This whole business of rejecting visas will soon be a moot point with new advances in cheap, reliable communications technology. If Mr. Ramadan wants to give interactive lectures in Indiana, he can do so with the comfort of his home in Switzerland by using broadband VideoConferences. The DHS cannot stop it. If he wants to teach, administer tests, conduct conferences etc, all of it can be done from remote.

When Narendra Modi's visa was rejected, it did not stop him from addressing his supporters in NY and Miami. If someone wants Modi to inaugarate a temple, school or business in the US, pretty soon they will be able to set up a virtual-reality red-tape/scissors in NewJersey and Ahmedabad, linked together by remote-control software. So Modi can cut the tape in Ahmedabad, and the software will tranmit the cutting motion to the scissors in NewJersey, all on live video-conferencing. In ten years, we can have a virtual Modi at the Mall in D.C., addressing thousands of Desis. In your face...

M. Nam

PS: The link to PEN American Center does not work.

If Mr. Ramadan wants to give interactive lectures in Indiana

MoorNam,

It is more complicated. He was offered a faculty position at the newly formed Islamic Center @ ND. He was offered visa and then USCIS rescinded citing his past utterances.

In his younger days, he was a soccer player, and I think he is a son of an Ayatollah.

I read about this a while back and after googling him found this article from Daniel Pipes, who many might consider too partisan in this fight, but I consider credible.

Given the mood of this country post 9/11, I find the revokal defensible.

Why not go all thew way and invite him to open "Valley Of the Wolves" at the San Franciso film festival. Ridiculous...

Given the mood of this country post 9/11

pray tell,

1/ what is the mood of the country?

2/ how do you know?

3/ is everything that does not conform to the "mood of the country" therefore wrong?

thanks in advance.

Can give me a rec for a good book/essay by Tariq Ramadan as an intro to him? I find that these visa denials and fatwas to kill are occasionally a useful way to find interesting authors :)

In any case, the history of U.S. immigration policy is rife with attempts to mold the population to the goverment's liking, including on the issue of ideology. There's always a "9/11" invoked--before that it was Communism and before that...well, you can probably go back to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 if you want, or even earlier. It gets tiresome to hear these national security arguments trotted out when they're totally inapplicable, especially when the lack of good national security policy frequently comes close to getting me killed. Real national security experts actually try to figure out effective strategies, not exploit the danger to further other agendas.

Think about his employer, it's the very conservative University of Notre Dame. They had him checked out thoroughly with the Swiss authorities, there was no gonnection to terrorism, no sympathy for it. It was pure politics.

Siddhartha,

This poll right after the attacks on 9/11 show that the majority of American people across the spectrum feel that lax Immigration and border security was responsible for 9/11.

3rd bullet point in this report proves that a majority of people do not want immigration from the countries they suspect have links to terrorism.

The subsequent polls supporting the Patriot act and NSA wiretaps show that people are not willing to take even small risks if homeland defense is involved. In my opinion this man was a risk, not big, but risk nonetheless.

Now coming to the last question. My answer is no. But I am not in charge of setting or enforcing the immigration law. All I wanted to say was there was a good case for cancelling his visa.

3rd bullet point in this report proves that a majority of people do not want immigration from the countries they suspect have links to terrorism.

You mean like Switzerland?

Oy Gavolt,

Going by Ramadan's past utterances, he seems to susbscribe to the view that 911 was America's fault and hence America "deserved it". This is not exactly conducive for getting a visa. Where's the respect for the country you are trying to go to?

However, DHS's excuse that Ramadan will whip up radical frenzy is completely bogus. A mullah in Egypt can whip up passions in Ohio muslims on an internet chat-room. He does not need a visa for that.

I bet if Ramadan was coming to teach "Metallurgy of Titanium alloys", he would have got the visa.

M. Nam

M. Nam - I'm pretty sure that's a misrepresentation. I know the folks involved with the decision to hire him at Notre Dame, and there's no way they would have done so if that's what he actually said. For one thing, the even more conservative alumni would have staged a revolt.

Here is a bit of "wisdom" from "Prof" Ramadan... (do as I tell you , don't do as I (we ) do..)

Gardels: In defending its publication of the cartoons, an editorial in the German daily Die Welt said, “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” What do you say to that?

Ramadan: Die Welt is not wrong to say this. We Muslims must be self-critical. At the same time, hypocrisy in the Arab world doesn’t justify insulting Muslims in return. Your teacher should not be the wrongdoings of others, but your own principles.

Link

Maybe they should allow him in, just to confirm what a hypocrite he is in person.

We must not be reading the same thing because I see no hypocrisy in the statements above. Your own principles should be the guide--it's wrong to insult Muslims or any other religious group. That's what I am hearing. Oy Gavolt--good point. Notre Dame is very conservative AND they wanted him at their university. Maybe because he is a you know, a scholar who deals with ideas?

"Going by Ramadan's past utterances, he seems to susbscribe to the view that 911 was America's fault and hence America "deserved it". This is not exactly conducive for getting a visa. Where's the respect for the country you are trying to go to?"

Do you have any quotes to justify this, Moornam? I am reading a book of his called 'Western Muslims and the Future of Islam', and so far I have to say he is one of the foremost thinkers in the Islamic world. It is a serious read for anyone who wants to understand the muslim context.

Saurav, I'd recommend this book.

yeah, Vikram. What is the hypocrisy in that statement? He admits that muslims are not self-critical, but does it mean that he doesn't have the right to criticize others.

I blogged about Tariq Ramadan's visa denial a couple of years ago. He's quite well-known in France -- one of the main commentators on the "Islamic perspective" in the ongoing French debates on immigration, Muslims, and multiculturalism. When I was in Paris last year, I saw him on national television, debating conservatives (or, to be precise, monoculturalists) pretty competently.

I personally don't find his ideas on an Islamic reformation too thrilling, but it's quite likely that he was banned by the US earlier on the basis of his grandfather's connection to the Muslim Brotherhood organization rather than any of his actual views. (I doubt anyone at the state department bothered to actually get his books or articles translated.) So I support his right to enter the U.S.

yeah, Vikram. What is the hypocrisy in that statement? He admits that muslims are not self-critical, but does it mean that he doesn't have the right to criticize others.

He sure has the (Western) privilege of criticizing a country like the US within its borders after being invited to travel here. I hope he shows his supposedly balanced views by next announcing a trip to Saudi Arabia and taking them to task for their hypocrisy too. That would make a statement to both sides. It is easy to make some tepid and vague statements like "We Muslims must be self-critical" without taking anyone or anything Muslim to task, in the Western media. Though I am am sure he knows he will land up in the same boat as Salman Rushdie if he tries to say anything stronger. So yes, he is a hypocrite, like most of the "intellectuals" of his ilk.

Western Muslims and the Future of Islam is a decent book as an intro to his thinking judging from other stuff i've touched of his, but it synthesizes religious jibberishosity with francophone inscrutability quite often (it gets less faux abstract as it progressives, thank god). note the bizarro diagrams trying to illustrate tawhid early on. at least idols are comprehensible. ramadan is basically muslim version of a southern baptist (you can find interviews on NPR's site, he sounds like a moderate evangelical sent through a christian->muslim regular expression), in other words, relatively liberal and ecumenical as muslims go. i wish progressives would view his stuff with the same critical eye they do christian nuttiness. olive skin doesn't make it any less laughable.

as for the political issue, well, food-fights as usual. though i don't think trying to shape a nation's polity is a bad thing. most of the world's population isn't exactly enlightened toward atheism or homosexuality, for example.

In a related story... well semi-related story, Sheikh Riyadh Ul-Haq, a well-known cleric from the UK is scheduled to address various Muslim organisations in Toronto and Montreal. There have been appeals made to the Minister of Immigration to deny entry to the Sheikh by various Hindu, Jewish, Christian and GLBT groups. I found two links to this story. The first one is a brief
The second one is more in-depth but the headline of "British">http://www.judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0398">"British Hate Preacher to Speak at McMaster University" kinda makes me weary of bias. ;)

btw, i did like ramadan's taxonomy of islamic schools of thought/law. they are worth the rest of the book. if your enemy makes a map of lands for you, why not familiarize yourself?

Funny how people in this thread leap to defend a man like Ramadan who makes statements like this:

Tariq Ramadan is dangerous not because he is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and originator of a political Islam which has wreaked havoc across the world, but because he has never distanced himself from the ideological heritage of his grandfather, whom he continues to present as the “most influential of the Muslim reformists of the century” [1] when that reformism consisted of wanting to go back to the baseline of Sharia law.

Tariq Ramadan is worrying not because he is the brother of Hani Ramadan, an Islamist theoretician who endorses stoning for adultery and considers AIDS to be a divine punishment, but because he himself reckons that one cannot be both Muslim and homosexual, even if he does not advise physical punishment for homosexuals. “God wanted things in order. And that order is ‘man for woman’ and ‘woman for man’,”, he explains in his lectures to young Muslims [2]. By taking up the Koran in a literal way, he endorses the doctrine of a divine and natural order which we would not accept from a Christian fundamentalist.

Link

I am weary of people defending Ramadan and giving his bigotry a free pass, because he is Muslim and his views happen to be critical of the US government(which most people on this blog dislike to the extent that it blinds them to all else). Would they extend the same free pass to a Christian conservative, if he/she made such comments about gay/lesbian people ?

While the Executive may exclude an alien for almost any reason, it cannot do so solely because the Executive disagrees with the content of the alien’s speech

Are there any legal experts out there who can answer this ???: How much leeway does the law allow the executive branch in regards to revoking a visa, especially in regards to the first amendment?

Lets say theoretically, we have an individual who possess extreme views that can be characterized as hate (holocaust denial or separation of the races) but at the some time poses no terrorist/national security threat whatsoever. Can he be denied entry, or does the first amendment prohibit taking his views into consideration, as it would if he were a citizen?

