[Note: Since publishing this Rant, we've done a bit more research — due in part to our own suspicions, and in part to Dikkii's refreshingly blunt comment! Further research has led us to the conclusion that, if there even exists a Spanish journalist named Sebastian Villar Rodriguez (or Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez, or however various different people are spelling it), it is highly unlikely (read: blatantly false) that he wrote the passage attributed to him in this Rant. However, regardless of the source of the material, the passage is still being forwarded from person to person, with the very unsubtle suggestion that what has been written here (by whoever actually wrote it) is insightful and worthy of merit. The sentiments and arguments presented in our Rant, despite being directed at the possibly fictitious and probably irrelevant Rodriguez, still hold; we are amazed that people — in particular, Jews to other Jews — are continuing to forward this passage to others with the blatant implication that, in a nutshell, "all Jews are better than all Muslims." In that light, we stand by our rebuttal to this ridiculous "article," no matter what feverish mind produced it.]

Many of you have probably already read, or read references to, Sebastian Villar Rodriguez's September 2005 article regarding the "eviction" of Jews and the "infestation" of Muslims in Europe, as was reported all over the blogosphere in the past few months since it was published. If you haven't, here it is below, in its entirety, as it was e-mailed to us. We've actually seen several different translations of the article, but the general gist seems to remain the same.

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth:

Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.

In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

Okay, here goes: we absolutely agree with the first position Rodriguez takes — the Jews in Europe had much to contribute, and the outright persecution on the part of some Europeans, and apathy on the part of others, led to the deaths of many Jews who may well have otherwise had a huge impact on the course of human history. The Holocaust was an unforgivable act, and all of those responsible for it — directly or indirectly — share the blame for the atrocious acts committed during the Axis' push for power; and not just those acts committed against Jews, but those against blacks, gypsies, gays and so many other ethnic and sociocultural groups.

In addition, simply to put this Rant into exact context, a good percentage of the Two Percent relatives are Jewish, and mostly Jews of European descent at that. Despite our own resolute atheism, we have no issues with the social and cultural identity that Judaism inspires, though we have little use for the religious aspects which we consider to be pure bullshit. The same can be said for any religion; as we've said in the past, you don't have to be a religious Christian — or in fact a Christian at all — to have a good time on Christmas Day. In fact, some Two Percenters still attend family gatherings for the Jewish holidays. Our overall respect for the non-religious aspects of Jewish cultural identity stems in large part from the generally strong emphasis that those who self-identify culturally as Jews place upon education, rationalism and civil liberties (that's generally — we really have no soft spot for the ultra-conservatives, and especially dislike the Hasidic practices that perpetuate an outright misogynistic patriarchy).

However...all that said, we find Rodriguez's extended point to be astonishingly myopic and downright cruel.

In lauding Judaism and the European Jews, Rodriguez seems to feel that he must insult and denegrate Muslims; his premise is essentially that the "valuable" Jews were traded for the "worthless" Muslims, and he makes this disgusting and irrational point without even recognizing that he is perpetuating the racist dogma spouted by the likes of Hitler and the men under his command. He says:

...we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

So Jews bring "culture, thought, creativity, and talent," and contribute to "science, art, international trade," and "the conscience of the world" — and Muslims bring "stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty," and contribute "fanatical hatred...destructive skill...backwardness and superstition." Because, as we all know, people are defined solely by the religion to which they belong. (Which may explain why we atheists are, to wit, "undefined.")

Are there Muslim fanatics, Muslim terrorists, Muslim leeches on the wealth and prosperity of Europe? Certainly there are. Are there also many talented, creative, thoughtful and brilliant Jews who have contributed to all human endeavors? Likewise, too many to be counted (though admittedly scarce in professional sports).

But where the hell does Rodriguez get off suggesting that all of Islamic culture, in practice, is solely about death, crime, filth, and a total lack of any valuable contributions to the human race? There are plenty of Islamic scholars throughout history who have made great contributions to the enlightment of humankind. In fact, while Europe was languishing in the so-called "Dark Ages," Islamic science and culture was thriving and flourishing. Islam has certainly contributed more than enough to be considered a "valuable" culture by Rodriguez's standards. Do any of these look familiar?

Where the hell do you think we got these numerals from? How do you think so much of ancient Greek history, literature and science was preserved, except by the tireless efforts of Muslim scholars and translators, who stayed "awake" during Europe's Dark Age? What about Caliph al-Mamun's House of Wisdom? What about nearly every scientific or mathematical term that begins with the letters al- — like algebra, algorithm, alkali, and so forth — all of which (among many other aspects of our modern vocabulary) are derived from the Arabic words uttered by Muslim scientists and mathematicians like Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi? The concepts of zero and infinity, so important to so much of our modern mathematics, owe far, far more to the East (including Islam, India and the Far East) than they ever have or will to Western civilization, which maintained an irrational fear of the literally irrational for centuries upon centuries. Astronomy, algebra, philosophy, experimental sciences...Islamic culture has contributed a wealth of knowledge to the world, no matter what some of its current misguided adherents are doing.

Our point is simple: yes, many Jews have made wonderful contributions to our species; however, many Muslims have also made great contributions to our species. And correspondingly, there have been malefactors, psychotics, and just plain assholes on both sides of that particular fence, as with any two cultures you might like to pick.

It is popular, particularly on the right-wing, for folks nowadays to paint all Jews as "good guys," owing to the relentless persecution and despair they have endured for a few thousand years (though many of these far-right folks are just playing nice to get the 120,000 Jews they need for the Rapture). It is just as popular to paint all Muslims as "bad guys," owing to the modern-day activities of some fucked up Muslim zealots in the past few decades.

But the simple fact is: lumping every member of a specific religion into a "good" or "evil" category is, simply, idiotic and unrealistic.

Have we, here at the Two Percent Company, fallen prey to the same temptation? Some could argue that. However, we would counter that we take the position that people — individually and in groups — should be judged on their words and deeds, and not by the words and deeds of others who claim membership in the same group. There are some Muslim assholes out there; there are also some bright, charming, happy, optimistic and peaceful Muslims out there, and we're not about to call them assholes just because they share some beliefs (though not all) with the actual Muslim assholes. There are some brilliant, creative, benevolent and generous Jews in the world; and there are also some ravenously psychotic Jewish assholes, whom we're not about to call "good" simply because they cover their heads and read the Torah.

Regular readers will see us commonly refer to "religiosos" — but it would be a mistake to think that our pejorative refers to all people of any religious belief. While we do happen to believe that such folks are deluded or brainwashed or, at best, thinking wishfully, there are too many good religious folks out there for us to actually hate them as a whole. We use the term "religioso" specifically to refer to those who are anxious to force their beliefs and practices on others, through political, legislative, economic, military or other means. We've got no beef with those who are content to "live and let live" — we're often pleasantly surprised by devout believers who have a kind word to say in our Rants or through our contact form, and we wouldn't dream of lumping them in with the real religiosos, or slamming them for no good reason. We may not share their beliefs, and they may not share ours; but we have no problem sharing a country or a planet with them.

