I'm offended ...

... by Islam
Pat Condell



I've found the use of the term "I'm offended" to be one that only certain groups are "allowed" to use, but is denied others.  Those same groups are also "allowed" to offend others, but if their targets object, they are told they are being too sensitive, or simply further attacked.  Because they deserve it, apparently. 

Ah, the hypocrisy of the "tolerant" and "progressives."

Tell me again?

For all those people telling me that there is no persecution against Christians, and that we're just playing the victim card, read this.  Then try to tell me that Christians aren't being persecuted.

A tragedy made worse

I haven't had much chance to post here lately (if you visit my home school blog, you'll read why, though I do warn it might fall into the category of TMI!).  On top of that, it was just really hard to make any of my usual posts in light of what's been going on in Japan in the last while.  First the shock of an earthquake large enough to affect the earth's axis.  Then the horror of the tsunami.  Finally, Japan continues to struggle with containing their damaged nuclear reactors.

What has made this event unique is the prevalence of cameras and videos in Japan.  We've been inundated with images that have made us all eyewitnesses.  They are astonishing beyond belief.



Ten's of thousands of people are dead or missing.






Countries from around the world have offered aid.  Some offers have been accepted, while others are on standby, ready to move should they be asked.

Meanwhile, around the world, people are offering their thoughts and prayers - as well as making donations and finding other ways they can help.

Yet no tragedy seems to go to waste without someone trying to use it to spout their own agenda or spread their own hate.

The first I saw was on someone's facebook status. This was a "gamer friend" - someone I know only as a "neighbour" in a game I play.  The first was a status update that started off sending sympathies to Japan, then quickly devolved to a rant about how they were the richest country in the world and would be able to rebuild in months, because they'd taken so many US jobs.  I challenged her on her claims, but she never responded.  Instead, I saw a new update.  Here, it started as a warning against scams claiming to raise donations for Japan - followed up by another rant on how no one should be sending donations, because they were so rich from all the jobs stolen from the US.

She is no longer on my friends list.

Then you had the people trying to tie the earthquake to climate change.  No surprise there.  After Katrina, Indonesia and Haiti, they're no strangers to dancing on the bodies of the dead to push their AGW crusades.

Next on the list were the anti-nuclear crowd.  They, of course, are expecting the worst - are almost eager for it, for all their claims to the contrary - and don't believe any of the official reports.  Of course, those reports are changing so fast, there's no way to know anything right now.  We shall see how that evolved.  I find it quite disturbing, however, that they are so quick to ignore the thousands of dead while fretting over the nuclear plants and preaching their anti-nuclear message.  Some, if you can believe it, are even planning to stockpile iodine.  Which would make more sense if they were actually in any danger, but we're talking people who live in central North America. 

Just now, however, was the worst of the worst.

A certain group of people I know have started sharing a YouTube video.  I'm not going to link to this pathetic piece of garbage here, and hopefully enough complaints will have been made against it to have it removed completely.

The video is of a young woman who's going on about how "God is so good" for answering prayers.  The prayer in question was to "open atheists eyes."  The prayer was answered, according to her, through the earthquake in Japan.

Now, within the first minute of this video, it was obvious to me that this was a troll.  For someone who claimed to be a Christian, she didn't talk or act like one.  I've encountered a few whacked out extreme Christians in my time, and they don't act or talk like her, either.  A quick search revealed that this person is a member of a satirical, spoof "Christian" forum, where she's known to post under another alias as well.

For a troll, this one is particularly dedicated.  There's a year's worth of videos on her YouTube channel.  All stupid and obnoxious.  She was obviously an anti-Christian playing herself as a Christian extremist.  It didn't help that she did things like call Lent, lentil.

This particular video, however, was disgusting beyond belief.  If she had been a real Christian spouting this, it would be disgusting beyond belief.  What makes it worse is that we've got an anti-Christian troll using the horror and tragedy of Japan to troll against Christians by posing as one and spewing her garbage.

It only took a few minutes of searching to find out her double identity, and that she was a fake.  The people sharing her video (and giving her channel hits in the process) fell for it.  They're the usual bunch of anti-Christians, and they shared it with comments such as this.

PLEASE GOD, Save us from the Christian Right!!!

I don't recall this woman's political views being mentioned, but then I didn't waste time watching the whole thing.  This crowd always assume Christian = political right, and it's a common phrase.

This is why I hate organized religions.

Because apparently, this video is what they think organized religion is like.  Nothing like painting millions of people worldwide with the same brush!