I am weary of people defending Ramadan and giving his bigotry a free pass, because he is Muslim and his views happen to be critical of the US government(which most people on this blog dislike to the extent that it blinds them to all else). Would they extend the same free pass to a Christian conservative, if he/she made such comments about gay/lesbian people ?

of course, they just have to be non-white (unless you are in a mostly non-christian forum like SM where being a xian means there is the stain of selloutness). i've observed that its fine for black people to express an evangelical and fiery spirituality without eliciting the snickers from my white liberal friends that white evangelicals do. after all, they're black people, right? they're spiritual, what more can you expect? take a look at this guy, moving away from violence is acceptable and sufficient, only for white people is purity of heart the gold standard (e.g., civilized white people have to eschew heterosexist language, olive, brown and black, well, good enough that the savages don't want homosexuals stoned).

Vikram and Razib:

I believe it's called the "'Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations"

I believe it's called the "'Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations"

sure, though i like to call it the "white man's burden of moral superiority" :) sometimes low expectations is prudent and pragmatic of course. bigotry against homosexuals is still normative in the non-elite west, so we can't expect muslims to not be hyper-heterosexist. coming off the killing rhetoric is enough (i have gay friends who have traveled in the middle east, it is a bit different in the "trenches" they tell me :) the problem is the importation of low expectations into the west. character matters.

"I am weary of people defending Ramadan and giving his bigotry a free pass, because..."

Vikram, I don't give a free pass to anyone's bigotry. I was seriously trying to understand his evidence for bigotry. My exposure to him was first through http://www.time.com/time/innovators/spirituality/profile_ramadan.html

Then, I started reading his book. And so far, he doesn't come across as as an extremist. I am willing to change my opinion if you can show me otherwise. Click on time link for an alternate view on him.

"sure, though i like to call it the "white man's burden of moral superiority" :)"

It goes both ways. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was a rogue nation, while U.S invasion of Iraq is looked upon normal by a lot of people.

I am willing to change my opinion if you can show me otherwise

What is your opinion about his statement on gay people I referenced in #21 ? Do you feel that is not extreme ?

Bush says the marriage is between a man and woman. He is THE president of the united states. Homosexuality is illegal in India - so India is an extemist nation?. So, let's have some perspective here. I am all for gay marriages, but Most practising religious people find homosexuality against the natural order. so that is their opinion. One becomes fundamentalist when they want to impose their ideas on others. It didn't seem like Ramadan was suggesting that in your quote. If he is, he has an extreme view point.

Exactly. Are you going to deny a visa to people who don't support homosexuality? YOu might need to export a few million Americans then. And Tariq Ramadan was invited to the US precisely because of his views, and to air them and bring them to an American university. It isn't as if he started criticizing the US yesterday. I don't support any religious bigotry, and yes, I believe many people in this forum would criticize a white Christian for similar views. It's too easy and often meaningless to throw around 'pseudo,' 'secular,' and 'liberal' as accusations.

Bush says the marriage is between a man and woman. He is THE president of the united states. Homosexuality is illegal in India - so India is an extemist nation?

Bush is a conservative and I don't think anyone here likes him and not just for that view. People have blogged about the unfair treatment of homosexuals in India and in that respect India is extreme. The question with respect to Ramadan (who claims to be a "balanced" intellectual unlike Bush) who is going to be lecturing in the academic circles and to students, is whether such views are acceptable. If a Le Pen or a Jeorg Haider were to be given a US visa to lecture at universities, given their similar bigoted views, would that be ok with you ?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was a rogue nation, while U.S invasion of Iraq is looked upon normal by a lot of people.

fair enough, but nations are not individuals. treating nations as corporate entities brings in problems, while individuals are an easier bundle of rights and responsibilities to decompose.

If a Le Pen or a Jeorg Haider were to be given a US visa to lecture at universities, given their similar bigoted views, would that be ok with you ?

Fair enough--but Ramadan is a scholar of Religion. He isn't being invited to talk about sexuality. Of all his views you may disagree on this one, but he knows scripture and philosophy of Islam--that's what he is being invited to teach. The other two are politicians. What is their expertise on anything? I would invite them if I wanted to know how to use bigotry, inflammatory speeches, and racist rhetoric to win elections. But then again, why go abroad to find those?

Of all his views you may disagree on this one, but he knows scripture and philosophy of Islam--that's what he is being invited to teach. The other two are politicians.

this is an interesting point, because if you read ramadan's books you (i did) get the impression that such 'categories' that divide spheres of life not something he agrees with. that is, sharia is a way of life and expands into politics (read his stuff about justice).

The other two are politicians. What is their expertise on anything?

Joerg Haider has a degree in law and worked at the University of Vienna law faculty in the department of constitutional law Link

Le Pen studied political science and law, and was at one time the president of an association of law students in Paris. His graduate studies thesis, presented in 1971 by Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jean-Loup Vincent, is entitled Le courant anarchiste en France depuis 1945 or "The anarchist movement in France since 1945". Link

Are they in any way less qualified subjectively than Ramadan, based on their paper qualifications ? Would it be ok to invite them to then lecture based on their academic qualifications as long as they didn't talk about their other views ? Or is Ramadan's qualification somehow "different" ? Do tell...

"he himself reckons that one cannot be both Muslim and homosexual"

When's the last time a Christian espousing such beliefs was banned from the USA?

When's the last time a Christian espousing such beliefs was banned from the USA?

The question is whether a Christian espousing such beliefs would get so much support on a board such as this that claims to be against bigotry.

Vikram,

I am not at all a fan of Ramadan. I think he is sort of on the fringe. However, I think the objection by lot of people (not on SM) was raised that DHS stepped in and told Notre Dame's appointment was not acceptable. In principle, DHS has all the right but typically to keep academic freedoms intact, they do not interfere with Universities.

The other point also is that USA does not understand the Muslim/ Arab heart and mind, and therefore, they have been trying to get different voices onboard - be it language, culture, history, or rabble rousers.

In past, even people Gabriel Garcia Marquez were denied visa during Reagan years. Now, he comes to LA very often for his cancer treatment, and his son lives there.

" If a Le Pen or a Jeorg Haider were to be given a US visa to lecture at universities, given their similar bigoted views, would that be ok with you ?"

I don't really know them. too busy to look them up. Still, I don't quite understand why visas should be denied even if they have bigoted views - as long as they are non-violent and not hateful. My quick search on Ramadan seems to show conflicting information. I guess I will finish the book and make up my mind.

And just to make this clear:

Shiv Sena-BJP=bad.
Nehru-Gandhi dynasty=just as bad.

Thanks.l

What is your opinion about his statement on gay people I referenced in #21 ?

Well mine is that you should stop using people like me as ragdolls in your political debate.

In past, even people Gabriel Garcia Marquez were denied visa during Reagan years. Now, he comes to LA very often for his cancer treatment, and his son lives there.

Umm, and so if crap has happened before it's okay to have it repeated?

And 'the mood of the country' is not something set in stone and decided by a small group of elite people. I definitely don't think the mood of Americans is to deny other people their human rights, especially the right of freedom of speech which is more central to the US constitution than any other country's.

On the upside, now we can all sleep safe and warm knowing that crazy terrorists like Ramadan and M.I.A are being stopped from continuing their random acts of, um, writing, and, singing whilst wearing huge grey hoodies. What a way to spend tax dollars :-)

Vikram,

What is your opinion about his statement on gay people I referenced in #21 ? Do you feel that is not extreme ?

No, he's just stating a fact as per his interpretation of Islam.

Razib,

i have gay friends who have traveled in the middle east, it is a bit different in the "trenches" they tell me :)

Could you please expand on this ? Do you mean that, as far as ordinary people are concerned, homosexuality is more tolerated (or at least subtly ignored as long as it isn't too "blatant") in the Middle East, or that there is in fact more overt intolerance of it (with perhaps severe consequences) ?

I love the way your government refer to non-Americans as aliens. i'm partially convinced Area 52 is filled with confused Martians awaiting the decision on their visa application.

'So burning Satanic Verses is primitive, but burning Beatles records is protecting the honour of our Lord the saviour'

correct

'And Bush saying he is being led by God is noble, but anyone wearing a beard and a turban saaying it is evil?'

now you're getting somewhere

'And if democracy means you're entitled to your opinion, you're allowed to express that opinion even if you don't agree with it?'

DENIED

'Oh no, now I must return back to my miserable planet never knowing the delights of pancake and sweet, sweet bacon'

Like I say, I'm only partially convinced...

I remember reading VS Naipaul's Among the Believers , journeys through Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran. One of the stories he tells is of Maulana Maududi, a firebrand godfather of modern day global Islamist ideology, who spent his entire life preaching hatred of Hindus, Jews and America, you know the spiel, typical Muslim fundamentalist crap about how Islam is the saviour of humanity and America is Satan incarnate and all non Muslim women are sluts from Hell. Anyway, Naipaul writes about how Maududi exemplified the utter hypocrisy of Muslim fundamentalists - despite berating America as the fountain of evil and the homeland of the Devil, he made sure his daughters were provided for to go to University there, and when he was dying of heart failure, the cheeky arrogant bastard availed himself of American modernity by checking in to an American hospital to try and save his life, fiddled with by infidels and rescued by a society that he had spent an entire lifetime preaching hatred of. This is the base and pathetic squealing hypocrisy that is commonplace amongst Islamist critics of America and more widely 'the West' - Ramadan may or may not fall into that category, but it is a definite phenomenon and you see it more than ever today, with backward medieval mullahs spewing hatred of Jews and the West while all the time growing fat and happy off the luxuries that their open societies provide (which they also think need to be converted to Islam) - hypocrites.

No, he's just stating a fact as per his interpretation of Islam.