We're just disheartened by the fact that Rodriguez, in trying to make a decent point about the horrible loss incurred by European reluctance to interfere with the Holocaust, felt the need to find some target to replace the Jews, completely disregarding the fact that such a blanket belief in the consistency of character within one sect or clan was exactly what enabled the Europeans to disregard the Jews so generally in the first place. That's just sad. It's silly to throw out a whole basket just because of a few cracked eggs.

I don't understand the philosophy behind tripe like this. Does the author think that his 20,000,000 muslims are going to piss off back to the Middle East? Or that his disparagement of their entire culture will somehow challenge them to do better, like negative comments on a school report?

I've lived in the UK for almost a decade now; I'm white, a native speaker of English, have an English partner, and have adopted English customs. But I will never, ever be thought of as English, or even British, no matter how long I live here, no matter what my passport says. If I will never be truly 'assimilated', to use the words of the tabloids, what chance do Muslims have? Even long-term British subjects from the Indian subcontinent, whose grandparents considered themselves British, are still treated as outsiders. New arrivals have no chance.

So what's to be done? Shall we continually ostracise, marginalise, and criticise this community? Let them know we consider them all to be backwards, inferior madmen? If you want a recipe for creating a permanent underclass, you couldn't do much better.

There seems to be a new train of thought--a backlash against a mostly ficticious 'PC" movement--that says any brutish ignorance is okay, as long as you state it clearly, and acknowledge that it's probably not a popular thing to say. "I'm sure this is 'politically incorrect', but Muslims/blacks/women/gays are no good at anything, and should be grateful for what We the Noble and Enlightened allow them, short of a good thrashing." And all and sundry nod politely, not agreeing, but falling for the ol' "right to an opinion" fallacy (which is comprehensively demolished in the book Crimes Against Logic, [link] which I think should be essential reading for anyone who wishes to express their thoughts in public).

Don't know much about the author, but this all seems a bit contrived and a bit too ironic for me.

We haven't misinterpreted Rodriguez' intentions with this article, have we?

Mind you, if this is the case, he has put things somewhat crudely.

Damn...good call, Dikkii. I finally turned up this link on my twentieth Google search regarding this damn e-mail.

While the sentiment expressed in the Rant still holds, the Rodriguez material does, in fact, seem to be a hoax, based loosely on the actual writings of James C. Bennett, with Rodriguez's name apparently appended at random, and the Spanish newspaper article pulled out of some devious blogger's ass.

We got carried away by our message, and didn't do a thorough job of researching the material that prompted that message. More on this later, but before finally getting to bed, I wanted to let you know you are absolutely right. We fucked up. Mea culpa!

I'm sure Mr. Rodriguez will come to recognize his error in hindsight.

I find it particularly ironic that he talks about Muslims in Spain, as significant Muslim populations are not exactly something unknown to the Iberian peninsula.

T2PCC wrote:

[Note: Since publishing this Rant, we've done a bit more research ? due in part to our own suspicions, and in part to Dikkii's refreshingly blunt comment!

Apologies folks, it wasn't meant to sound like a statement of the obvious. Wasn't intending for what I wrote to appear rude.

dikki,

We weren't being sarcastic when we said that your comment was refreshingly blunt, we were being honest. We always try to be very direct in our communication, and as such, we appreciate people who are direct with us. Your comment was direct, and not at all rude. Above all, it drove to clarity by helping us to correct a mistake we had made.

Even if Rodriguez had turned out to be a real person, we would still appreciate a comment like yours. We are certainly not above making mistakes, and as such, we are certainly not above being questioned. If we make a mistake, by all means call us on it. And if you think something we've said is suspect, please tell us about it.

We welcome comments like yours. So don't apologize, and please don't stop leaving them.

Interesting that the Hudson Institute itself (assuming that the true origins of the article are as reported) has a fairly spotty track record as far as law and order goes...perhaps members of its board are not neccesarily the best qualified to deliver sermons on being good citizens.
story

Oh, and you can add Conrad Black (indicted) and Dick Perle (perennially under inverstigation) to the list...

Your effort at Defending Islam is noble and politically correct but dangerous. As much as we may flinch at the idea of condemning an entire culture there are times when we must. Surely no one today will defend Nazism or Stalinism under the misguided notion that not all Nazis nor all Stalinists were nasty, brutal persons.

Saying Islam is a dangerous religion is not the same as when Hitler said Jews were a danger to German Society because in fact Jews were a boon to them. If Muslims could accept living among others, as Jews have done, perhaps they would not pose such a danger to us.

bernie,

Yup, you're exactly the kind of narrow-minded loon that we were talking about in our post. Thanks for providing such a perfect example for our readers — we couldn't have found anything better if we'd looked. To our readers, you can check out bernie's post by clicking on his link to see what we mean.

First off, we are not defending Islam as a religion. If you think that we are, all we can say is that your reading skills must be pretty poor for you to come to that conclusion. Like all religions, we view Islam as nothing more than a delusion, akin to a belief in astrology or ass gnomes. As such, we view anyone who follows Islam as delusional. The same can be said for Christians and Jews and members of all other religions. However, you seem to think that all Muslims are violent terrorists, and that is a complete load of uneducated, bigoted shit.

Does the Quran teach violence? Absolutely. And so does the Bible. As a result, some Muslims are hateful, violent assholes. And so are some Christians. But instead of judging all people as terrorists because of what religion they follow, we tend to judge people on their individual merits. You, on the other hand, don't seem to want to bother with such distinctions. Instead, you toss around phrases such as "Muslim militants (redundant)" on your site, content to pigeonhole all Muslims as radical terrorists. Do you also count all Christians as narrow-minded homophobic young-earth creationists? Because, hell, so many of them are, right?

When someone does something stupid and violent in the name of their religion, we have no problem calling them stupid, dangerous assholes for it. A good example of that would be the Mohammed cartoon debacle, which we wrote about not all that long ago. But when you move from that point of view to one in which anyone who shares a trait in common with these assholes is also deemed an asshole regardless of their individual words or actions, that doesn't make you an intellectual or a realist — it makes you a fucking bigot.

Let's look at your specific replies to our post.

