Can Muslims Be Good Americans?

From a circulating e-mail:

Can Muslims be Good Americans?

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? Consider this:

  • Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
  • Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
  • Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
  • Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
  • Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
  • Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34). Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
  • Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
  • Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
  • Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
  • Spiritually, no, because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish…it’s still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country.

Pass it on. The war is bigger than we know

Perhaps one of the more grossly xenophobic chain e-mails that I’ve seen in a while. Let’s take a look.

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia. I assume when they say “theologically,” they mean that a Muslim can’t be loyal to the American government because he is loyal only to Allah. Of course, this begs they question: Can a Christian or Jew be loyal to American government if their primary allegiance is to God? There’s certainly enough people decrying government because it’s so Godless, so if people like Ken Hovind claim to be independent of the government because they think God is telling them so, does that make them traitors, too?

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran). This is basically just a rehash of the above item. Does believing in the Bible or the Torah somehow negate a Christian or Jew’s citizenship?

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day. You’d better tell all those Christians who visited Jerusalem that they can’t acknowledge the Holy Land.

What does “allegiance is to Mecca” even mean? My guess is that if a Muslim is living in America, it’s because he wants to live in America.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. I’m not 100% of the origins of this. My guess is that someone is reading too much into a very cursory summary of the Muslim faith. Regardless, you’d better tell my friend’s practicing Muslim father that he can’t talk to me any more, and that he has to divorce his Catholic wife. Maybe he didn’t get the memo.

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan. Some of them do, yes. And Pat Robertson teaches the destruction of Pennsylvania and Hugo Chavez. That doesn’t mean that anybody but the most extreme of fundamentalist Muslims would commit violence against America.

Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34). Once again, you’d better tell my Muslim acquaintance that he needs to get himself three more wives. Despite his familiarity with the Quran, I’m guessing he didn’t get the memo. Come to think of it, though, I think I remember something in the Old Testament about concubines….. naw, must be thinking of something else.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256). And this is different from every other religion how?

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. The Constitution is based on Biblical principles? Wait, I’ve heard this canard before, and it’s no more true now than it ever was. The Constitution is based on a rich philosophical tradition (to wit: Locke), previous legal documents, and common sense. Nobody at the Continental Congress stood up and said “Wait! Maybe we should include something in there about ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill,’ or else they might murder each other willy-nilly.” Even if I were to accept that the Constitution somehow derives its text from certain Biblical precepts, they are so broad as to be effectively nonreligious.

Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Tell the next person who objects to Piss Christ that if s/he doesn’t shut up, we’ll consider her/him a terrorist. Remember, a Muslim in America has the same freedom of speech that everyone else has. Whether or not he practices all of those freedoms is up to him, and I don’t give a damn if Muslims don’t have depictions of Mohammed like Christians have paintings and statuettes of Jesus.

Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. This is true. It is also a strawman. We don’t have a Muslim government here in America; we have a democracy. The fact that Muslims can peacefully live in this democracy is pretty much proof positive that this particular item is flat-out wrong. When a Muslim comes here or continues to live here, s/he recognizes the authority of the United States government. If they don’t, well, then like Australia, they are free to get the fuck out. Nobody’s making them stay.

Spiritually, no, because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names. What does spirituality have to do with being a loyal American? Oh, that’s right: it has nothing to do with being a loyal American. I will point out once again that “one nation under God” was added in the 1950s as a symbolic gestures against the Communists. Also, that when you declare “one nation under God” to be referring only to the Christian god, you’re implying that Jews, atheists, Zoroastrians, pagans, &c. are inherently treasonous as well, and you’ve just completely missed the point: America has always been about religious freedom. If you don’t accept anybody but Christians as being valid Americans, then you can get the fuck out.

Therefore after much study and deliberation… Oh yeah, somebody put a lot of thought into this marvel of logic.

…perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. And you apparently can’t be a good Christian and a good human being. This whole “Sorry, but it’s the truth!” crap that this person is shovelling is a mask for a much deeper loathing of people who are different from him/her. Nobody likes fundamentalist Islam, me least of all, but I also realize that fundamentalist Islam isn’t winning many hearts and minds in America. The sentiment here—”Watch out for all Muslims: they’re probably terrorists”—is frightening: an unapologetic incitement to violence against otherwise peaceful citizens, or Manzanar Pt. II.

I find it so bemusing when Christians whinny about the oh-so-dangerous minorities, or when they bitch about persecution by the secret cabals of Gay Atheist Secular-Jew Communists. Modern-day American Christians know nothing about persecution, and it shows when worthless gasbags like the author of this e-mail open their ignorant mouths.