That sounds eeriely like the Nuremberg Defense

No, he's just stating a fact as per his interpretation of Islam.

That sounds eeriely like the Nuremberg Defense

One guy's rants on paper can't be equated with an entire government passing policies that deny entry to anyone who says something they don't like hearing

Ramadan's exclusion from America probably has much to do with him being the grandson of the extreme right wing ideological Big Daddy to global Islamic Caliphate terrorism Hassan al Banna. They are wrong to exclude him because the sins of the father are not the sins of the son. This is a big mistake that the American government have made. If for no other reason then that it gives victim-juice for addled whiny people to squeal about the 'hypocrisy' of America and blah blah blah (see above)

Nevertheless, Ramadan is small prawns and his Islamist lite arguments can be easily sizzled faster than the synapses of a mini Maududist anti American whiner in full effect. Let the Islamist in! Like Maududi, they fall apart with their own self created contradictions, hypocrisy and idiotic ideology.

Vikram,

That sounds eeriely like the Nuremberg Defense

No, only if he advocates punishment for homosexuals as per Shariah.

Until and unless he does that, he is just voicing what he regards as being the "standard" view of the supposed incompatibility of homosexuality with Islam, at least in terms of his own understanding of the subject, rightly or wrongly.

Wikipedia has an interesting page on the topic.

Well mine is that you should stop using people like me as ragdolls in your political debate.

EXACTLY!

Vikram, there's this little thing they have called freedom of speech. What Tariq Ramadan, the Pope, George Bush, or yourself have to say about homosexuality, Brazil's chance's in the World Cup, or the price of fresh mackerel at the market is all covered by this little concept. There are very, very limited restrictions in political philosophy and law to the concept of freedom of speech.

You will now turn around and say, well, not every country has freedom of speech. Look at all those (muslim, etc.) countries "over there" that don't guarantee freedom of speech. To which I say: SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

Vikram, either you believe in freedom or you don't.

Second, let gays folks defend themselves. They don't need your conditional, convenient "support."

Thank you.

Second, let gays folks defend themselves. They don't need your conditional, convenient "support."

Cool... I suppose then you can extend that same only-someone-of-the-faith/orientation restriction logic of self defense to Muslims too... why do so many non-Muslims have to "support" them ? Aren't they also quite capable of defending themselves ? :-)

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of this defense of Ramadan too.

>>you can extend that same only-someone-of-the-faith/orientation restriction logic of self defense to ...

... illegal aliens, anti-Iraq-war civilians, people on welfare etc etc. Why do citizens, non military personnel, working folks etc "support" them?

As usual, the only exception to this is the Hindu. In times of crisis, (s)he has been alone throughout history, with nobody lifting a finger to help or defend. All self-defence has come from within.

M. Nam

As usual, the only exception to this is the Hindu. In times of crisis, (s)he has been alone throughout history, with nobody lifting a finger to help or defend. All self-defence has come from within.

How we have suffered! We must be the most persecutionalised and raped race on Earth.

We must begin our self defence.

Let's start with the Califonia State Education Board, and then start training the youth for next years spelling bee. Then nobody can fuck with Hindus.

Hail Self Defence Mogambo!

Siddhartha & Saurav:

Fascinating how uncomfortable you are discussing the homophobia of a Muslim. To defend homosexuals in this context is to use them as "ragdolls" but if one were to "use" homosexuals to bash Bush, no such protest is lodged.

I understand your cynicism since our support of gays is very convenient. But the reverse is equally true; Ramadan's homophobia is inconvenient to you. I know how you feel, republican bigotry is inconvenient to me; but to ignore it would make me one of them.

Politics in the real world is about compromise. When we find something we agree on we should seize the moment, not call the other’s position “conditional.” This is a low blow, as I have not read anything from Vikram or Razib indicating their support for homosexuals is nothing but heartfelt and genuine, and the fact that they do not support the rest of you agenda does not make them bigots…but that’s a whole other issue.

Having said that, I agree with Siddhartha’s interpretation of the first amendment as being value neutral. To be fair, we must also concede that Modi posed no terrorist or national security risk to the US either.

1) excluding ramadan was stupid and small

2) i still stand by his views as the same flavor as some of the stuff spouted by 'moderate' american evangelicals

3), as for this: Vikram, either you believe in freedom or you don't. this sort of absolute & categorical assertion is problematic for me in a world where people make alliances and coalitions that are pragmatic. vikram's robotic repetition isn't something i'm going to defend, nor his tendency to engage in cheap debating tricks which make him unlikeable. but, when you exist in a society where compromise and contextual expression of outrage are the norm inconsistencies need to be pointed out. humans obviously don't act from either pure self-interest or pure principle.

As usual, the only exception to this is the Hindu. In times of crisis, (s)he has been alone throughout history, with nobody lifting a finger to help or defend. All self-defence has come from within.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were spoofing yourself. :)

badmash,

If you think facts are not on my side, you are welcome to prove me wrong by giving me a couple of instances from history (recent and/or past) where suffering Hindus were given a helping hand by non-Hindus.(Note: Sikhs don't count. Back then, the distinction between Hindus/Sikhs was blurred)

M. Nam

Vikram, either you believe in freedom or you don't

I agree with Siddhartha on this one. To critique Razib's response:

this sort of absolute & categorical assertion is problematic for me in a world where people make alliances and coalitions that are pragmatic.

Siddhartha is taliking about the application of the 1st ammendment, not legislative politics. The existence of pragmatism does not mean we can't consistently apply the first ammendment as value neutral. Groups like the ACLU or Amnesty International have a pretty good, though not perfect, track record on this.

but, when you exist in a society where compromise and contextual expression of outrage are the norm inconsistencies need to be pointed out

This is what Siddhartha is doing. He's asking Vikram to consider that no matter how despicable Ramadan's views are, he should get the same protection as someone with whom Vikram agrees. Consistent application of principle is what the bill of rights is all about. Granted we've fallen short of this, as various interest groups like to claim rights for themselves while denying them to others; but I think American society has evolved to the point where a purist interpretation of the first amendment is possible.

manju, the issue is clouded because this isn't strictly an american issue. once within the borders of the united states everyone has the same rights, excluding a few things like voting, etc. (at least ostensibly). but it is up to the gov. to issue visas. fundamentally the issue here is not free speech, but back-room political maneuvering. there are many cases where people are denied the right to enter this country, their justice and injustice depends on your viewpoint, but focusing on ramadan illustrates more than just the first ammendment, it brings to the fore other commitments and considerations.

by analogy, both christians & buddhists are persecuted in china, but conservatives in the bible belt focus on christians and people where i live focus on buddhists. both believe in freedom of religion on principle, but their focus is highlighting their other commitments. both groups speak in the language of absolute rights & principles, but their motivating drive is more personal.

MoorNam -- comment was made in jest.

Since you ask though, there are a number of instances where competing Vaisnavite and Saivite sects appealed for help from Muslim allies. I believe our "eminent historian" Romila Thapar has discussed this in some detail - I can track down the reference for you if you like.

i will post on what i'm trying to get at some point on one of my other blogs. i don't think i'm being totally clear, but i don't have time to elaborate on thread right now.

badmash: >>competing Vaisnavite and Saivite sects appealed for help from Muslim allies..."eminent historian" Romila Thapar has discussed .. I can track down the reference for you if you like.

*cough* *sputter*...Yes, I would like the reference, even though I will take it with a whole lot of salt.

M. Nam

Oh God!

We have been so persecuted and nobody has helped us!

Thank God there are still muscular Hindus with strong muscles who can breathlessly post articles like this in the belly of the Maoist beast of the Sepia Mutiny News Tab to highlight our need to be strong and assertive! hehehe we use guerilla tactics on you, you traitors!

(look how many votes muscular Hindu news gets, you puny homo Hindus!)

Hail muscles Mogambo!

The day is near fellow workers of the world when we shall achieve victory. Join me and my comrade Spoorlam on the glorious path of revolution.

No voice but of the proletariat shall be heard, no dissent from the weak shall be tolerated.

Squish the bourgeois who speak of imaginary past. Castrate the balls that are saffron for RED is the true color of balls that work for their daily bread.

Let our mighty roars silence the wimpy who do not see the future where everyone is equal and everyone speaks with the same voice and echoes the same message.

Hold high your Little red Books and shout with me,

Workers of the World Unite!! MAO KI BOLO JAI!!!

Inquilab Zindabad!!!

Shri Yechuri

hehehe!

Your satire is so strong! These commie pinko plotters of Hindu genocide must be peeing their pants with your deadly accurate mockery of them! Their hands must be shaking as they reach forward to click the mouse at your satirical baiting of them and their plot to destroy assertive Hindu nation and our strong and musclar buttocks and thighs!

We have them on the run for sure!

Hail Mogambo Yechuri!

MoorNam,

As usual, the only exception to this is the Hindu. In times of crisis, (s)he has been alone throughout history, with nobody lifting a finger to help or defend. All self-defence has come from within.

If you think facts are not on my side, you are welcome to prove me wrong by giving me a couple of instances from history (recent and/or past) where suffering Hindus were given a helping hand by non-Hindus

You have requested some examples. Here is one of many. Please take the time to read this link summarising Guru Tegh Bahadur's life, especially the part regarding the Kashmiri Pandits and the Guru's intervention on their behalf.

(Note: Sikhs don't count. Back then, the distinction between Hindus/Sikhs was blurred)

Really ? Here is a quote by Guru Tegh Bahadur himself regarding the rationale for his actions (also included in the link I've just supplied):

“Hinduism may not be my faith, and I may believe not in the supremacy of Veda or the Brahmins, nor in idol worship or caste or pilgrimages and other rituals, but I would fight for the right of all Hindus to live with honour and practice their faith according to their own rites.”