1) We said: "There are plenty of Islamic scholars throughout history who have made great contributions to the enlightenment of humankind." You disagreed by stating that most scholars who study Islam aren't even Muslim. It seems that you completely missed the point of what we were saying. Despite the unhelpful "definition" provided by Wikipedia (which seems to be all that you bothered to read of the article), read the actual list they provide, and you'll see that the majority of those listed are: a) Muslims; and b) contributors to more than just "Islamic studies" (that darn phrase "multiple fields" keeps popping up, you know?) — which is why we linked to it. By saying "Islamic scholars" we weren't talking about scholars who study Islam, we were talking about scholars (who study whatever it is that they study) who count themselves as Muslims. If we made a reference to "Christian scholars," would you insist that we must be referring only to those who study Christianity, or would you concede that there are Christians who study other spheres of knowledge? Since that was your entire argument, and since it was flawed from the start, we'll just stop here.

2) We said: "In fact, while Europe was languishing in the so-called 'Dark Ages,' Islamic science and culture was thriving and flourishing." You took exception by stating that it only flourished for "a few hundred years from 700 to 1000 AD." And what happened after 1000 AD? The more strict religious nutjobs took over in the Middle East, and stifled science and progress. Does that diminish the advancements that were made prior to 1000 AD by Muslims? Not at all. Does it mean that all Muslims have since been strictly religious and therefore not made any worthwhile contributions to the world? Absolutely not. We might also point out that, if the current slide toward radical Christian fundamentalism continues in the United States, we might one day look back on this country in the same way — sure, American Christians offered some contributions to society, but that was only from 1800 to 2000 AD.

3) We said: "Islam has certainly contributed more than enough to be considered a 'valuable' culture." You disagreed by stating that we didn't in any way show "the contributions of Islamic Science to modern culture." Once again, for the cheap seats, we aren't talking about "Islamic Science." Hell, we don't even know what that's supposed to mean. We're talking about people who are Muslims who also contribute to society, perhaps in a scientific field. Not all people who practice a given religion are solely defined by that religion. That seems to be a foreign concept for you, bernie, but for most of us, it's pretty simple to grasp.

4) From here we move into the intellectually dishonest portion of your diatribe. You take exception to a quote from us that says: "Where the hell do you think we got these numerals from?" Your reply is:

Not from Arabs. The Arabs got the concept of zero from Hindus and despite Greek distate for irrational numbers they had computations involving the concept of infinity.

Well, first off — yes, we did get the numerals from Arabs. Directly and literally. The way we draw them is derived from the way the Arabs drew them. However, more generally, let's take a look at the statement you picked out, but this time in the context of what we wrote:

Where the hell do you think we got these numerals from? How do you think so much of ancient Greek history, literature and science was preserved, except by the tireless efforts of Muslim scholars and translators, who stayed "awake" during Europe's Dark Age? What about Caliph al-Mamun's House of Wisdom? What about nearly every scientific or mathematical term that begins with the letters al- — like algebra, algorithm, alkali, and so forth — all of which (among many other aspects of our modern vocabulary) are derived from the Arabic words uttered by Muslim scientists and mathematicians like Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi? The concepts of zero and infinity, so important to so much of our modern mathematics, owe far, far more to the East (including Islam, India and the Far East) than they ever have or will to Western civilization, which maintained an irrational fear of the literally irrational for centuries upon centuries.

[our emphasis]

Big difference, isn't it? Suddenly your chastisement that these contributions came from the Hindus and Greeks seems kind of flaccid since, you know, we already said that, and then went on to explain how Muslims preserved these concepts through the Dark Ages. If you don't see the preservation of these concepts as a worthwhile contribution to society, then you must really have your anti-Arab blinders screwed in place tightly.

You close your post with:

I appreciate that two percent company wants to bring some balance to those who say that Islam is mostly an ignorant, barbaric, archaic religion but sadly, as unsavory and racist as it seems, calling Islam for what it is, is not Islamophobia but merely telling the truth.

And Truth is more important than political correctness. But nice try, two percent.

We recommend that you actually read our site before you make very silly and incorrect assumptions about what we believe. You appreciate that we're trying to balance out the people who say that Islam is mostly an ignorant, barbaric, archaic religion? Fuck, man, we aren't balancing out that statement, we're agreeing with it. Islam is an ignorant, barbaric, archaic religion. So is Christianity. Follow either one — or either's book — too closely, and you will stifle science and knowledge, and incite violence. However, there are plenty of Muslims and plenty of Christians who don't follow their religions to the letter, and who are good people capable of making worthwhile contributions to society. That is our point in this piece, and if you think that it is "politically correct," then you need go off and read about how that term is generally applied.

For fuck's sake, go right ahead and condemn Islam as a shitty belief system — it is, and we agree. And go right ahead and hate the people who do terrible things in the name of their religion — they deserve it. But don't hate other people just because they have one thing in common with these assholes. That's just fucking stupid.

Ouch. We both could have phrased things differently. I'll try to answer in line.

bernie, Yup, you're exactly the kind of narrow-minded loon...

I Didn't call you names. But I deserve it for not being fair with you guys.

First off, we are not defending Islam as a religion. If you think that we are, all we can say is that your reading skills must be pretty poor for you to come to that conclusion. Like all religions, we view Islam as nothing more than a delusion, akin to a belief in astrology or ass gnomes. As such, we view anyone who follows Islam as delusional. The same can be said for Christians and Jews and members of all other religions.

I agree with you fully. I didn't think you were defending Islam as a religion; I thought you were trying to show that Islam had something of value to contribute to modern civilization. I certainly read that:

...despite our own resolute atheism, we have no issues with the social and cultural identity that Judaism inspires, though we have little use for the religious aspects which we consider to be pure bullshit.

I also read the interesting comments when I moused over your links which acted as disclaimers of a sort. So I think I know your view on Islam and all other religions. However, I get really pissed when I hear of Islamic contributions to civilization in the same way when someone defends Nazi contributions to modern medicine based on their experiments on prisoners.

However, you seem to think that all Muslims are violent terrorists, and that is a complete load of uneducated, bigoted shit.

Interestingly, you took my phrase "Muslim militants (redundant)" and thought I was pigeonholing all Muslims as radical terrorists. Actually the phrase Muslim was redundant. Perhaps I should have written Muslim(redundant) militants but it doesn't parse well. Indeed, you'd agree that almost all news reports about militants today are about Muslims, no? That certainly does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. I was saying that all radical terrorists, at least in the context of Indonesia, are Muslim.

Do you also count all Christians as narrow-minded homophobic young-earth creationists?

I am not polite to that faith as well. If you put in "Christian Taliban" in the search box on my site you will see no less than 7 articles and as for being bigoted against Christians I wrote that 10% of Christianity is still barbaric and uncivilized and Their problem is the same as Islam's - they take the Bible the same way Muslims take the Quran. Both are mentally ill because of it and those that take a Holy Book as if it were truly the word of God and want to push that view on me should be destroyed

But when you move from that point of view to one in which anyone who shares a trait in common with these assholes is also deemed an asshole regardless of their individual words or actions, that doesn't make you an intellectual or a realist — it makes you a fucking bigot.