This will make your hair stand on end.  To quote my source for this: "... and people are afraid of Muslims?"

Okay, aside from the hyperbole in the first sentence, the second one is just plain ignorance.  People are afraid of Muslims because they see all those videos and read news about radical Muslims teaching their kids that Jews are dogs and pigs that need to be wiped off the face of the earth, and that the greatest thing they can do is blow themselves up while killing as many infidels as possible, or go around shooting US soldiers after watching a fake video supposedly showing atrocities by US soldiers but were actually taken from a movie, or murder families in their sleep.  People can't tell one type of Muslim from another.  It's not like the extremists walk around with signs taped to their foreheads reading "I am a radical Muslim!"  Comparing this woman's ignorant blathering doesn't exactly fall into the same category.

Here's the thing.  Of the many thousands of Christians around the world posting, sharing and otherwise articulating their caring for the victims of Japan's triple tragedy, sending their heartfelt prayers and organizing ways to send help, this group of Christophobes (and it's a very specific group only) is busily sharing this disgusting video, giving the troll who made it more traffic on her YouTube channel in the process, and using it to spew their own anti-Christian bigotry.

I wonder how many of them bothered to go to the YouTube page and flag the video as offensive?  Somehow, I don't think a single one did - just as not a single one bothered to do a simple google search to find out if this sicko was for real, or the troll that she turned out to be.

Which, as far as I'm concerned, makes them every bit as disgusting as the troll who made the video.

update:  Well, that was fast!  The woman who made the video I've been talking about has admitted her videos were all fake, and her YouTube account is now closed.


Let's see how many of the people who shared this will apologize for spreading their hate.

Just how much thought?

I recently discovered a friend had been wondering why I haven't been talking about what's going on in Egypt these days, seeing as how I don't typically hold back on discussions of note.  The truth is, I really don't know a whole heck of a lot about Egypt and didn't feel I had anything worthwhile to contribute.  I do have a lot of questions, but in seeking answers, I have instead been finding far more questions.

Just as an example.  I keep hearing that these protests are all about Egyptians wanting freedom and democracy, and that Mubarak is a horrible dictator that needs to be ousted.  If this is true, why is it that, in a country of some 80 million people, a huge deal is made out of protests that number in the hundreds of thousands across the country (a single demonstration on Capitol Hill often exceeds those numbers)?  Even at the height of these demonstrations, the largest number I'd seen was one million protesters.  That leave 79 million who aren't, with many of those barricading themselves to protect themselves from the protesters.  There could be a lot of reasons for people to stay home.  It just strikes me as curious that such a big deal is being made of such relatively low numbers of protesters, while (again, just for example) the media consistently derided the Beck rally for being "only" a few thousand people, reducing the numbers from the estimates of 300-350 thousand attendees.  The annual March(es) for Life consistently involves hundreds of thousands of people, yet the media barely even mentions them.  A curious double standard.

Meanwhile, if Egyptians are wanting to oust a dictatorship and instill democracy, why are so many of them carrying images of a past dictator?  If it's about freedom, why do so many want Sharia law?  What is the real motivation when I read so many protesters quoted about how Mubarak has made them a "slave to Israel" or hold signs with Stars of David drawn on Mubarak's face?  What role is the Muslim Brotherhood, which seems to be the only group in the wings powerful enough to fill the Mubarak power void and its openly stated desire to eliminate Israel and all Jews, playing in all this?

I could go on.  Lots of questions.  Few answers that satisfy.

What gets me, however, is how many people are not just expressing support of Egyptian protesters, but wishing for the same for of thing in their own countries.  Just how much thought did they put into their statements?  Just as one example:

If we could all just get up enough gumption like the Egyptians... maybe we could change a few things around here....Monsanto....tar sands.....food parity.....child poverty... poverty at all..... I go on and on.....

Now, the person who wrote this isn't one who normally blathers on mindlessly like so many I see, so it seems completely out of character for her to write this.  The only responses she got to this were the online equivalent of people sitting over their cups of organic fair trade caffeine free hot beverages, sagely nodding their heads over the wisdom of one of their own.  Me, I was just perplexed.

Is this person actually equating our Canadian democratically elected government with a 30 year dictatorship?  Does she really think that, if only we were all brave enough, we should all be rampaging violently through the streets, burning, stoning, and killing?  Does this person really think we should be doing this over things like a company or oil?