MoorNam, you are moving beyond self-parody and are now dangerously veering towards making extremely inflammatory and provocate statements on matters which you are possibly grossly misinformed about. I do not believe you are doing this out of malicious intent -- although your comments on another recent thread regarding how pregnant women should be refused treatment were shocking to say the least, and it was perhaps fortunate that that thread was shut down before I had the opportunity to comment on it -- but it would be better not to engage in rhetoric which could rapidly escalate matters.

It would perhaps be beneficial to step back and consider that your own views on Indian history, and certain communities therein, may not necessarily be as accurate as you may presume. It would also certainly be worthwhile to exercise caution when commenting about Sikhs and Sikhism, especially as there appear to be some obvious gaps in your knowledge in this area. There have been precedents on this discussion forum where related discussions have become very heated and antagonistic indeed, so for the sake of mutual courtesy and generally "keeping the peace" and preventing this thread from becoming too off-topic, it would be better to abstain from taking this particular route.

What is "Inquilab" ??

Revolution.

Thanks Ennis

MoorNam - Thapar references:

A chapter entitled "The Politics of Religious Communities" in her volume Cultural Pasts. Also, the chapter "Imagined Religious Communities", which is a reworking of an earlier paper.

Jai,

This post is off-topic, but since the thread is about the freedom to write, hey, what the heck.

>>MoorNam, you are ...veering towards making extremely inflammatory and provocate statements

Thank you! For a few days I was thinking that I had lost my touch.

>>I do not believe you are doing this out of malicious intent

Malicious is a relative word. If taking anti-biotics is a malicious act to commit genocide of a virus in your body, then yes, I am doing this out of malicious intent.

>>how pregnant women should be refused treatment were shocking to say the least

...how pregnant women who cannot pay should be refused treatment... Details details....

>>it would be better not to engage in rhetoric which could rapidly escalate matters.

And keep SM politically correct and boring? Come on, Jai. Don't tell me you have not gained a different perspective on issues by reading my posts for the last year.

>>There have been precedents on this discussion forum where related discussions have become very heated and antagonistic indeed

Not for me. Despite overwhelming attacks, opposition and ridicule on SM, I've maintained my composure throughout.

>>It would also certainly be worthwhile to exercise caution when commenting about Sikhs and Sikhism

No. I'll be thoroughly blunt when discussing every single topic, including Sikhism. So here it goes...

A large group of people on earth start on a journey to the Andromeda galaxy. They start out with conventional fuel to liftoff from earth, but eventually discover different methods of steering and acceleration. There is disagreement on the methods to use, so some astronauts split up from the main crew and branch out on their own spaceship with their method of acceleration. Some say nuclear fusion is the best method. Some say solar sails are better. Some say plasma energy is cheaper. Some have a combination of methods.

Now, there is another large group of people who start on a journey to M3 galaxy. They believe that only their method of accelaration is the best and that M3 is the only destination possible in space. If someone else develops other methods, they try to blast their spaceships.

From the first group of people, a small group of astronauts meets the second group and invents a combined method of acceleration and navigation. But their final destination is still Andromeda galaxy. Within that group, there are people who keep saying that they are not like anybody else, that they are unique and different. Many people from the first group believe that since their destination is the same (Andromeda), they are similiar even though the methods are different.

I hope you get my drift.

Sikhs nowadays claim that they are not Hindus because they don't believe in Vedas, idols, mantras etc etc. But many Hindus think that since their final destination is still Brahman (same as Hindus/Jains/Buddhist), they are similiar even though their methods are different. The mutual respect between the different paths of Dharma is rooted in this concept.

So if Guru Tegh Bahadur saves Pandits, it's as though a Hindu/Jain king saved them. Sikhs are insiders, not outsiders. They're our folks and remain so, until their destination changes ( in which case it will not be Sikhism anymore).

Ok ok, so I gave SpoorLam more ammunition. But hey, it had to be said.

M. Nam

Razib wrote:

both groups speak in the language of absolute rights & principles, but their motivating drive is more personal.

See Amy Chua. Niall Ferguson. Pundit X. Or any extended comment thread on this blog. Universalist talk is frequently used as a cloak for personal, biographical obsessions.

Moornam:

I agree with Jai Singh. Sikhs helping Hindus IS an example of NON-HINDUS helping Hindus. And there are many instances of that help in the historical record. Unfortunately not taught in Indian history books. Your dismissive attitude towards Sikhs' contributions (whatever they might have done doesn't even count as per your rationale) is very typical of RSS types in India today. In fact a well-know BJP leader, Sushma Swaraj recently (and stupidly) caused a controversy by saying that Chandu (a Hindu) had nothing to do with Guru Arjan Dev's martyrdom at the hands of Jehangir, when it is clear that he did play a role (although of course it was mainly Jehangir's fault; Jai, see Sikhnet for details). Sushma wanted to pin the blame ENTIRELY on the mughal and none on the Hindu. I don't like Spoorlam's comments at all, in fact I don't even read them anymore, but comments like yours can also get out of hand.

Fascinating how uncomfortable you are discussing the homophobia of a Muslim. To defend homosexuals in this context is to use them as "ragdolls" but if one were to "use" homosexuals to bash Bush, no such protest is lodged.

Manju, it was inconvenient for me to look at the inept way--and sleazy in its ineptness--that the Kerry campaign used Mary Cheney's lgbt status in the presidential debates as well (despite that she's a tool), but that doesn't change the reality of it or that Kerry's positions on LGBT politics were more progressive than Bush's.

It's a "low blow" to point out how absurd and unfair it is to criticize Vikram for as a way of trying to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position? I can understand that Ramadan made a statement that was homophobic and someone should engage that conversation while at the same time not supporting U.S. state interests in promoting ideological exclusion or the rampant hostility towards Muslims. If the person bringing this claim against Ramadan were a Muslim lgbt activist like someone with Al Fatiha, I would be much more inclined to take it seriously.

In any case, what I see is in Vikram and your comments is the new multiculturalism of the sensitive right wing--where select differences are applauded in order to promote other agendas and divide the people being oppressed into those who receive state sanction and those who don't in select instances ;) These rightwingers are people who police the use of the word "faggot" or use a comment by a Muslim scholar to justify state repression of free speech and immigrants' rights, while at the same time supporting economic and in some cases social policies that fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people--including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things. They attempt to draw a line between the awful "racism" of someone who commits hate crimes but think the death penalty and drug war tactics are worth considering if not wholly endorsable. It's the worst kind of sophistry, because it hurts a lot of people.

But thanks for trying to educate me about politics in the real world.

Also, I missed it, but who critiqued Razib? It wasn't me.

Ikram & Razib:

both groups speak in the language of absolute rights & principles, but their motivating drive is more personal.

Universalist talk is frequently used as a cloak for personal, biographical obsessions.

The political opportunism of universalism is duly noted. But let us not deny the ability to transcend the personal, as your ability to see the self interest of various groups is itself a form of transcendence.

If you undermine the possibility of applying principles in an objective manner, are you not at loss to explain how you alone were able to achieve the objectivity necessary to make this observation in the first place?

If you think facts are not on my side, you are welcome to prove me wrong by giving me a couple of instances from history (recent and/or past) where suffering Hindus were given a helping hand by non-Hindus

Ok, I can give a instance of help from non-Hindus.. :-)

Dalits, most of them (except a few led by Ambedkar) accepted that they are Hindus during the days of partition (or through the period 1900-1950) to bump up the number of Hindus, even though they were treated like dirt by others.. When Brits included "Dalits" as Hindus, a few "casteist" morons were against including them, I think in 1908(??).

Hope that helps..

new multiculturalism of the sensitive right wing--where select differences are applauded

hm. i don't see protection of homosexual right to be homosexual, or atheist right to be atheist, as 'multiculturalism.' it seems a natural extension of the liberal project of being left alone.

as for this: because it hurts a lot of people. this is an important point, i think one problem that crops up on most/many forums is that people speak in both "natural rights" and "utilitarian" modes, but it isn't always clear to everyone which is on display (there isn't color-coding to make things clear).

as for ikram's reference to amy chua, etc., i think it is important to note that acknowledge that everything isn't self-interest. it just lurks there. it could be argued that jews favored civil rights for blacks out of self-interest as civil rights for all helps jews, but i suspect that many jews also believed in universal civil rights sincerely...ultimatley, we'd have to delve into cognitive psych. to decompose and parse the various issues.

sorry for the multiple comments, but this read wrong:

It's a "low blow" to point out how absurd and unfair it is to criticize Vikram for as a way of trying to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position?

should say

It's a "low blow" to point out how absurd and unfair it is for Vikram to try to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position?

>>Your dismissive attitude towards Sikhs' contributions (whatever they might have done doesn't even count as per your rationale)

Amitabh,

I must be a poor writer for you to have this impression of me. Why in the wide world would I dismiss Sikh contributions? And why would I even think of not counting them?

Please re-read: I don't count Sanatanis saving other Sanatanis as outside help. That there are some Sanatanis who consider themselves outsiders due to various reasons is not my problem.

M. Nam

hm. i don't see protection of homosexual right to be homosexual, or atheist right to be atheist, as 'multiculturalism.' it seems a natural extension of the liberal project of being left alone.

It's not always--it's this particular usage of it. I chose "applauded" for a reason--by honing on particular groups to support in particular circumstances, multicultural conservatives are able to support rightwing economic policies, militarism, etc., racial profiling, etc., while at the same time presenting themselves as tolerant--it's basically a marketing strategy. So when you need to garner support for your invasion of Iraq, you whip out the women's rights and human rights arguments. When you need to garner support for your business-friendly immigration proposals, you whip out the "hard working immigrants" stuff. When you want to oppose it, you whip out the "immigrants will destroy our social values" stuff--which is done more frequently in Europe, but it happens in the U.S. too.

