedly, what organization it was a press release for. I kept repeating that this was not a press release, it was an article about an incident at which I had been present. I was REPORTING, I told them. I had real trouble breaking that concept down any further. Apparently their idea of a stringer was a purveyor of press releases. It was, admittedly, a very small paper, and maybe got a lot of its stuff for free by running everybody's press releases. But I think these days an increasing number of media outlets assume that objective journalism is neither possible nor desirable, and we should just print everybody's releases and let them fight it out. Which I suppose is one way to set up a free marketplace of ideas.

Ever so sick of the double standard regarding Islam.All that needs to be said is yes this is dhimmitude and she wasn't Muslims she would have never had the platform to spew her silly little views. This is one infidel who says to any and all Muslims, no sale, not interested. Sure they have a right to present their ideas, they have not right to special priviledges.

I am sure she has a great future as some hack,scribbling out morality tales and scoldings to the silly,unenlightened, infidels, at some third rate liberal newspaper with falling circulation and ad revenue, that is rocketing full speed into irrelevance. She is the ultimate , piss your pants ,diversity hire, for some silly,multi-culti white liberal, who enjoys the torture and penance of trite,pompous,dishonest, moralizing and brow beating from one of the benighted oppressed people of the word.

The double standard is becoming so pronounced, even the atheists are appalled. Here's a new piece by Sam Harris with several personal anecdotes on the subject:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

We must have a hopelessly weak culture if a wee inexperienced intern, berobed from head to toe is a threat to our very existence!

Who's saying that? Put away your straw man.

Well, Rod is not the Pakistan Times own "CrunchyCon" admonishing the heathen in such terms of humble handwringing not something you too would have been proud to have penned:

"More importantly, the only major advances in Muslim history, scientific, cultural and political, occurred before electricity was discovered. The Mughals, the Ottomans, the Safavids, the Ommayyads in Spain, the Fatimids in Egypt all brought great glory to Islam without a car, a motorbike, a split air-conditioner or a cell phone in sight.

Therefor I am convinced, especially during periods of load-shedding that our new and popularly elected government wants us, the people of the Islamic Republic, to revert to our greatness by recreating the environment in which Muslims excelled and built rich and thriving empires. In this connection I have a few suggestions that are offered in the true humility of my faith..."
http://blog.acton.org/archives/2323-Shedding-the-Load.html

Rod the LSU Student Newspaper has given voice to Christians and Catholics to state their views. Including Catholic Staffers. Many Catholic Staffers of the Daily Reville have been associated with the Catholic campus Parousians group. They have expressed their faith and as it touches the public square numerous times.

For an example please see this column by Michael Denton

http://www.lsureveille.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=c118a902-b4a8-4eb7-91f6-671dbb66db9e

There have been others but it is the only one I had a link too.

What in heavens name is worng with this column? LSU is a International University and has muslims.

I can't give up, because I haven't tried, but I'm with Rod 100% on this one (stipulate, please, any arguments concerning choice of subject line, etc.)

This is Beliefnet. I've been posting to it for years on things religious and not. I never hesitate to mention my being a pagan should the subject and/or context call for it. Should any reader take anything I write as "proselytizing", I would consider the possibility and respond accordingly.

A student is assigned space in a media outlet for journalism purposes. She proceeds to use it to choose topics with the explicit purpose of promoting her personal POV despite her instructions to do otherwise. I don't see much difference between that and my 15-year-old insisting that she can do as she pleases despite parental feet being put down in no uncertain terms. If I were the Daily Reveille editor, I'd have pulled her "column" long since and spit in the eye of any politically correct objections.

First of all I wanted to thank all of you for the comments and thoughts. I think it's great that we can all have dialog.

As the columnist in question, I have to clarify some things that I see some people misunderstood.

First, I was hired by The Daily Reveille to write about Islam. All the columnist were given an area to write about. Some wrote just about politics, some wrote just about pop culture, and I wrote about Islam/Middle-eastern affairs.