Let's say we actually did what this person wanted.  We all had ourselves a grand revolution.  Then, after we've buried our dead, bandaged our wounds, replaced our burned out cars, homes and businesses, and got on with our lives, how would this actually fix the issues she brought up?  How would this solve food parity?  End poverty?

Somehow, I don't think she or the people agreeing with her or saying we, too, should have a revolution, have spent much time thinking through what they're actually saying.

How?

How can there be peace, when there's stuff like this?


New Trends in Arabic Anti-semitism from Henrik Clausen on Vimeo.

A glimmer of hope

Egyptian Muslims Protect Coptic Christians on Christmas Day

Muslims Make Human Shield to Protect Christian Worshippers in Egypt


A hopeful sign when moderate Muslims brave their deadly brethren to form a human shield around their Christian neighbours.   Acts of courage like this are needed to confront the violent, Islamist minority.

Veiled references

There's a topic I've been wanting to touch on for some time.  This post is going to be a little light on references and links, though, as I'm sitting in a coffee shop with bad Christmas remakes in the background, using a PITA laptop. *L*  I might be able to update later, but no guarantees at this point!

All joking aside, the topic I want to address is no laughing matter.

Ever since France moved to ban face veils, I've been thinking about how and why veiling the face is such an issue in so many countries, the history of veils specifically, and facial coverings in general.

As someone who leans strongly towards the notion that people should be able to wear whatever they want and the state has no place in telling us how to dress, I do have limits to this.  For example, I object to outright nudity, not because I have any problem with seeing the nude human body, but for reasons that range from sanitation and hygiene (would you want to sit in a chair after someone nude sat in it?  I sure as heck wouldn't want to sit in someone else's butt sweat) to the fact that it's inflicting one person's preference (to be nude) onto someone else's (to not see some stranger's nude body).  It's along the lines of, your right to punch me stops at the tip of my nose.

So generally, I have no problem with people's dress.  If some guy wants to wear long flowing skirts and a belly dance shawl, I have no problem with that.  In fact, my only regret is that I never got around to finding out where he bought those beautiful skirts!  I haven't seen him in ages, and it looks like I've missed my chance. If another guy wants to wear brightly coloured spandex biker shorts with a thong on the outside?  Weird, but fine.  It's a bit hard on the eyes, but it's none of my business.  Likewise, if women want to wear their pants so low they're showing off their thongs and butt cracks... that's their business, though I would make an exception;  I would really prefer if they didn't wear them while working in the food industry.  Someone's butt crack and underwear out for display does not go well with food hygiene.  When I had my first job as a waitress, health regulations stipulated that we had to wear sleeves long enough to cover our armpits.  If we couldn't flash our stubbly pits, we sure as heck shouldn't be flashing our cracks.

In other words, I expect reasonable limits to our freedom to dress however we like. 

Enter the face veil.

First off, I do not have any problem with "traditional Muslim dress," whatever that may be.  Any objections I might have are of a more pragmatic nature than anything else.  The long flowing garments women wear can be stunningly beautiful.  They can also, however, get caught on things and be a danger.  There was a story not too long ago of a woman wearing a burka who was killed when it got caught in the wheels of the go-cart she was driving (note on the link:  I believe the file photo identified as a burka is actually a niqab).  While it happened to be a burka that got caught, I've seen other traditional garments that don't cover the face that would have been equally risky.  I have similar objections in mind when I see people walking around with long chains or belts hanging off their clothes, or women teetering along on high heels.  If the people wearing them are willing to risk physical injury for fashion, it's generally none of my business.  It might become my business if, say, I were an employer and the dress would hinder their ability to do the work I've hired them to do, or if a particular dress code or image were required.  Otherwise, it's no big deal and part of what makes people so interesting.

I do, however, draw the line at covering the face.  I agree with France's stand in banning the burka and niqab, and would support such a move here in Canada.