It's all very convenient.

s,

yes, you are right. though you can point to similar behavior all across the political spectrum.

don't want to get embroiled in any controversy, but according to an article on the swaraj statements, i read it as she said chandu was not the main culprit but a pawn of jehangir, not that he had nothing to do with it. and same article said some sikh groups and leaders criticized her and other sikh groups and leaders agreed with her.

P. Selvan,

I think the problem is with the definition of Hindu. It's an artifical term that Colonialists foisted on us and we adopted it without thinking about the long-term implications. Due to events of the last few centuries, the word has become synonymous with weak, sniveling, cowardly attitude. Who in their right mind would like to be associated with an identity with such bad baggage?

M. Nam

I can understand that Ramadan made a statement that was homophobic and someone should engage that conversation while at the same time not supporting U.S. state interests in promoting ideological exclusion or the rampant hostility towards Muslims. If the person bringing this claim against Ramadan were a Muslim lgbt activist like someone with Al Fatiha, I would be much more inclined to take it seriously.

Nice... a weak and vague "someone should engage that conversation". Once again, this strange free pass given to Ramadan for his exclusionist view towards a group, while criticizing "ideological exclusion" and "hostility" by others. Pot & Kettle ?
And yet again the idea that only a Muslim lgbt has the authority and sanction to criticize Ramadan. So all jurors in a court should have had identical criminal records to the defendant they convict ? Or that you should be a conservative Christian evangelical to criticize Pat Robertson ? Or a Republican from Texas to critique George Bush ?

Who in their right mind would like to be associated with an identity with such bad baggage?

you obviously :)

>>you obviously :)

Aaah! You got me!

M.Nam

It's a "low blow" to point out how absurd and unfair it is for Vikram to try to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position?

It's the worst kind of sophistry, because it hurts a lot of people.

it's basically a marketing strategy

One aspect of an ideologue (and we are all susceptible to this) is that he questions his opponents motives rather than addressing their argument. Marxism, for example, had an internal circular reasoning that insulated itself from criticism. In their world view, liberals advocated free markets not for the reasons they stated, but rather because it was a political arraignment that happened to be convenient to their particular class, the rising bourgeoisie. In other words, liberalism was a false system of thought used by the ruling class in order to justify their rule in the eyes of the ruled.

But what if we are being genuine? Are free markets or militarism really incompatible with gay rights? Or can 2 reasonable people who both support gay rights have different opinions on economic matters?

I used to work for Amnesty International. One of our key concerns was to be "non political" in our defense of human rights, to try to apply these principle equally to all regimes, no matter what the ideology of the regime in question may be.

Saurav, I understand you believe my politics "fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people--including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things." I believe yours do the same. This is simply a matter of genuine debate. No one is trying to hide anything.

One aspect of an ideologue (and we are all susceptible to this) is that he questions his opponents motives rather than addressing their argument. Marxism, for example, had an internal circular reasoning that insulated itself from criticism. In their world view, liberals advocated free markets not for the reasons they stated, but rather because it was a political arraignment that happened to be convenient to their particular class, the rising bourgeoisie. In other words, liberalism was a false system of thought used by the ruling class in order to justify their rule in the eyes of the ruled.

It's funny that you call me an "ideologue" for questioning whether someone was arguing in bad faith by invoking homophobia as a defense of state exclusion on ideological grounds of a Muslim scholar, while you do the same thing to me by calling me an ideologue. Exactly what ideology am I espousing?

Saurav, I understand you believe my politics "fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people--including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things." I believe yours do the same. This is simply a matter of genuine debate. No one is trying to hide anything.

My comments were not exclusively directed at you. They were directed at a broad trend in thought among a particular class of people. If you happen to feel that this applies to you, then bully for you. If not, then don't take them personally. My point was more one of social analysis--that there is a trend these days to embrace multiculturalism and difference at a superficial level while at the same time not attempting to remediate the underlying power structures. There are any number of books that offer the analysis that I'm talking about: Twilight of Equality, Taxi, etc., if you want a more in depth take on what I'm referring to.

My point was that this indirectly harms people who ARE LGBT (LGBT and poor, LGBT and women, LGBT and Black, LGBT and immigrants, etc.), not LGBT rights. In fact the whole point is that LGBT "rights" and women's "rights" and Black people's "rights" are selectively used and promoted in order to undermine other peoples. So Black people become very important to this type of conservative in talking about why we need to restrict immigration. Women become very important in talking about why we need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. Immigrants become very important in attacking workers' rights. Obviously, there are conservative LGBT groups that participate in this--usually, you can find a segment of a minority group that's willing to align themselves with the powerful in order to gain something for themselves and their identity group at the cost of others, including many members of their identity group. Again, they're not identity-group traitors--they just have shallow and destructive politics that ultimately harm a lot of people.

In essence, you missed the basic point I was making, which I've now elucidated above in greater detail. Otherwise, you wouldn't have asked this:

But what if we are being genuine? Are free markets or militarism really incompatible with gay rights? Or can 2 reasonable people who both support gay rights have different opinions on economic matters?

Ramadan was denied Visa because of his views of certain sensitive issues. Isnt it like Narendra Modi denied visa due to his action (or inaction) or Musharraf who continues to kill innocent Baloch people using US weapons ... Oh wait Musharraf was given a Visa .. yeah because "he is our SOB" (To paraphrase the "greatest American president" Reagan).

All the discussion about merit and de-merit of VISA denial so far has been based upon assumtion that US is a moral power, that US policy is based on somekind of morally superior position (as opposed to those savages). This assumption is the main problem. This assumption is what caused some liberals to support the illegal war in Iraq.

"Rajniti me bhavana ko koi sthan nahin hai" - The charactor that plays political leader in movie Rang De Basanti (In politics emotions have no place) State department understand this :-)

It's funny that you call me an "ideologue" for questioning whether someone was arguing in bad faith by invoking homophobia as a defense of state exclusion on ideological grounds of a Muslim scholar, while you do the same thing to me by calling me an ideologue. Exactly what ideology am I espousing?

I'm not doing the same to you. I don't think you're arguing from bad faith. And I said, "we are all susceptible to this"--ie, raising doubts about the motives of our opponents rather than addressing the argument itself. The ideologue does not like to deal with facts inconvenient to his philosophy. For you, it could mean the existence of Muslim bigotry as a root cause of terrorism. For me, it could mean pointing out that some critics of Israel do not care about democracy in order to avoid the issue of Israel’s undemocratic system. Get it? In each case we were able to find an excuse to be selectively outraged.

My comments were not exclusively directed at you. They were directed at a broad trend in thought among a particular class of people.

Well you addressed the comment to me and said:

In any case, what I see is in Vikram and your comments is the new multiculturalism of the sensitive right wing--where select differences are applauded in order to promote other agendas and divide the people being oppressed into those who receive state sanction and those who don't in select instances

The phenomena you describe cuts across the political spectrum. Only an ideologue would think it happens just on one side, as the ideologue recognizes only convenient facts. But at least on this thread, I saw no inconsistencies or “hidden agendas” in the various positions of myself, vikram, or razib; which is why I called siddhartha's positioning of vikram's support for gay rights as "conditional," a low blow.

But if you believe our failure to embrace progressive policies itself constitutes homophobia...well I can see how that’s a very convenient premise for you.

MoorNam,

This post is off-topic, but since the thread is about the freedom to write, hey, what the heck.

Technically correct, but as a courtesy to other SM commenters and especially to the owners of this blog (Abhi, Ennis, Anna etc), it is a good idea not to digress too far from whatever the thread is meant to focus on. Taking undue advantage of the people who own this blog is disrespectful and inconsiderate. Which is why I am going to attempt to keep this post as brief as possible, probably unsuccessfully.

Thank you! For a few days I was thinking that I had lost my touch.

There is a difference between making controversial statements because one really has a genuine point to make, and doing so purely out of mischief or in order to get “attention” by using this blog (and the subsequent reactions from other people) as a “timepass”. Of course, it’s not my job to moderate SM – there are other people here who have that responsibility – but I’m sure you’re aware of the definition of the term “internet troll”. Your motivations for participating here are your own business, of course.

Malicious is a relative word. If taking anti-biotics is a malicious act to commit genocide of a virus in your body, then yes, I am doing this out of malicious intent.

Interesting. So who are the “viruses” here on SM, from your point of view: Hindus who do not agree with your interpretation of Hinduism ? Sikhs ? Non-Hindus in general ?

...how pregnant women who cannot pay should be refused treatment... Details details....

Irrelevant. It’s a sociopathic and possibly psychopathic attitude. Lack of empathy is incompatible with genuine spirituality, MoorNam. So is arrogance. Both of these apply not only to the pregnant women scenario but also to one’s conduct and attitude towards other people in general, including others on this discussion forum. Perhaps something you should consider.

And keep SM politically correct and boring? Come on, Jai. Don't tell me you have not gained a different perspective on issues by reading my posts for the last year.

I have no interest in being politically-correct, only “correct”. In terms of my perspective on other issues, in the vast majority of cases, no I have not gained a different viewpoint via reading your posts. It has, however, been extremely enlightening with regards to understanding your mindset and character.

No. I'll be thoroughly blunt when discussing every single topic, including Sikhism.

I fail to understand how you can correlate (indeed, justify/rationalise/excuse) being unnecessarily “blunt” with any simultaneous claims of true spiritual awareness or religious knowledge on your part. A theoretical, academic understanding of such matters is all well and good, but it is pointless if one’s own conduct towards other people is insensitive and arrogant. I’m assuming you know what the word “paakhandi” means.