I was really greatful for the job because Muslims have been silenced in the mainstream media for way too long. And the ones that they do get to speak on behalf of Islam are the deviant ones from true Islamic teachings (either extremely liberal Muslims or extremist.)

One of the past columnists (Emily Byers) was a Catholic and everyone knew it, she talked about Catholicism all the time. She was actually my co-worker one of the semesters I worked at the Reveille. And we are actually very good friends, and we never argued or debated anything.

Also, my aim for writing about Islam is definitely "dawah" but dawah meaning to spread the true image of Islam. Dawah can be given to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And if one were to read my past columns, you will never see me "evangelizing" or telling people to convert to Islam. I merely just took issues that were looked upon as "social knowledge" and corrected people's understandings.

I hope that cleared some things up. and again I'd like to really thank you all for your comments and discussion.

Best,
Shirien

>>>Posted by: Bill Cork | May 6, 2008 5:12 PM

Which brings up an interesting question - Rod, just how many of Ms. Elmasraya's columns did you read before you formed your opinions?

Or to ask it another way, did you do any research for this blog entry?

Thank you for your comment, Ms. Elmasraya.

"Perhaps I am not just getting it"

It's Islam, which is treated differently from everything else. The slightest message is viewed as an invitation to "jihad"--based on the definition of the neocons--and anything that seems even mildly positive is considered dhimmi--again, improperly defined by the neocons.

Maybe that's because he was a Prophet of God. I mean come on. If someone was insulting and injuring Jesus or Moses would they not have the right to punish that person? Double Standards.

She complained about a cartoon that poked fun at the Iranian president. Oooooh! That must have been sooooo ofensive. We must not make fun of Ahmadinejad!

I'll bet it took less than 2 minutes for that editor to cave. In fact, that's when he encouraged her to apply for the job, as remission for such a terrible sin.

JH offers a valid challenge. I have not read the columns in question other than the one Rod linked above. I have perhaps mistakenly taken at face value the description of the situation as it developed.

Proselytizing is not in the eye of the beholder. I make that assertion as both an outsider -- a pagan -- and as a man of faith who considers aggressive recruitment to any ideology immoral. Let that be a clear definition of my bias concerning proselytizing.

Further, proselytizing is the definitive comparison point between religion (as a category) and cults within paganism. My experience (35 years as a pagan, my whole life amongst Christians) indicates that charges of proselytizing are essentially projection absent explicit evidence of aggressive recruitment. I have quite bluntly found such charges leveled against paganism both ridiculous and paranoid.

Let us not bandy words. Both Islam and Christianity aggressively recruit. I will immediately reject any logical application of the distinction between religion and cult to either one, because it is also clear that there are gradations involved.

In any given case, and I respectfully ask Shirien to pay attention, rhetoric is key. In a written medium, there is no recourse beyond the written word. In the years I've been around this issue on Beliefnet -- and a simple reading of the Rules of Conduct will show the reader that they have an explicit rule concerning it -- proselytizing has become the semantic equivalent to one side or the other attempting to end any discussion thus: my God (Allah) is the sole repository of truth; if you do not believe in God (Allah), you are false/wrong/lying/deceived.

Shirien, you and I share a critical aspect: we are both members of faith groups who have been the targets of propaganda. I humbly suggest that "this is a lie because I hold The Truth" is the worst possible approach to rebutting that propaganda. I know. I've tried it. It never works. I no longer believe it for my own faith, and I'm ashamed that I ever held that belief. If you truly seek to create understanding, if you truly want to reverse the influence of the few fanatics who give your faith a bad name, the first and most frequent thing you must do is denounce them, strongly and explicitly. I don't mind adding to my bias that the phrase "but he/she is not a true Christian" has no meaning in my ears or eyes, and in nearly every case comes across as a at best laziness, at worst a secret approval of the actions by those being so "denounced".