I don't expect that on such short amount of time you would have read EVERYTHING I wrote but my main argument about Muslims is that moderate Muslims are not allowed to voice their opinions, that they cannot stand up against the radical elements, that they are in fact trapped into allowing the most violent element of Islam to rule their lives as well as ours. Look, even non-Muslims like the New York Times caved into remaining silent on the cartoon affair, can you imagine the fear moderate Muslims have about standing up against that element?

I even wrote about the plight of intelligent, educated Muslims (not so bigoted after all): This is why you do not see moderate Muslims protesting against the terrorist tactics of Islamic extremists. They cannot claim that this is not Islam because it is, yet they cannot turn away from their religion in protest for fear of reprisal and death. They are stuck being Muslims. The educated, civilized Muslim is forced to pretend that he is Muslim for fear of persecution he would face at the hands of either the state or his fellow Muslims even if he lives in a non-Muslim country.

As to taking cheap shots, perhaps I should have sat on my post for a few days to cool off. When I hear anyone pushing the idea of Muslim contributions to the modern world - I go nuts. As a consequence of your rightful indignation I will amend my post - I already put a notice that I was unfair with my posting. I hope you accept my sincere apology. After I take out the cheap shots, of course.

I colored your comments red to distinguish them from mine, but for some reason it didn't show up in my comment above. Sorry if it doesn't scan well for the eye.

[We reformatted your earlier comment to make it more easily readable. — Ed.]

However, you seem to think that all Muslims are violent terrorists, and that is a complete load of uneducated, bigoted shit.

I hope I made it clear that I do not think this way.

The article is completely re-written, not because I am afraid of criticism, but because it was written carelessly. Thank you for the heads up.

bernie,

We absolutely stand corrected. You apparently are not one of the loons we were talking about. It seems like you thought you saw us spouting off a position that pushes your buttons, and perhaps wrote your post in anger. We can certainly understand that — there are plenty of things that drive us up the wall as well.

We're glad that you see that we are not defending Islam as a religion or as a group. Instead, we are saying that people should be judged by their individual words and actions, and not by the religion they choose to self-identify with. As such, there are certainly individuals who self-identify as Muslims who are good people, and who contribute to society in various ways. That doesn't mean that Islam — the religion itself — is responsible for these contributions, just that the individuals who made the contributions also happen to call themselves Islamic.

Of course, we respect your right to hold the views that you hold — they're your views, and you're welcome to them. What you apologized for was the approach you took with your response, which was probably what set us off in the first place. In all honesty, it takes a big person to apologize for anything, so for that, you've earned our respect, for whatever that's worth.

For our part, we apologize for not making our intentions more clear. As you may have noticed, our Rant was written as a hasty reaction to Internet flotsam too, so it looks like we're all in roughly the same boat. The upshot: no worries.

If you ever see anything that we've written that you don't agree with, by all means ask us about it. Some people may certainly interpret things that we've said very differently than we intended, and we're happy to clarify our views if we've been less than clear. We'd much rather respond to a question than to a reaction based on a misinterpretation of our views.

Politically correct? Blech. Fuck that shit!

[The original comment we received here was literally thirty-six printed pages of made up "lost verses" of the Koran. While we have no love for any organized religion, and no compunctions about making fun of religious symbols, this comment was snipped short for three main reasons. First and foremost, it was way too fucking long. Seriously, who drops a comment that long on someone else's blog? Second, it was only peripherally related to the post at hand — and that's being kind. And third, it wasn't all that amusing. It was just a series of stories making the same point over and over, written in a pretty lackluster style. But, in the interests of open discourse, here is the first of these stories. — Ed.]

Lost Verses of the Koran

Surah 115: The Pig

Bismillah:

The hurried flight of the Hegira had led the Muslims to a fertile oasis, where they were at last safe from their many enemies in Mecca.
Pausing, each thanked Allah the moon-god for their good fortune.
Assembling at a long table, they enjoyed rare delicacies brought by bare-breasted sirens whose faces were veiled. During the feast Muhammad sternly forbade his disciples to partake of pig flesh, while fondling the youthful breasts of a Nubian harlot named Sheba.
Obeying the Prophet, the pilgrims partook of the succulent flesh of jackals and vultures, washing their food down with strong wine.
"I never dreamed I'd have to eat the loins of a jackal, let alone the bitter entrails of a cursed vulture," observed a hungry pilgrim named Ahmed to a fellow Muslim, choking on the unpalatable morsels.
"Neither did I, but the Holy Prophet has ordered it," grumbled another starving follower, almost heaving as he consumed greasy vulture flesh.
"A rancid pork chop would taste a hell of a lot better than this crap does," retorted Ahmed.
"It's an acquired taste brother, you'll get used to it," spoke up another, smiling with a mouthful of rotten teeth.
"I don't think so," said Ahmed, forcing down a burned jackal testicle.
An uncaring Muhammad, famished, greedily wolfed down roasted jackal in enjoyment, quaffing from an earthenware wine carafe on occasion, while choosing which of the sirens that would soon endure his favours.
The meal finished in the late afternoon, a drunken, lustful Muhammad initiated a sex orgy with the sirens, the debauched Holy Prophet, Allah speaking through him, declaring all earlier betrothals or marriages of the women he knew null and void.
The Muslims celebrated their good fortune, again thanking Allah for the bounty they had been blessed to receive.
Later, as Muhammad sat half-naked under a palm tree, masturbating to the thought of molesting little girls, Ahmed chanced by and remarked, "Oh great prophet, why does Allah say that we cannot dine on delicious porcine flesh?"
"Why?" asked Muhammad, closing his filthy, tattered, moth-eaten robe, "Because Allah's younger retarded cyclops brother is a pig, and Allah doesn't want us killing his holy kinfolk."
"Allah is a pig?" asked Ahmed, staring at Muhammad.
"Of course," replied the deranged Prophet, hallucinating thanks to ingesting strong hashish minutes earlier.
"That's ridiculous, why in hell do we worship pigs?" asked Ahmed, thinking his flight from Mecca may have been the result of heeding the words of a false prophet, possessed of a capricious desert demon who delighted in seeing them consume the flesh of vermin.
"Because they're better than we are," answered a smiling Muhammad, now fantasising about raping little boys, "Look at me, I'm little more than a lecherous child molester, thief and murderer!"
"True, but pigs can't even talk!" exclaimed Ahmed, digging a heel into the sand.
"Allah can, he speaks to me in my dreams," retorted the wildly hallucinating Muhammad, barely able to focus on Ahmed, seeing him in double vision.
"You're a madman," declared a disgusted Ahmed, "I'm heading back to join the infidels in Mecca!"
"Who cares?" retorted Muhammad, slurring his words and breaking into riotous laughter.
Prophet Muhammad, opening his robe and again reaching for his flaccid sex organ, was too occupied with masturbating his building erection to reply further, while Ahmed disappeared behind a sand dune.
"What a stupid, perverted, licentious bastard," spat Ahmed, walking off, "Muhammad is crazier than a shithouse rat!"