I’m not going to comment on your views on Sikhism as it is very obvious indeed what your analogy describes – not to mention the irony of describing Guru Tegh Bahadur (or any other Sikh Guru) as being the same as a “Hindu king” when the Gurus themselves explicitly defined themselves as not being Hindu, including Guru Tegh Bahadur as per the quote in my previous post. However, this is not the thread to debate such issues – in any case, there have already been several precedents for that argument on SM – and I would not waste my time, for example, arguing the point with someone from the RSS (or a very orthodox Muslim) and therefore do not see why it would be worthwhile similarly attempting to explain matters to you. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

That there are some Sanatanis who consider themselves outsiders due to various reasons is not my problem.

Well, yes and no. The rest of us can do our best to correct your misinformed ideas, but only up to a certain point, and only if any intervention on our part is going to have a constructive impact on you. Beyond that, the fact that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance on the matter and are distorting the facts to suit your own agenda and worldview means that it is “your” problem, but facing the internal and external consequences of this distortion is your own responsibility, for better or for worse.

You are indeed beginning to test my patience, but you should not view any of the above as being driven by anger or maliciousness in general on my part. I did not have any hesitation in defending you against what I perceived as Siddhartha’s unnecessary bluntness and aggression towards you on another recent thread, as you may recall.

These things, however, do need to be said, and I think it is about time someone here said them to you. Unless you actually enjoy eliciting negative reactions from other people just for the sake of it, and indeed you enjoy sabotaging your own credibility and efforts to convincingly get your point across, along with triggering constant ridicule on a global scale by SpoorLam and others on this discussion forum. Which, again, is your own responsibility – we reap what we sow – but, again, this is possibly something you should think about, for your own sake and your own self-respect at least.

Jai,

I believe you asked Siddhartha to calm down and go take a walk to get some fresh air...

M. Nam

Amitabh,

Thanks for mentioning the parallel debate on Sikhnet -- I've just flicked through it, very interesting (albeit sad) reading. Also good to see Karan Deep Sagri back there -- he's a great guy, I chatted to him on Sikhnet many times when I used to participate there, as you may recall.

Sikhs are insiders, not outsiders.

For the record, I think that the fact that MoorNam does not understand (or recognise) the concept that Sikhism regards the entire human race as "insiders" (regardless of the person's religious affiliation) may be the basic problem, or one of the root causes anyway. There is no "us and them" viewpoint in Sikhism, as you and I both know. Anyway, off-topic, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

Thanks also for seconding my original post, by the way.

MoorNam,

Interesting that that was the only part of my post you responded to.

Anyway, my altercation with Siddhartha is irrelevant to this debate. I defended you there because I thought you happened to be right and, in my view, he was wrong, in terms of his tone towards you anyway. But I would have done the same if the roles had been reversed and you had spoken to him in that manner.

Please do not attempt to divert attention from the core focus of our discussion, especially by dragging unrelated third-parties into it. I have no ill-will towards Siddhartha -- in fact, I have a great deal of respect for him and usually agree with most of what he says, he's a decent guy -- so let's stick to the topic.

Classic Indian debating tactic by the way. Unfortunately (for you, perhaps), not one that will work when directed at me ;)

>>in fact, I have a great deal of respect for Sidhartha .. he's a decent guy

Jai,

I have a great deal of respect for most posters on SM (including you and Sid), otherwise I would not be here.

M. Nam

Moornam:
Shouldnt we let Sikhs decide whether they are part Hindus or not instead of deciding it for the Sikhs?

>>Shouldnt we let Sikhs decide whether they are part Hindus or not instead of deciding it for the Sikhs?

Of course!! I was not trying to say that they are Hindus. I was trying to say that they are a branch of Sanatana Dharma, and the end goals are the same (Brahman via re-birth) but the methods are different. Is any of this wrong? Haven't the writings of Sikh gurus attested to this?

By the same token, shouldn't the various branches of Sanatana Dharma get to decide whether they are Hindus or not? Shouldn't Kayasths, Brahmins, Kammas etc be allowed to declare themselves as non-Hindu and get to start their own temples, schools, hospitals without any interference from the Government? When the Ramakrishna order wanted to declare itself as non-Hindu, the courts struck it down. When Rajasthani Brahmins tried to declare themselves non-Hindu, they were struck down as well. Shouldn't they be given the same rights to identify themselves as the Sikhs have?

M. Nam

In addition to Moornam's point above, I just want to add that the question is larger than whether Sikhs get to decide whether they're hindus or not. Most Sikhs are proud and protective of their Sikh identity and do not wish to be part of Hinduism. That's fine. But hindus tend not to draw much distinction between any of the sanatani traditions. This is a defining characteristic of hinduism and one equally deserving of recognition.

Moreover, reverence of gurus is intrinsic to hindu culture. Hindus include the sikh gurus in this. They also include the Buddha. They regard the Jain temples as their own. If any of these particular traditions wants a separate identity, that's up to them. But nobody has the right to tell hindus who they can or cannot include in their realm of "religion" and what their attitude should be.

MoorNam,

AlMfD's point in post #98 is spot on.

Also, you contradict your recent statement.....

Of course!! I was not trying to say that they are Hindus. I was trying to say that they are a branch of Sanatana Dharma, and the end goals are the same (Brahman via re-birth) but the methods are different.

.....with your earlier statement on this thread, as follows:

Sikhs nowadays claim that they are not Hindus because they don't believe in Vedas, idols, mantras etc etc. But many Hindus think that since their final destination is still Brahman (same as Hindus/Jains/Buddhist), they are similiar even though their methods are different. The mutual respect between the different paths of Dharma is rooted in this concept.....So if Guru Tegh Bahadur saves Pandits, it's as though a Hindu/Jain king saved them.

Also:

Is any of this wrong? Haven't the writings of Sikh gurus attested to this?

Yes it is wrong and no the writings of the Sikh Gurus did not attest to this. You can "re-brand" Hinduism as much as you like by using the term "Sanatana Dharma" -- and I have noticed that you are using the two terms interchangeably, and altering the definition according to the context of your argument at that point in time -- but the Gurus stated unequivocally that their "path" was not a branch of any organised religion, whether Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma, Islam, or anything else. I refuse to get drawn into this argument on this blog yet again -- especially as this is not the right thread for it, as I repeatedly stated before. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Gurus used multiple names for God, including traditionally Islamic names such as Allah, Khudha and so on. This does not mean Sikhism is a branch of Islam either, even though there is some overlap with Sufism along with Sufi concepts such as achieving "fanaa" via direct experience of God. Unless you believe that Allah/Khudha/Jehovah/etc are exactly the same spiritual entity as "Brahman" (indeed, the same entity who hears all prayers and holds ultimate power and authority in the universe -- and beyond it), then you still have not correctly understood Sikh teachings in this regard. You should also consider whether the nature & "personality" of "Brahman" as per your interpretation of your religion is the same as that defined in Sikhism. If not, then your argument about Sikhism being a "branch" of said "Dharma" is further undermined.

but the methods are different

Actually, no. According to Sikh teachings, there is only one core "method" to achieve liberation, regardless of one's formal religious affiliation (if any) and the outer rituals one may or may not practice.

I have also noticed that you have conveniently ignored the rest of the contents of my post #93, in which the teachings and "affiliation" of Sikhism were certainly not the core focus of what I said. Or is this yet another attempt by you to divert attention away from the main issues by sidetracking the conversation ?

I have a great deal of respect for most posters on SM (including you and Sid), otherwise I would not be here.

In which case, you should exercise significantly greater consideration and sensitivity towards everyone here, with regards to what you say, how you say it, and to whom you say it. Being deliberately "blunt", "inflammatory", and "provocative" is not evidence of your claims of "respect" -- the opposite, in fact. Your actions -- and a number of your ideas -- contradict this claim.

I still stand by the contents of my main post #93; an academic knowledge of religious theories is worthless unless you simultaneously exercise a significantly greater degree of compassion and general "humanity" towards your fellow man (and stop finding excuses to withhold empathy towards people who, in many cases, certainly do not deserve such a ruthlessly cold-hearted stance on alleged "points of principle" or "moral/ethical grounds", especially if it involves finding logical loopholes to blame the other party for your own unsympathetic reaction/attitude towards them).

If you do not understand -- and practice -- this basic principle, then all of your grand statements about spirituality, the divine, religious "paths and goals", and indeed "Brahman", are just empty words.

But hindus tend not to draw much distinction between any of the sanatani traditions

Can someone elaborate on the sanatani traditions?

What you said, Manju:

But if you believe our failure to embrace progressive policies itself constitutes homophobia...well I can see how that’s a very convenient premise for you.

What I said:

My point was that this indirectly harms people who ARE LGBT (LGBT and poor, LGBT and women, LGBT and Black, LGBT and immigrants, etc.), not LGBT rights. In fact the whole point is that LGBT "rights" and women's "rights" and Black people's "rights" are selectively used and promoted in order to undermine other peoples.

Obviously, there are conservative LGBT groups that participate in this--usually, you can find a segment of a minority group that's willing to align themselves with the powerful in order to gain something for themselves and their identity group at the cost of others, including many members of their identity group. Again, they're not identity-group traitors--they just have shallow and destructive politics that ultimately harm a lot of people.

These rightwingers are people who police the use of the word "faggot" or use a comment by a Muslim scholar to justify state repression of free speech and immigrants' rights, while at the same time supporting economic and in some cases social policies that fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people--including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things. They attempt to draw a line between the awful "racism" of someone who commits hate crimes but think the death penalty and drug war tactics are worth considering if not wholly endorsable.

I'd appreciate if you would actually pay more attention to what I'm saying in the future before you decide to tear down some other person's arguments that you've decided to attribute to me. I didn't call you "homophobic".

If you still can't understand why it's inappropriate and unfair to LGBT people to bring up Ramadan's opinions about LGBT people in a question of why he should or shouldn't be legally excluded from the United States for no ostensible reason other than his political views, then I don't think I have that much more to say at this point.

Enjoy your day.

I didn't call you "homophobic".

You're trying to eat your cake and have it too. I use homosexuals as "ragdolls" but I'm not homophobic. OK.