And as a native speaker of American English, I don't mind offering you this criticism: frequent use of Arabic words and phrases is a sure path to antagonizing your intended audience. No one will doubt your religious devotion if you fail to prais Allah in every other sentence. If you want understanding, stop sounding like the street corner prophet who shouts "praise God" in every sentence. Words convey meaning. Use them.

her audience is targeted to Muslims. the whole blog is about Muslims and Media. Therefore she uses Islamic Jargon, because it is jargon her readers understand.

Umm Ayyub, if that's true (and it contradicts her public remarks), then neither you nor Shirien have any cause to claim a double standard.

Do you speak for her, or are you just making assumptions? Inquiring minds would like to know...

Of course, I realize, Jews don't generally evangelize. Joining this discussion group has made me realize how much I have to learn about both Judaism and Islam, not to mention about my own religion, Christianity. The Muslims in the group manage to convey their love of Islam without proselytizing - imagine that!

Notice that Mohammed absolves the slave owner of his actions. The commentary says it's more of a reduction in punishment, but I don't see that explanation anywhere in the text. How can this be interpreted? Insult Islam and a Muslim has the right to kill you. Now we don't every see that happening, do we?
Posted by: Chris L. | May 6, 2008 10:38 PM

I would not have thought it of followers of the Christ such a jump for vengeance.
I guess Jesus condones adultery too. And the like.
Such is the sloppy or disingenuous ignorance with which you approach the Quran.
I am a Christian, so if you don't like my replies do not blame Islam.

Alicia, the part that always fascinates me is the variety of personal interpretations. Your stated belief falls under the category of witnessing, as I've been lead to understand the term. It serves me as a comparison point for the other term I've used above, aggressive recruitment.

With due respect to your opinion and the young lady in question, I consider the further exploration of the "triumphalistic" aspect to be a process. We (and I include myself) may comment on how her rhetoric looks, but courtesy demands that we consider her comments here as well. Conclusions are not warranted, IMO. :-) At least, not yet.

I would not have thought it of followers of the Christ such a jump for vengeance.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

I guess Jesus condones adultery too. And the like.

What are you talking about?

Such is the sloppy or disingenuous ignorance with which you approach the Quran.

I quote from a reputable Islamic website and I'm being disingenuous? Show me where I am wrong. I obviously didn't misquote anything as I simply provided the link. My analysis only differs from the author's in that I see no part of the story that says Mohammed lessened the punishment for the slave owner. I do not see where he was punished at all. Instead he is absolved of the murder. Finally, since Mohammed is seen by Muslims as the perfect example of human conduct, then one can rightly take the story to mean that it is appropriate for Muslims to kill people who insult Mohammed.

I am a Christian, so if you don't like my replies do not blame Islam.

Considering your vague first statement does not follow Christian doctrine, you need to go back and do some reading.

>>>
She can be offended all she wants. But her censorious attitude of going to the editor and complaining demonstrates that she's uncomfortable with free expression.
Posted by: Scott in PA | May 7, 2008 11:57 AM
>>>>

But isn't going to the editor and complaining ALSO an example of free expression?

And doesn't providing her a space for her writings facilitate the exchange of ideas that is considered by most to be a Good Thing in the Marketplace of Ideas?

I just read the two columns Rod linked to -- as far as the "hijab" challenge is concerned, I have to say that I rarely ever hear Muslim women who wear hijab mount a strong defense their sisters who decline to wear it. Their position seems to be more like the American women at the turn of the previous century who used to insist that they "enjoyed being on the pedestal and didn't need the vote."

The question is not whether some Muslim women choose to wear hijab. The question is whether those who choose not to our subjected to peer pressure (or worse) by their fellow Muslims.

>>>No. That’s an example of complaining that someone is exercising free expression.

No, it is an example of someone complaining about the content that someone is expressing.

>>>You’re probably one of those who think that the people shouting down the man at the podium are “ALSO” exercising free expression.

Some places that is - Speaker's Corner in London's Hyde Park, for example.

But that didn't happen in this case, did it? The cartoonist got to express an opinion, the Muslim woman got to express her opinion, everyone's happy...

Except for Scott in PA. Why is that?