Before I explain my reasoning, let's take a broader look at face veiling.  This is not isolated to Islam.  Covering the face for one reason or another probably goes back to the beginning of humanity.  Islam developed in a geographical region of hot sun and a dry, harsh environment.  People covered their faces then, as now, to protect themselves from the elements.  At the time of Mohammad, few people actually veiled themselves.  They are impractical garments that get in the way while working.  The women who did wear veils were of the nobility; they were wealthy enough that the women didn't have to work in the hot sun, getting all dirty and sweaty.  Smooth skin, untouched by a harsh sun or sandblasted by winds, showed that a woman was from a family of high status and wealth - their women didn't have to work for a living!  When they did leave the confines of their homes and risk exposure to the elements, they could minimize the damage by wearing a veil.  When Mohammad said that all women deserved to wear veils because all women were equally noble, this was what he was referring to.  While some branches of Islam have taken his meaning to the extreme and turned it into a reflection of modesty, Islam itself does not require women to veil their faces.  In reality, the wearing of veils is not rooted in modesty, but vanity.  When Mohammad made this statement, most women still didn't wear the veil because it is such an impractical garment; their need to work for a living trumped the vain desire to protect their skin, and this was perfectly acceptable.  With this historical perspective, the argument that wearing the burka or the niqab is a religious requirement doesn't wash.

The veiling of women in Islamic countries is very much a cultural tradition, wrapped under the guise of religious requirement.  Growing up in a culture that expects women to cover their faces, one might have difficulty understanding why other cultures have a problem with it.  So let's take a moment to explore facial coverings in other cultures.

Over the centuries, women in European countries wore veils of various kinds.  One significant difference is that these veils, which often covered the entire face, were all open mesh or lace.  The face was not completely hidden, and women would still be recognized as individuals.  Lets look at other facial coverings which, like the burka and niqab, actually hide a person's identity.

Perhaps the most iconic Western example of face veiling is the cowboy with his ubiquitous bandanna.  While driving large herds of cattle, a tremendous amount of dust could be kicked up.  Weather also played its part as dust storms arose. Cowboys wore a number of things with very special purposes.  Chaps protected their legs.  Dusters were specially designed to protect them from the rain, even while riding a horse.  Hats had brims that drained rainwater out the back.  Bandannas were worn around the neck, where they could be easily pulled over the nose and mouth during dust storms or when thousands of hooves kicked up clouds of grit.  No cowboy would be without his bandanna, unless he liked the crunch of grit in his teeth or breathing clouds of particulate matter.

Of course, living in Canada, we have our modern facial coverings to protect from the elements.  Balaclavas, scarves and deep hoods all serve to keep our faces warm and protected from our often harsh winters.

There are those who make the argument that the burka and niqab are no different than wearing a balaclava. I always found that a rather silly argument.  For starters, no one is forced to wear a balaclava, while in too many Islamic cultures, a woman without a veil can be beaten or killed for her crime.  Even for those branches of Islam that view it as a sign of modesty, rather than the vanity its rooted in, there is a significant difference.  When people protect their faces with scarves and hoods and balaclavas, they don't leave them on when they go indoors.  In fact, in our culture, those who hide their faces are considered suspicious.  In the days of the wild west, bank and train robbers would use the ubiquitous bandanna to hide their faces while committing their crimes.  In modern days, sunglasses and hoodies are used the same way.   Before anyone suggests that it's not illegal to wear sunglasses or hoodies, therefore it shouldn't be illegal to wear a burka, the city of Edmonton recently made the news for banning sunglasses, hats and hoods.  It turns out there were so many jewelry store robberies where security cameras were rendered useless by criminals wearing hoods and sunglasses, a law was brought in.  If you go into a store or bank with your face hidden, they have the right to tell people to take off their sunglasses and hoods.

But what about outside the store?

Eldest and her friend, Raider King, found out about that.  Some time ago they did their "post apocalyptic" walk.  They wandered around our city wearing their costumes which, for Eldest, included a "scarfkerchief" worn over the face like a bandanna, with her eyes hidden by home made goggles.  Raider King wore a gas mask.  When they entered a mall, they were approached by a security guard and told they had to uncover their faces.  They understood why and complied, but Eldest did wonder what they did for Muslims or at Halloween.  Obviously, they make an exception for Halloween - the one day of year when people are actually encouraged to disguise themselves.  Just as obviously, they don't tell Muslim women to remove their veils.

From this Western cultural perspective, face coverings are viewed with significant suspicion.  People who hide their faces are doing so specifically to hide their identity while committing a crime.  This extends even to protesters who hide their faces, since they are obviously trying to hide their identities from authorities, even if no actual crime is perpetrated.  Those wearing facial coverings are far more likely to become violent during demonstrations, since they're more likely to get away with it.  For all that I agree and support people's right to protest something, even if I wildly disagree with their cause, I fully believe it should be illegal for protesters to cover their faces in the process.  If you believe in something enough to protest about it, you should believe in it enough to be identified, even if there's a risk of being arrested.  Once protesters start hiding their faces, it tells me that their motives are less than altruistic.