I want to take away the rights of gays by "supporting economic and in some cases social policies that fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people," but I'm not homophobic. Ok, you leave a little wiggle room b/c maybe I just don't know the rights of gays will be trampled upon by my policies and it's only homophobia if you do it conciously. But wait, you said:

"It's the worst kind of sophistry." Sophists deliberately mislead so now you're saying I know my policies hurt gays, but I'm not homophobic. Worse still, my defense of gay rights itself is a ruse (rigthwingers are "presenting themselves as tolerant--it's basically a marketing strategy") So now I don't believe in gay rights at all, but I'm not homophobic.

I'm willing to take you at your word that you don't think I'm homophobic, but there seems to be a contradicion here.

it's inappropriate and unfair to LGBT people to bring up Ramadan's opinions about LGBT people in a question of why he should or shouldn't be legally excluded from the United States for no ostensible reason other than his political views

Was it inappropriate and unfair to Muslims to bring up Modi's opinions about Muslims in a question of why he should or shouldn't be legally excluded from the United States? Did you lodge your complaints during that debate? Double standards are so convienient when the facts are inconvienient to your polictics.

The Ramadan visa imbroglio pales in comparison to this looming issue:

Saudis Offered Scholarships for Aviation Courses in US JEDDAH, 20 June 2006 — The Ministry of Higher Education and the General Authority of Civil Aviation are offering scholarships to Saudi men and women to study various majors related to civil aviation in the United States.

The forms are available online at the ministry’s website until July 12 for both bachelor’s and post-graduate studies. Nominations will be announced on July 31. Interviews will take place in August and final scholarship winners will be announced on Sept. 2.

The scholarships are available in majors such as communications, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, systems analysis, air traffic control, flight safety, and other majors related to the airline transport industry.

Link

On site training for the second wave ? I wonder what DHS & the State Dept think of granting those visas...

Was it inappropriate and unfair to Muslims to bring up Modi's opinions about Muslims in a question of why he should or shouldn't be legally excluded from the United States? Did you lodge your complaints during that debate?

Yes, actually. Also, calling participation in a pogrom "opinions" is ignorant at best.

I'm willing to take you at your word that you don't think I'm homophobic, but there seems to be a contradicion here.

"Homophobic" is a complicated word that some people use narrowly and other people use broadly, which almost strips it of meaning in conversations like this. I was drawing a distinction between those who support LGBT rights, narrowly construed, vs. those who support people, some to many of whom happen to be LGBT or queer. The criticism I'm leveling is in the use of pro-lgbt politics to support a regressive agenda because it's inherently bad, not because it's homophobic. The fact that it's often aligned with people who are advancing the heteronormative agenda makes people who do the above naive, bigoted, cynical or some combination of the above.

What Vikram did is a fairly crass instance of this.

What Vikram did is a fairly crass instance of this.

Right. And yet Ramadan gets no such criticism for his crassness in using supposed Western injustices to the Islamic world to further his narrow minded agendas. He's a "scholar" no doubt :-)

Since many of the folks in this discussion seem to be venting prejudices with little concern for facts, I'd like to offer a couple of factual corrections, as someone who has spent a fair amount of time studying this material. Hassan al-Banna is not the extreme right wing granddaddy of Islamism - he was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and if you'd care to read his writings, you'll see that he had a fairly liberal view of the compatibility of Islam with parliamentary democracy and so on - not as liberal as reformists like Abduh and Afghani, but not far. It was Sayyid Qutb who was the radical rejectionist.

As for the Southern Baptists, back in the day they were anti racial integration, they have since become more moderate but if you look up Richard Land (one of their leaders) and his positions on various political and racial issues, and especially on homosexuality and abortion, you will realize that he is pretty darned reactionary. There are plenty of Christian Right figures, btw, who believe that God's law must trump human laws and America is a Christian country, and we must bring about God's rule on earth. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that they are a danger to American democracy. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and Bob Jones university are hardly paragons of tolerance either, but they have their place in American society and academy, much as we may dislike them.

As for the Southern Baptists, back in the day they were anti racial integration, they have since become more moderate but if you look up Richard Land (one of their leaders) and his positions on various political and racial issues, and especially on homosexuality and abortion, you will realize that he is pretty darned reactionary. There are plenty of Christian Right figures, btw, who believe that God's law must trump human laws and America is a Christian country, and we must bring about God's rule on earth. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that they are a danger to American democracy. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and Bob Jones university are hardly paragons of tolerance either, but they have their place in American society and academy, much as we may dislike them.

Have any of them been invited to lecture in universities in the Middle East ? Just curious ?

::As for the Southern Baptists
:Have any of them been invited to lecture in universities in the Middle East

Never mind the Middle East, have any of them been invited to lecture in universities in the US ?!!

M. Nam

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that they are a danger to American democracy. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and Bob Jones university are hardly paragons of tolerance either, but they have their place in American society and academy, much as we may dislike them.

Right, but I don't think Jerry Falwell / Bob Jones are looking for visas to Saudi Arabia / Pakistan to teach in a college there.. If a govt. denies some one a visa, what's the big deal.. they don't have to explain the reasons to everyone or even apply the same reasons for every case.. US admin, denied visa to Modi on the grounds of being a "egregious violator of religious freedom" but gives a red carpet welcome to Saudi rulers and Mr. Musharaff..

thank you SP for your points; and thank you saurav for the carefulness and equanimity you are showing in this conversation. i am sure there are many lurkers out there who are glad for your perspective.

American political candidates often speak at Bob Jones and Liberty universities. Do a quick Google news search in the last year. Christian Right figures have not applied for visas to Saudi, but Saudi is not the US, and the US, as a democracy, works differently. The BJP coalition govt did deny visas to Christian speakers and missionaries and the Sangh frequently holds protests against them when they visit India, but as a democracy India does not exclude them, and I am proud of that as an Indian.

The old chestnut about "why should we be tolerant of Muslims when they are intolerant of everyone" is a favourite of bigots at home, so I shouldn't be surprised to hear it from the rightist desi male contingent here - but do consider, if you feel like opening your minds just a wedge, the inconsistency between the sentiment that "we are superior because we are liberal and tolerant while they are not" and the sentiment that "because someone else is intolerant (in this case, a small repressive kingdom that has about a tenth the number of Muslims as South Asia) that gives us license to turn around and be as intolerant and bigoted as we like."

if you feel like opening your minds just a wedge, the inconsistency between the sentiment that "we are superior because we are liberal and tolerant while they are not"

ROFL.. It is always the others who need to open their minds..

I don't think "west" is "superior" because they are "liberal and tolerant" though they may claim that to be the case, but the real reason is that they are "militarily and economically" strong enough to afford to be "liberal and tolerant".. You see the PATRIOT and similar acts in US and UK (etc..) after 9/11 and 7/7.. Just guess what will happen after a next major terrorist attack (heaven forbid if it happens)..

a small repressive kingdom that has about a tenth the number of Muslims as South Asia) that gives us license to turn around and be as intolerant and bigoted as we like."

We're not exactly talking about a quaint little fairytale kingdom like Monaco here... One can trace most Islamic terror networks having funding and ideology directly coming from Saudi Arabia.

The very idea of a visa one can argue is discriminatory... after all the US does not need visas for visitors from all countries. So then what right has it to require one for specific countries ? Isn't that non-uniformity in itself a form of intolerance and bigotry ?

The old chestnut about "why should we be tolerant of Muslims when they are intolerant of everyone" is a favourite of bigots at home, so I shouldn't be surprised to hear it from the rightist desi male contingent here

SP:

If you read the "rightist desi male contingent here" carefully, you will see that Razib and I explicitly support giving Ramadan a visa, MoorNam has not said he wouldn't give him a visa, and only Vikram has taken the position it should be denied. So perhaps what you are "hearing" from this contingent is your own sterotypes about us.

It's a sad day when us male hetro right-wingers are the only ones willing to stand up for the rights of a minority being persecuted by a very powerful group.

These rightwingers are people who police the use of the word "faggot" or use a comment by a Muslim scholar to justify state repression of free speech and immigrants' rights, while at the same time supporting economic and in some cases social policies that fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people--including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things. They attempt to draw a line between the awful "racism" of someone who commits hate crimes but think the death penalty and drug war tactics are worth considering if not wholly endorsable

Well, if they don't draw your line, are they wrong? Why is it all or nothing with you? If someone "polices" intolerant language, they can't support the death penalty? Even people who respect you (and I do) don't share your exact morality.

Yes, actually. Also, calling participation in a pogrom "opinions" is ignorant at best

We've reached common ground.

The criticism I'm leveling is in the use of pro-lgbt politics to support a regressive agenda because it's inherently bad, not because it's homophobic.

What constitutes regressive is up for debate. You've been dodging this debate under the guise that Vikram (and perhaps myself) have a "hidden agenda." Vikram is posing a conundrum: that having open borders may lead to the persecution of a sexual minority? You could have responded that you acknowledge Ramadan's bigotry but the principle of free speech or open borders takes precedence. Instead you chose to doubt Vikram sincerity.

The fact that it's often aligned with people who are advancing the heteronormative agenda makes people who do the above naive, bigoted, cynical or some combination of the above.

Your observing a universal. You're own opinion on this matter forces you to align w/ a homophobe. I'm sure you've found yourself, in other situations, where your position may put you in the same boat with say, castro-apologists, viloent anarchists, communists, etc.

Well, if they don't draw your line, are they wrong? Why is it all or nothing with you? If someone "polices" intolerant language, they can't support the death penalty? Even people who respect you (and I do) don't share your exact morality.

Sigh...they're not wrong for opposing bigotry. They're wrong for ascribing to an understanding of the world in which expressions of bigotry are the problem and the underlying systemic causes are not a problem. The more cynical among them will then use condemantion of bigotry as a way of promoting the underlying problems and in the process harm people--and that is wrong. If you are opposed to racism but at the same time deny the racism inherent in the criminal justice system, you're either naive, a racist, or some combination of the two.