[snip, snip]

Two Percent;

Whether you agree with Bernie or not, is it really necessary for you to call him names and use foul language? I read your article in response to "European Racism" and while I agree with most of it, I feel that you should give more respect to those who offer their comments. By "repsect" I mean omitting the name-calling and more specifically the foul language.
Karen

Well, gee, Karen, perhaps you should have read this entire thread, in which Bernie and we patched up our differences, realized where our misunderstandings and fundamental disagreements lay, and generally ended on a very good note. Perhaps you should also have read Bernie's original condescending, insulting, and outlandish misrepresentation of us on his site, which he retracted upon further discussion with us. Perhaps you should have brushed up on your reading comprehension skills enough to register the fact that our "agreement" with Bernie ("or not") contributed absolutely nothing to the tone we took with him, which was, in fact, entirely due to the tone he initially took with regard to us. And perhaps you should have noted that we called Bernie a "narrow-minded loon" (based on his original blog post, since retracted — and we retracted our insult upon his retraction and rectification) and a "fucking bigot" (based on his assessment of Muslims as a group, rather than as individuals), and suggested that some of his assertions were "fucking stupid" (which, frankly, they were, at least the way he initially presented them)...which was just about the extent of our "calling him names."

Ah, but if you had realized all that, then you wouldn't be able to say "You guys are mean and foulmouthed!" Which seems to be the entire substance of your comment. How sad for you that you can't accept all language for the meaning and intent it conveys, and concentrate on the message instead of your prudish offense at the delivery.

We certainly offer respect to those who offer comments, and even to those who attack our views (without attacking us); however, if you throw down, expect some fucking retaliation.

The only problem with liberal relativism is that it completely disregards the facts. Otherwise, the sentiment is really quite nice: Judge each individual on their own merits. Allow the inherent majesty of a human being to shine forth, despite their surroundings, and you will often be pleasantly surprised. I fully agree. But that doesn't mean that there is not a rellevant bigger picture that must disregard, to some extent, the individual. I'm sure there were many good Germans in Germany in 1939. Unfortunately, because of what Germany was doing on the world stage, in the bigger picture, the world went to war against them. Thank God they did.
It is true that today, not a thousand years ago when the Arab world was the center of knowledge and progress, today on the world stage, muslims are contributing hate, ignorance, murder and terrorism. It is a fact. In pre-holocaust Europe, Hitler said that the Jews wanted to take over the world. That was not a fact. Thats what makes it different.
As a people, Jews contribute to society. They did in Europe bofore they were senselessly persecuted, and they do today. Of course there are Jewish individuals who are very bad people. That doesn't make the big picture untrue and it certainly doesn't make it irrelavant. There are Muslim individuals who are great people, but that likewise does not negate the fact that on the world stage today, they are the source for great evil and a truly terrifying global enviroment, their mathematical accomplishments of the dark ages not-withstanding.
How many days did it take the French police to get the riots in France under control last year? The rioters were muslims and they practically shut down the entire country for over week. That is what Rodriguez is talking about. Yes, not every Muslim in the world was there. How does that change that?
And if you ever visit New York, you can just ask the NYPD about those Hassidim that you hate so much and what a bitch they are to police. Those crazy Hassidim. Which neighborhood would you choose to live in? Now if you had a country and chased away all the Hassidim (those crazy Hassidim. They go to prostitutes sometimes. Did you know that?) and brought in a bunch of other people and there was the kind of riots that they had in France in Nov. '05 and the constant terrorist attacks on the trains and so forth, would the sentiment of the article be so inappropriate?
Are you getting me?

The only problem with a label like "liberal relativism" is, of course, that it's utterly asinine.

Seriously, "liberal relativism"? We have no idea what you think you're getting out of our post or subsequent comments (if you even bothered to read them), but whatever it is, you are way off the mark. It's much more simple than any silly label you want to throw around: we're just not falling prey to the general idiocy which says that religion defines the religionist. It doesn't. It may motivate them, and some of them will be defined by the "general perception" of their religion, but it isn't even a "majority" truth, let alone a universal one.

"As a people," fuck Jews, and fuck Muslims, and fuck Germans, and fuck any group that thinks that they are the "contributors" to society. We are humans. All of us. Some contribute, some don't. Some contribute negatively. Only the people who seem to desperately need to flock to a group (any group, from what we've seen) think that it is the groups that are making contributions. Yes, we all know that some Jews are inordinately proud of Einstein, Feynman, and others, ad nauseam, but the Judaism of these people had nothing to do with their contributions at all. They were people who studied and worked and put forth effort and thought about what they were doing, and figured shit out. Their religion (or, more accurately, their heritage — many of them likely were not actually religious, and at the very least didn't rely on religion to make their contributions) should not be considered "cool" or "good" or "positive" just because these individuals helped us out.

For the same reason, the contributions of those who happened to be Muslim should not be overlooked simply because the religion of Islam seems to (or even actually does) foster a violent and destructive force in the world. Which is exactly what we were talking about in our post, and we think we made that quite clear. We aren't defending Islam, nor would we defend any religion, since we think they're all ridiculous; but we are pointing out that the "Rodriguez" passage is utter bullshit, because it says point blank that Muslims are nothing, and contribute nothing positive, and that is demonstrably untrue. Period. We aren't saying that anyone should unquestioningly offer "open arms" to Muslims, and we most certainly aren't saying that they should offer "open arms" to Muslim extremists. We're saying that people should acknowledge the contributions of individuals regardless of their heritage instead of making stupid blanket statements that contradict the facts.

And where the Holy Hell do you come up with us "hating" Hasidic Jews? Sorry, but, what the fuck are you talking about? We only mentioned briefly that we (verbatim) "dislike" Hasidic practices. For the record, our take on the Hasidic community is the same as our take on any other religious group. Sure, we have a general perception of the group, and yes, that influences our perception of individuals who self-identify as members of that group. However we are also willing to give these people a chance. And not because of some bullshit idea like "liberal relativism" (whatever the fuck you think you mean by that), but because we've been surprised often enough, both in personal experience and in research, at how often people from any and all groups do something that defies the commonly "understood" definition of their groups, and can contribute positively (or not) to society or to us personally as a result. To be clear, in our experience, most Hasidic Jews we've met are assholes — they're arrogant, elitist snobs who are among the most racist and insulated motherfuckers on earth — but there are some we've encountered with whom we have absolutely no problem, and would even consider to be quite nice acquaintances. Should we abandon this "liberal relativism" you've ascribed to us and just write off all Hasidic Jews, simply because in our experience they tend to be dicks? Because that's precisely what you (and the fictitious Rodriguez) seem to be suggesting we do with regard to Muslims.