§1093 · April 17, 2006 · 19 comments · Tags: , ,

Still more words to use more often

sartorial [adj.]
Of or relating to a tailor, tailoring, or tailored clothing
At 6’6″ and 150lbs, it’s difficult for me to find nice suits; however, when I make it rich, I hope to keep a skilled tailor on retainer and wallow in sartorial splendour.
synecdoche [n.]
A figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole (as “hand” for “sailor”), the whole for a part (as “the law” for “police officer”), the specific for the general (as “cutthroat” for “assassin’), the general for the specific (as “thief” for “pickpocket”), or the material for the thing made from it (as “steel” for “sword”)
In other words, a metonym is one kind of synecdoche, or perhaps “metonym” is a synonym for synecdoche (say that three times fast)
œuvre [n. pl.]
1. A work of art
2. The sum of the lifework of an artist, writer, or composer.
It can be used interchangeable with the Latin “opus,” from which it takes its etymological roots, but only when you want to sound even more snobbish. Technically speaking, this blog entry could be considered part of my Å“uvre
solicitude [n.]
1. The state of being solicitous; care or concern, as for the well-being of another.
2. A cause of anxiety or concern. Often used in the plural.
When stores hang signs that say “No Solicitation,” they’re only proscribing salesmen, not anxiety-ridden customers.
esurient [adj.]
Hungry; greedy.
The ebullient man was always esurient, probably from being constantly surrounded by luxurious nourishment
lupine [adj.]
1. Characteristic of or resembling a wolf.
2. Rapacious; ravenous.
When deprived of his potables, the porcine person from the previous example becomes positively lupine; that is to say, he’s hopelessly hungry, not horribly hirsute.
vertiginous [adj.]
1. Turning about an axis; revolving or whirling.
2. Affected by vertigo; dizzy.
3. Tending to produce vertigo
4. Inclined to change quickly; unstable.
I’m somewhat vertiginous, so when I’m on a vertiginous ride, my stomach becomes vertiginous.
syncope [n.]
1. [Grammar] The shortening of a word by omission of a sound, letter, or syllable from the middle of the word; for example, “bos’n” for “boatswain.”
2. [Pathology] A brief loss of consciousness caused by a temporary deficiency of oxygen in the brain; a swoon.
I can’t cope with British syncopes, so when they talk, I sometimes feel a syncope coming on.
§1090 · April 15, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags:

Adultery & Other Choices

Adultery & Other Choices Adultery & Other Choices by Andre Dubus
Publisher: David R. Godine
Year: 1977/1999
Pages: 192

Not to be confused with his progeny, Andre Dubus III (of House of Sand and Fog fame), Andre Dubus is a master storyteller, milking each word on the page for full meaning. Before reading this collection of short stories, I’d never even heard of him: go figure.

Goodness knows I’m not a big fan of short story compilations. I prefer lengthier pieces with fleshed out plots and characters. It’s especially galling if the short story is good, because I’m then left waiting for more.

I can’t talk about plots or characters here, really: there are too many of them. I am struck, however, by the book’s morbid fascinating with inward characters, grappling with addictions or emotionally distant relationships or &c., and all seeming to do so in silence. I’m reminded of Chuck Palahniuk, though of course Dubus is too restrained to get weird on his readers; one gets the impression of conflict between the perversions (of sorts) harbored by the characters in this book and a sort of puritanism, either from the time period or something of Dubus’ own devising.

It’s far from a happy look at life: none of these stories will leave you smiling; few—if any—will make you chuckle. Most will make you agitated at the constant fuckups of the characters or their emotional impotency; all will make you think about the multiple facets that Dubus manages to include in such a small space.

The highlight of the book is its title story, “Adultery,” about an emotionally-crippled husband and wife a hairs-breadth away from being swingers, and the icy, brutish sort of relationship engendered. Arguably, nothing newmdash;in fact, you can probably guess the ends to all of these stories—but damn can this guy write.

§1087 · April 14, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags:

æm xii {a stormcloud, vanquish’d}

She is inexorable comings
of better things;
(like the laughter of children,
playing in the ashes of a stormcloud,
vanquish’d)
and She is a terrible pressure (and relief)
that fixes rivers gone astray,
turns brine to milk,
derives a brick or two of gæity
from walls of grief.

She is a holocaustic heat
which flares my dampened match,
and births a heaving heliotrope
with seceding burn of forge,
alight in writhing fire.
She is a conflagrating ring
that traces further aureoles
with bits of blinding white;
and mantle—pushing solemnly the breath—
beneath the bloodred spire.

She is an answer
to many things that never
deigned a question mark;
and pale halos of twilight
that flay pink strips from the stretch of sky;
that swear recidivistic stars
will touch the treeline once again.
but neither ray nor shade bely us:
whether argentine or aureate arcs above,
We will Love, She and i.

§1081 · April 14, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags: ,

The Worst Movies of All Time

The Worst Movies of All Time The Worst Movies of All Time by Michael Sauter
Publisher: Citadel Press
Year: 1999
Pages: 358

I’m not a movie buff; in fact, my uncle would probably enjoy this book considerably more than me, as it contains a rather hefty section focusing on nothing but B movies. The only reason I picked it up was because it was recommended in conjunction with a funny “10 Worst Movies of All Time” list I saw on some aggregator or another. In retrospect, the list was considerably more funny than the book.

Maybe I just don’t have the capacity for movie humour; it’s entirely possible that someone who watched enough of these things would find it rip-roaring hilarious… or it simply be a statement of everything they already knew.

Perhaps it’s because Sauter’s prose is a bit turgid; of all the funny things to write about bad movies, Sauter’s numerous entries (one per movie) sometimes elicit a chuckle, but most of the time seem to me like the critic-cum-comedian version of Jerry Seinfield’s infinitely unfunny “And what’s the deal with airline food?” Only this time, it’s “And what’s the deal with Hudson Hawk?”

Also, if you aren’t well-versed in older movies, you’ll barely recognize most of these titles. Sauter spends the vast majority of the book on movies made before 1960, first in the “Megaton Bombs” section, which goes chronologically from some C.B. deMille pictures (and some would argue with his label of “worst movies”) to more recent pictures like Hudson Hawk. The latter section of the book is all about B movies, so again, it’s mostly mid-century stuff. This might be great for fans of the genre—but maybe you’ll find the writing as lame as I did.

You might want to avoid this one unless your curiosity gets the better of you.

§1085 · April 13, 2006 · 1 comment · Tags:

← Older entries
Newer entries →