Previous month:
May 2008
Next month:
July 2008

Supporting the Troops II

The Apostate: Supporting the Troops Some More.

Some military douchebags are very offended that I’m taking my valuation of humanity from the Milgram experiments, the Stanford prison experiment and the Nazis to state that thrown into appropriate cultures, most people of ordinary morality act in immoral ways. Soldiers (and frat boys and gangs) rape because the military encourages and fosters a macho rape culture. There should be nothing controversial about this, but apparently I’m supposed to be a naive little girl and trust most people to be good, “deep down.”

Many Americans would find the equivalence of the US military with the Nazi regime offensive. The Nazis systematically planned and carried out the slaughter of peoples at an industrial-scale level whereas a few American soldiers have humiliated and tortured Iraqis. You often times read of reports where the American soldiers are weary of handing over suspects to local Iraqi police or troops because of what will likely be done to the possible culprits. And no, we won't get to see the photos of that activity.

Of course, the US military fosters a macho culture. (What ought they do? Foster a sissy culture?) But when did being macho become synonymous with being a rapist?

Given the thin line of logic, do bodybuilders foster a rape culture?

Supporting the Troops

The Apostate:

I say, if they can’t drink until 21, they can’t pick up guns and kill people either.

Good point. The drinking age ought to be lowered.

Our male troops are also rapists. They rape their fellow soldiers and the women of countries they invade. If your son is a person of ordinary moral strength, he will become a rapist. To me, that’s a sufficient reason to keep a recruiter away from your son.

She has quite a low opinion of men.

Coddling Muslims in the UK

Continuing with the theme, another link here:

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

Does he think that Muslims can't take the heat?

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

A taste of what the officer said:

"He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

Lovely chap.

Link via Instapundit.

A Fixed Game

Nice title: Bishops in Chess Games.

To deal with the "baptism problem", various schemes have been tried. The missionary experts have tried "secret baptism", "delayed baptism" and "self-baptism" and found them all to be inadequate because Muslim social and family structure is such that whenever a member leaves Islam, it is perceived as a calamitous event for the entire family.

Most of the cases cited where people have resorted to violence are rooted more in disputes over family honour and reputation than in Islamic jurisprudence. In a world where reputation is crucial to the process of finding good marriage partners for siblings, being known as a family with members who have left the faith is highly damaging. This distinction, however, is lost on many Church strategists. Instead, they have consistently blamed Islamic jurisprudence for the anger that is generated and have resorted to what can only be described as an attempt to rewrite Islamic history.

It seems the author is saying that Islamic jurisprudence doesn't advocate using force against ex-Muslims.

But then the very next paragraph:

In recent years, there have been a series of attempts, posited within the interfaith framework, to get Muslim scholars here in the West to issue global verdicts rendering the "law of apostasy in traditional Islam" not only inapplicable in the current context but also historically invalid and unjustified. The purpose, of course, for seeking such a ruling is that it would facilitate the exporting of it to countries where missionaries are having difficulties at the point of baptism with family members of people who convert to Christianity.

Correct. But if that apostasy law is not the cause of harm towards ex-Muslims then why would Christian missionaries ask for it to be declared invalid?