And yeah, um...Hasidic Jews go to prostitutes sometimes. Some of them. And some Muslims do, and some Christians do, and some Hindus do, and some atheists do. Aside from the fact that we don't think there's anything wrong with prostitution, this is simply a non-issue. Some people go to prostitutes, some don't. Religion doesn't seem to be the deciding factor.

...and that's the point, because religion doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in most of the vast number of human behaviors and decisions. Religious people like to think it is, and many like to pretend that their religion drives them (like those Godly gay bashers, for example), but look around — the truly good people are good because, generally, they recognize the common humanity in others, feel compassion and sympathy, and feel better about themselves when they fill another human's needs. The truly bad people are assholes who simply don't recognize that others are deserving of the same human rights and privileges that they are. Sure, religion is often used as a justification after the fact, but it is not generally the deciding factor.

That doesn't make the big picture untrue and it certainly doesn't make it irrelavant.

Yes, it does. The "big picture" you refer to is simply people's tendency to affiliate with a religion, and that quite simply is irrelevant to the determination of individual accomplishments and contributions to our world and our species. Einstein revolutionized physics, but that had nothing to do with his Jewish heritage. David Berkowitz obeyed his hallucinations and slaughtered human beings, which also had nothing to do with his Jewish heritage. To say that one's actions are due to Jewish heritage means that, to be consistent, you must accept that the other's are, as well. We're simply saying that neither is, which is a pretty logical and valid point to make, given the evidence. The evidence, of course, being that the vast majority of Jews neither contribute revolutionary scientific theories nor slaughter numerous innocent victims. So how does being Jewish have anything to do with it at all?

By extension, the vast majority of Muslims have not blown up planes or shopping malls. Yes, a number of them have, but statistics can be spun either way, and the statistics have to be looked at in perspective. The vast majority of Muslims have also not made scientific breakthroughs, invented fantastic new technology, or conquered world hunger. But the whole point is that it's not "the vast majority of Jews" or "the vast majority of Muslims" that we should be talking about — it's the vast majority of humans. Most humans don't have much effect on the world, and they blip off the radar of time without any real sign of their having been here. It's a sad fact that depresses many people, but fortunately the human ego is usually pretty fantastic at distorting our perception of our importance and thereby preventing that depression.

And please note that we aren't blowing sunshine up the collective asses of our readers by telling them to "allow the inherent majesty of a human being to shine forth" — when we stop to assess an individual on their merits, it's quite often the case that what shines through is even worse than our initial conceptions. We don't give a shit about "the inherent majesty of a human being," largely because we find that concept to be entirely contradicted by simple observation — a great number of humans we've met or learned about are utter assholes. What we give a shit about is examining the evidence carefully and rationally — and when it comes to human behavior, that means regarding each individual's actions on their own merits, regardless of what group they claim membership in (or what group claims them).

So is the original article absolute crap? You bet your sweet ass it is, and that's true no matter which group is the subject of the attack. Are you getting us?

jaykke, your first paragraph seems to negate itself. If it's a fact that you can "Allow the inherent majesty of a human being to shine forth, despite their surroundings, and you will often be pleasantly surprised," and if that fact is one of the tenets of "liberal relativism", then "liberal relativism" cannot completely disregard the facts.

Of course, it's not clear what you're referring to by "liberal relativism". If you mean the idea of liberals excusing harmful, criminal acts because the people committing them are culturally different, then you are talking about a creature that I have never personally encountered. You might as well say Unicornism is a reprehensible ideology.

Everybody I've ever met believes in holding accountable those who commit heinous acts. Some people take that too far, and wish to hold additional people accountable as well. People who look similar, sound similar, etc. Is that what you're suggesting here?

When talking about society, the bigger picture is composed of individuals. Individuals are never irrelevant, any more than individual atoms are ever irrelevant when you're talking about an entire person. It's incoherent to suggest that an entity's constituent parts are irrelevant to the entity. They comprise the entity. They are the entity. This line of reasoning is the entire basis of democracy, human rights, and the very concept of justice. The problem with terrorists is that they punish innocents for the crimes (imagined or real) of others. Are you suggesting we respond in kind?

Your argument suggests that had there been a small percentage of Jews in Europe actually bent on global domination, the Nazi extermination of all Jews would have been justified. It is certainly true that a small percentage of heinous criminal Muslims in the world today are actively seeking to destroy and replace certain generally well-regarded aspects of civilization, but that doesn't justify branding all Muslims as complicit or worthy of sanction. Most Muslims are plenty busy enough trying to get along in life, hold down a job, run a business, feed the family, etc. Activities I define broadly as "contributing to society". That is, in fact, the larger picture of the Muslim "people". (Not that I think any religion is worth a damn, but being a religious adherent is generally not preclusive of being a good citizen.)

And maybe I'm lacking context because I don't live in New York, but your comments about the Hassidim are simply not understandable on their own.

In short, no, speaking for myself, I am not getting you.

Liberal relativism is the tendancy that liberals seem to have to look at something, pick out some minor details that coroborate their agenda, and focus on them, and then completely disregard the rest of the picture.
The New York Times ran a human interest article some years ago on the intefada in Israel. It showed a picture of an Israeli girl and an Arab girl who had died in the intefada. The perspective of the article was to show the tragedy that was happening on both sides and to equate them somehow. As if to say the Arabs and the Israelis are basically the same and look; there are casualties on both sides. They had a lot in common. They were both young women and they were both dead. Hence, the article concluded that they were both "victims" of the fighting between the Israelis and the palestinians. The only small difference was that the Israeli woman was killed in a suicide attack and the Arab woman died commiting an attack. She was a suicide bomber who died blowing herself up on an Israeli schoolbus. Here's my point: they are not both victims of anything. One is an innocent victim and the other is a cold blooded mass murderer. Looking at them both as victims, besides for being completely insane, is what I call liberal relativism or not looking at the bigger picture.
Yes there are good arabs and bad arabs and good jews and bad jews and its all about the individual and belonging to a religious group doesn't make you a good person or a bad person. However, Mr Rodrigez' point, that Europe replaced communities of jews who worked hard and minded their own business with arabs who riot and blow shit up and kill innocent people, whose neighborhoods have become filthy, crime ridden, gang controlled, slums, despite the fact that many arabs are fine human beings, is a valid sentiment.
I don't know how you can look at Europe today and not see that as valid on some level. You can go on and on about the individual and the senselessness of religion all day. I don't see how that changes that.
As far as my comment on Hassidim Jason, that was a subtle dig to the morally superior open-minded folks at twopercent. They go on and on about how the group means nothing and the individual is all that counts, then they throw out comments like "most hassidic jews... are arrogant, elitist snobs" and they qualify it by saying some inane thing like 'oh, but we have met one or two good ones'. They don't realize how full of their own bullshit they are.
Thats the funny thing about open-minded liberals. They are open minded as long as you agree with them.
The hassidim are the opposite of what the people at twopercent preach. They are fiercely religious, they are closed minded and insular, and they put great store by belonging to a group. So much so that it is of great consequence to them which group they belong to even within the hassidic community.
Twopercent has no problem labeling them as 'assholes', their pathetic qualification not-withstanding.
I just thought it was some great hypocritical bullshit.