They don't have to share my "exact morality"--just concede on an analytical level that this is what's going on in many places and that it's far more complicated than a simple issue of who is a "homophobe" or a "racist" and who is not.

thank you saurav for the carefulness and equanimity you are showing in this conversation. i am sure there are many lurkers out there who are glad for your perspective.

siddhartha -- "equanimity"??? you've got to be f--king kidding me. try self-righteousness, hostility, and disdain -- and that's painful for me to say, because i more or less agree with a lot of what he has to say. but it's almost as if he's doing his very best to drive people who don't agree with him on every last thing over to the dark side. no wonder progressives are out of power in every institution in the country.

>>where your(Saurav's) position may put you in the same boat with say, castro-apologists, viloent anarchists, communists, etc

Manju,

If you are looking for a common thread that brings together LGBT activists, illegal aliens, Feminists, Communists, Islamists etc - it's the Economic Policy. Despite their huge conflicts (Illegal Aliens are homophobes and pro-life, Communists and Islamists are at each others' throats elsewhere in the world etc etc), they come together because all of them want a free ride at the taxpayer's expense. All of them worship at the altar of the New Deal.

In pre-New Deal era America , one had to save and pinch pennies like a Marwari in order to have any status in society. The Government did not take care of anyone in their old age, so they had to fall back on their savings, children and the goodwill accumalated with relatives (all of which drive LGBT and Feminists up the wall). In pre-New Deal America, an immigrant had to work his/her ass off like a Gujju Motel owner and serve in the armed forces like a Sikh before he became eligible to expect anything, least of all free medical care (all of which drive Illegal aliens up the wall). In pre-New Deal America, there was no Welfare, so women actually kept their legs crossed like a south-indian belles and did not produce children out of wedlock like rabbits(all of which drive Feminists up the wall). In pre-New Deal America, bums did not get paid by the State. They starved to death in the cold winter (which drives Communists up the wall). In pre-New Deal, there was little state-support of education, so anybody who came to America with the notion of denigrating it faced the wrath of society (which drives Islamists up the wall).

It's an alliance of convinience to stiff hard working taxpayers using Government dictat. The moment you start giving people something for nothing - it's over.

At least America is not as bad as Europe, which I feel is on its last legs. A 2000 year old civilisation will be exitinct by the next century.

M. Nam

actually, what i read in the brother's comments is serious engagement with issues, willingness to reply to all questions whether they are well or poorly phrased, and a willingness to self-criticize and to examine the warts in his own communities that honors him.

but hey, to-may-to, to-mah-to and all that.

peace

by the way, o bemused lurker, are you really a lurker? ahem. ;)

In pre-New Deal America, there was no Welfare, so women actually kept their legs crossed like a south-indian belles and did not produce children out of wedlock like rabbits.

!!!

It's a sad day when us male hetro right-wingers are the only ones willing to stand up for the rights of a minority being persecuted by a very powerful group.

Thank you, oh great and wonderful hetero messiah, for bringing to mine eyes the light of truth! For verily, I say, without your guidance and powerful strength, our moral resolve would fall apart. We, the homosexuals in your midst, would begin to welcome the beatings and murders of our own people due to our own cowardice.

*rolls eyes*

For the record, your "right wing" views actually make it more difficult to deal with the intersection of homophobia and Islam because you would eliminate the space for conversation by tarring people with the label of "homophobic" for the purposes of other arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with protecting LGBT rights or people.

In any case, since you're such a passionate and unwavering defender of LGBT rights and people in all contexts, I expect to see you all protesting the government of Iran, the government of the United States, the government of Poland, the government of Russia, and the NYPD all of which have undermined LGBT rights and LGBT people's well being in different ways in the past month. You can find out more here. Let me know which demonstration or actvitiy you'll be going to, publicizing, or otherwise supporting.

Unless, that is, you're too busy protecting us from a Muslim scholar who was denied a visa on ideological grounds by the U.S. government--clearly the most serious threat to the LGBT communities of the world ;)

siddhartha -- "equanimity"??? you've got to be f--king kidding me. try self-righteousness, hostility, and disdain -- and that's painful for me to say, because i more or less agree with a lot of what he has to say. but it's almost as if he's doing his very best to drive people who don't agree with him on every last thing over to the dark side. no wonder progressives are out of power in every institution in the country.

so stop lurking and say it better than me, yo :) I'll begrudgingly shut up :)

Saurav:

Unless, that is, you're too busy protecting us from a Muslim scholar who was denied a visa on ideological grounds by the U.S. government

Apparently you've somehow failed to notice I support Ramadan's visa (posts 55,59,116).

You seem to have your mind made up, to the point that you're not even willing to engage in a debate about the visa (you only engage in a meta-critque of the other's thinking). It's almost as if it is a matter of fact that the visa denial is oppresive and that there are no reasonable arguments on the other side, and that those who think different are either "naive, a racist, or some combination of the two."

ok, sure, siddhartha -- i see some of what you are seeing as well. i shouldn't have let myself paint a completely one-sided picture so caustically -- in general, i respect saurav and do appreciate his perspective in this space. and as a bonus i sometimes find his comments unbelievably funny. ;) so on that count you are correct and i should have said so, rather than responding with a comment that could be taken as the mirror image of what i was criticizing. apologies for that.

but that said, certainly in this thread i also see examples of what i was identifying -- questioning motives (and related, in at least one example, discounting the sincerity of an equality-based critique because it did not come from an "LGBT activist"), not engaging arguments directly (or in their strongest formulation rather than their weakest/straw man like form), calling people ignorant ("at best"), accusing them of using LGBT people as "ragdolls." and at least one sigh, just like al gore (which of course went over really well in the debate w/bush.)

and at the end of the day, avoiding the underlying issue, at least to some extent. there is a legitimate tension to be discussed here: liberal principles in speech and migration policy -- which i believe in deeply -- can be strained and placed under tension when they protect people who do not share the same commitment to those principles. (the aclu defending the nazis, yada yada.) that isn't something to avoid discussing, it's something that we absolutely must engage directly and respectfully if we are to ensure that those liberal principles survive. now, whether or not ramadan himself legitimately falls into that category, i haven't the foggiest. and i'm sure that for many of us, the resolution of that issue doesn't feel all that difficult to figure out because we've thought about it long enough and in enough different contexts to understand almost intuitively what we believe.

but that isn't true for everyone, and it doesn't mean that the issue isn't a "hard" one in the formal sense. and i don't think that we do ourselves any favors by attacking people who raise the issue, even if it seems like some of them might be doing so as a cover for some other agenda. because even if some of them might be, in general there are plenty of other intelligent and thoughtful people who are not, and who struggle with that tension sincerely. the last thing we need to be doing as progressives (i think) is to suggest that by struggling with that tension, they are merely ignorant-at-best tools of the right who don't really care about equality for LGBT people in any sincere way, but rather are predisposed to use LGBT people as ragdolls, and to do so as a matter of convenience. "hearts and minds," and all that -- applies here at home as much as it does abroad.

for that reason, i don't think that it's just a to-may-to/to-mah-to thing, really, for as someone who shares many of saurav's political commitments much of the time, i don't like to see arguments that seem likely to alienate people who might otherwise be persuaded to what i believe in. nor, however, should i have reacted as if the sky were falling.

**

actually, siddhartha, in this discussion i have scrupulously remained a lurker until now. and believe it or not, i am somewhat bemused. ;)

bemused, fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. still the problem in this whole conversation is that it became one about LGBT rights and/or about the purported "convenience" or "inconvenience" to various people of holding various views in conjunction with one another. when the point was to talk about tariq ramadan, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and visa policy. this shape-shifting of the "Well, if you don't like THIS, i don't see you opposing THAT" discursive variety is classic intolerance and bullying, commonly observed on Fox News (and lampooned on the Daily Show); among its numerous toxic effects, it ends up instrumentalizing whatever cause the shape-shifter chooses to allude to as a way of distracting from the main point. whether various people here are "pro-" or "anti-" LGBT (whatever those reductions may mean) is not the issue; the issue is that LGBT rights are the item that the first commenter to shape-shift chose to pick from his bag of tricks. that looks like a ragdoll, or scarecrow, or straw man, call it what you will, to me.

peace

"Well, if you don't like THIS, i don't see you opposing THAT" discursive variety is classic intolerance and bullying, commonly observed on Fox News (and lampooned on the Daily Show)

True that, and it's a dilemma of our time that I don't know that very many of us have really figured out how to deal with as effectively as we could. So far be it for me to be too caustic with others who are struggling w/that dilemma.

There is however a point of convergence between the seemingly-unrelated issues being discussed here, which is that debates over visa/immigration policies both here and to a much greater extent in Europe since 9/11 have frequently been about what kinds of "threats" immigration policy should recognize and seek to prevent -- and in particular, whether ideological exclusion can be justified in order to preserve the liberal character of European/North American national communities against extremism with respect to, for example, women's rights and LGBT rights in addition to political extremism. (For example, in the Netherlands, where increasing numbers of progressives are as anti-immigrant as the farthest reaches of the right wing.) I'm not so sure that to raise that issue in the context of a discussion of Tariq Ramadan is automatically "shape-shifting" -- though it may well have been in the comment you have in mind above -- since the two forms of extremism are often understood, at least in everyday understandings held by many people, to be deeply intertwined, at least among some of their adherents. In a discussion of ideological exclusion on the basis of alleged political "Islamic extremism," it doesn't strike me as that much of a stretch that these other aspects of that supposed "extremism" might come up as part of the mix, and that they might be a legitimate part of the conversation -- at least generally speaking.

okay, back to lurking.