Nice quote mine. At least you're using ellipses in their proper grammatical usage, if not the ethical means.

To be clear, in our experience, most Hasidic Jews we've met are assholes — they're arrogant, elitist snobs...

Emphasis mine, to point out the parts this guy deliberately and dishonestly left out in order to turn the 2% Co's statement into the near-opposite of what they really mean.

Someone stop the spin doctoring, I wanna get off.

Sorry, apparently my bolds didn't work in the block quote:

"In our experience"

"most we've met"

Amazing, really. You know, jaaykke, perhaps if you bothered to read and parse what we said, rather than making shit up and attacking that, we'd have a little more respect for you. As it is, it's pretty clear that you're a dishonest bigot with very little grasp of critical thought, who's intent upon dismantling straw men and calling us hypocrites when we don't live up to the viewpoints you've ascribed to us. Bully for you, jaaykke — you're a pseudointellectual asshat.

Point by point (so that you at least stand a chance of getting all of this):

1.
We were not lacking awareness of what the term "liberal relativism" means. We were pointing out how grossly inaccurate it is to apply it to what we posted. Which it is, and this merely speaks to the fact that you don't really know how the term is effectively applied. But thanks for the great demonstration of how your own cultural bias creates your view of both "liberal relativism" (which we don't employ) and "liberalism" (which we don't wholly subscribe to).

2.
"Liberal relativism" is when liberals "pick out some minor details that coroborate [sic] their agenda, and focus on them, and then completely disregard the rest of the picture," yes? And you ascribe this to "liberals"? Hm. "Picking out" the religion of a person — either a positive or negative contributor — is, to us, extremely fucking minor. It doesn't fucking matter, since religion is insignificant — all religions boil down to the same bullshit. If you can't grasp our take on that, then there's little reason for you to try to wrap your head around the bigger issues we cover...you just won't manage.

Further, "picking out" the New York Times' take on the "difference" between the Israeli terror victim and the Arab suicide bomber, and somehow assuming that we share this view, is pretty fucking laughable. Yes, in your two-dimensional, black and white world, since we don't hate all Arabs, we must be "liberal relativists" who side with everything the New York Times ever prints. This is not, however, how things are in the real world. How much clearer can we make this? Some people exist who are capable of thinking for themselves instead of engaging in zombie-like groupthink — we are among them, and you, apparently, are not. Since we do base our judgments on the actions of individuals, we do think that the suicide bomber was fucking evil — yes, there are mitigating circumstances, including her upbringing and some pretty awful pressure to perform the actions she did...but we know and know of plenty of folks who deal with similar horrible circumstances and don't go around killing others.

For the record, we have no sympathy whatsoever for someone who dies (and takes others with her) as a result of her own deliberate violent act. And when that violent act is committed in the name of some stupid, delusional religion (read: any religion at all), it only magnifies our disgust. So while you might like to think that us "liberals" at the Two Percent Company would shed a tear over the poor, dead, Arab suicide bomber, it simply isn't true, and we defy you to find anything on our site that says otherwise.

Nice straw man, though. Want a tin man and a lion to go with it?

3.
We can certainly see problems in Europe today. And in the United States. And, in fact, throughout much of the rest of the world. However, rather than just saying "the Muslims are fucking up Europe" (which may or may not be true, but is incredibly simplistic and incurious either way) or even "the Mexicans are fucking up the United States" (which may or may not be true, but is also incredibly simplistic and incurious either way), we try to examine the interconnections between various different cultural, psychological, and historical elements.

Perhaps the Muslims in Europe are responsible for every little problem to be found on the continent (which, with just a cursory investigation, is demonstrably untrue — off the cuff, good old Slobodan Milošević certainly wasn't a Muslim, and we could probably go on a bit about many, many others...unless you assume that Hitler knelt down and faced Mecca five times a day); but even if this were true (which it isn't), you're still picking out a "minor detail" — their affiliation with Islam — and ascribing all of their actions and behaviors to this one factor. And you accuse us of not looking at the big picture? Are you kidding? Sure, we judge people individually — in the "little picture," if you insist — but we inform our judgments with a much, much larger scope of information than you seem to. There are plenty of historical reasons why Muslims in Europe are marginalized, and therefore angry (justifiably or not), and therefore either create or perpetuate poor living conditions and/or violent cross-cultural conflict.

You, on the other hand, choose to "generalize" when it comes to the behavior of Muslims (but, perhaps unsurprisingly, not when it comes to Jews), but then narrow your view incredibly when it comes to determining the actual causes of the behavior and actions of certain Muslims or groups of Muslims. So it seems that you apply relativism, but only when it suits you — how "conservatively relativist" of you (is that the proper two-dimensional label to apply in this situation?).

4.
Last stop on the line, all idiots please get off at the terminal: you're incredibly obtuse, aren't you? We suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension. Aside from the fact that you still haven't seemed to grasp that "Sebastian Villar/Vilar Rodriguez" is fictitious (despite the disclaimer above our post, and our frequent references to this fact, both subtle and direct — when we make a mistake, we acknowledge it), you have decided that we have said "most hassidic jews... are arrogant, elitist snobs." See, that would be the typical quote mining we expect from assholes who are incapable of forming a cogent argument (Bronze Dog pointed this out quite nicely as well). What we actually, and very clearly, said was:

To be clear, in our experience, most Hasidic Jews we've met are assholes — they're arrogant, elitist snobs who are among the most racist and insulated motherfuckers on earth — but there are some we've encountered with whom we have absolutely no problem, and would even consider to be quite nice acquaintances.

That's the problem with "creative ellipses," you disingenuous tool. By "snipping" our actual words, you've robbed them of context, and therefore rejected the meaning that we helpfully supplied. We clearly indicated that the Hasidic Jews we've described are the ones we've met — not "most hassidic jews," as you wish we'd said (so that your bullshit attacks would have any modicum of merit). Can we change what the Hasidim we've met have been like? No — that's up to them.

What's more, by dishonestly distorting our position you've utterly missed the point that we made: we do not think that "most hassidic jews" are arrogant, elitist snobs, and that's because we are not going to judge the entire "group" solely on the basis of the ones we've met. Our very next sentence makes this point:

Should we abandon this "liberal relativism" you've ascribed to us and just write off all Hasidic Jews, simply because in our experience they tend to be dicks? Because that's precisely what you (and the fictitious Rodriguez) seem to be suggesting we do with regard to Muslims.

Yes, most Hasidic Jews that we've met are assholes. Yes, the teachings of that group are antithetical to almost everything that we believe. And yet, despite that, we don't instantly write off as "asshole" every single person who self-identifies as a Hasidic Jew. We give them a chance to be judged by their own words and deeds. Oh, how fucking hypocritical of us!

On the flip side of that coin, we have stated that far from all Muslims are dangerous banes to society. And yet you persist in labeling them all as useless, harmful, dangerous criminals, without even looking at the individuals involved. That, you sanctimonious prat, is bigotry, plain and simple. The fact that you seem to be inordinately proud of your own bigotry is just very, very sad.

In case you're still scratching your empty head, we'll spell it out: we don't think it's a good idea to dismiss any individuals based on the behavior of others who are somehow "classified" with them. The difference between our "morally-superior" approach and yours, jaaykke, is that we don't stop at the first impression elicited by an individual's "classification" — we actually bother to do a little more investigation and/or research before we write someone off as totally consumed by the tenets of any particular group they belong to. You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem writing them off at first blush...as long as this method of judgment isn't directed at Hasidic Jews. (While we haven't been explicitly informed of your personal, arbitrary choice of religious affiliation, we have a pretty good guess.) You might want to refrain from tossing words like "hypocrite" around in the future, jackass.

—•—

It's astonishing to us (well, no — not really) that you've elected to ignore most of the arguments we made in our earlier comment, and instead chose to cling stupidly to your straw man of "liberal relativism." Either abandon your dishonest and demonstrably untrue non-issue and engage in an actual discussion on this topic (a request which we seriously doubt you are at all capable of fulfilling), or take your thus far intellectually-lacking claptrap and piss off. We have little time for bigoted asshats who can't see past their own misconceptions of either us or the world around them.

Nice straw man, though. Want a tin man and a lion to go with it?

Oh shit dude...outta left field, water all over my screen...Holy Humping Mary on a Vibrator...

Further, "picking out" the New York Times' take on the "difference" between the Israeli terror victim and the Arab suicide bomber, and somehow assuming that we share this view, is pretty fucking laughable. Yes, in your two-dimensional, black and white world, since we don't hate all Arabs, we must be "liberal relativists" who side with everything the New York Times ever prints.

Maybe you should put a disclaimer: "The 2% Company is not in any way affiliated with The New York Times"

Might as well warn the idiots, since we are putting "Hot" labels on all food above room temperature, and such. He wasn't warned that you aren't affiliated, therefore it wasn't his fault he didn't know the coffee with steam rising from it was hot.

Oh, I'm sorry Bronze, I didn't get the quote right, did I? Let me try that again, "in our experience, most Hasidic Jews we've met are assholes" Is that better? Yeah, that doesn't imply anything at all along the lines of judging Hassidic individuals based on the group they belong to. Silly me. I really did misconstrue their intention. I'll bet they just meant that it was a funny coincidence that the Hassidim they met they didn't like, but they have no preconceptions about other Hassidim. BULLSHIT. HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT. And their apologia qualification that "there are some we've encountered with whom we have absolutely no problem" doesn't negate that at all. This is what they are saying: Most Hassidim are crap. The fact that they acknowledge that there may be some exceptions to THEIR GENERALIZATION is saying MOST of them suck, not all. Yeah thats much better. Oh, they just meant the ones that they've met. Youre right, that doesn't imply anything about the rest of them. Ok. Boy, I really didn't read what they wrote carefully.
Lets try it your way. Most arabs in europe are destructive, backwards, religious extremists. But there are some nice ones.
Is that the way you would put it better then what Rodrigez writes?
Since you mentioned the point of not addressing what you were saying, I wondered if your hypocricy had any boundaries at all.
Your response to Rodrigez (weather he is real or not) was that you should not judge an individual based on a stereotype. That is what the Germans did to the jews. To prove your point, you mentioned that there are many wonderful muslims in the world.
I fully agree.
Here is my point, and I beg you to address it directly. The crux of what Rodrigez said is that in Europe, as a result of the Holocaust, a bunch of jews who worked hard and didn't bother anybody left and a bunch of a muslims moved in. Among the muslim population that moved in, some are fine citizens and some commit henious acts and terrorize the entire continent. That change of population is a negative one for Europe.
I am not judging any individual arabs or commenting on weather to do so is bad or good.
I am simply saying that the point that Rodrigez made was valid.
To illustrate: Most of the families on my block growing up were jewish. (Non-reliious, unafiliated jewish in case you were wondering) They were all hardworking people who sent their kids to college and were decent neighbors. If I was still living in my parents house and was planning on raising my own kids there, but then for some reason all those jewish families moved away and muslim families moved in and some of them were fine people and some of them were terrorists, I would move.

Yeah, that doesn't imply anything at all along the lines of judging Hassidic individuals based on the group they belong to. Silly me. I really did misconstrue their intention.

Well, at least you admit to being an idiot and projecting your racist logic onto the 2% Co.

I'll bet they just meant that it was a funny coincidence that the Hassidim they met they didn't like, but they have no preconceptions about other Hassidim.

Exactly. It's obvious from context that they're talking about avoiding letting local bias affect their opinions, especially since they mentioned Hassidics they were okay with.

BULLSHIT. HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT. And their apologia qualification that "there are some we've encountered with whom we have absolutely no problem" doesn't negate that at all. This is what they are saying: Most Hassidim are crap.

Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic? For a second, I thought we were in agreement that bigotry is wrong, and that knowing the difference between a sampler pack (a small number of candies) and all the candy in the world (the population of candy) is a good thing.

And thus you spin 2%'s position into the opposite of its real one by pretending that "we won't assume this sample is representative and neither should you" into "we do assume this sample is representative", probably because jaakkye thinks exactly like that, therefore, he assumes everyone else does.

Someone stop the spin, I wanna get off.

Lets try it your way. Most arabs in europe are destructive, backwards, religious extremists. But there are some nice ones.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is in no way related to anything the 2% Co said. Duh. Anyone who can