When it comes to the burka or the niqab, security concerns are completely valid.  There have been several incidents of late that have demonstrated this.  One was the now infamous video someone posted on youtube where veiled women bypassed airport security.  There's also the incident where some women made a fuss until the security staff let them through, without checking their identities.  As they were walking away they were overheard, speaking in their native tongue, mocking Canadians.  The man who overheard them did speak up, in their own language, calling them on it.  Another recent incident involved a woman who was pulled over by a police officer.  She accused him of racism and, when it went to court, tried to claim mistaken identity because he couldn't see her face.  Thankfully, his dashboard video camera recorded the entire incident in question and he was exonerated, but it's another example of veiled women trying to take advantage of their cultural tradition to usurp local law.  Meanwhile, there have even been incidents of male suicide bombers disguising themselves in burkas.  The burka and the niqab is a serious and legitimate security concern, as is any other form of hiding one's identity.  The difference is that people like my daughter and her friend couldn't make religious claims when the security guard told them to uncover their faces, as those who wear the burka or the niqab do.  As far as I am concerned, religion cannot be allowed to trump safety and security.

Which brings me to another defense of veiling that is sometimes used.  People claim it is a symbol of a religion, no different than a Catholic wearing a crucifix, or a Sikh wearing a turban.  These religious symbols, required or not, do not hide anyone's identity (and we've already established that veils are do not actually symbolize Islam, nor do they represent the concept of modesty, but vanity).  Rather, the Sikh's turban or Catholic's crucifix pendant openly show for all the world to see that this identifiable person holds certain beliefs.  The veil, on the other hand, hides the believer away.  The irony of such a defense is that, in some Islamic nations, other religions are illegal, as are their symbols and trappings.   A quick look at the persecution of Christians in various countries will find many examples.  In Western nations that object to veils, it's the veils themselves that are the objection, not necessarily the religion of the person wearing it.  Unlike countries like Iran, it's not illegal to hold certain religious beliefs, nor is anyone trying to force someone to turn their backs on their faith, while nations that require all women to cover their faces require this of all women, not just Muslim women, even though doing so is against Islam.  To carry over the metaphor, Islamic nations that force all women to wear the burka or niqab would be like us forcing a Muslim woman (or anyone else not a Catholic, for that matter) to wear a crucifix. 

Okay, so we've covered face veiling from a couple of perspectives.  Veiling fails from a religious perspective, as it is not actually a religious requirement.  It fails from a modesty perspective, since veiling is rooted in vanity, and as a symbol of Islam, as it it neither required by Islam, nor is it limited to Islam.  It fails from a security perspective for obvious reasons.

There is, however, another objection I have against veils.  This one is actually hinted at in the other reasons, and it is purely psychological.

Let's go back to the modesty angle.  Wealthy women in the Middle East began wearing veils to protect their delicate skin from a harsh environment.  This clearly separated them from other women.  It was an exclusive, rather than inclusive, act.  Wearing the veil was a way of saying "I'm better than other women; I don't have to slave away in the hot sun.  I live a life so luxurious, I can wear this completely impractical garment.  I don't have to worry about getting it caught on things or getting in the way, because I don't have to work for a living."  In this vein, the veil is a sign of privilege as well as vanity.  It was a flagrant way of saying that one's wealth and status (or those of their family) made them superior to everyone else.  There's more to say in that direction, but I'll cover that in a moment.

Let's now go back to the veil from a religious perspective, as so many claim it is either a requirement or a symbol of Muslim faith.  Religious symbols are typically ways to identify people.  Turbans, for example, not only represent Sikhism, but their colours can symbolize different things.  If someone wears an empty cross, you can assume a Christian faith, but if they're wearing a crucifix, you can usually assume Catholicism.  If you see someone wearing a pentagram, it usually identifies them as pagan.  Granted, many of these symbols are now worn by people as pure ornamentation.  Sikh men are required to wear a turban, but Christians have no such requirement to wear any symbols.  These days, you're not likely to see people wearing turbans just because they like the look (though they were in fashion for a while), but you do see people wearing a cross pendant that isn't Christian, or a Star of David that isn't Jewish.

The point being that these symbols serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, the person wearing the symbol is identifying themselves as being part of a select group.  On the other, they are making a blatant statement about their beliefs.  Early Christians began tattooing crosses on the inside of their wrists, despite biblical admonitions against body modification.  Why?  At the time, Christians were considered a dangerous element of society and frequently executed in rather horrible ways.  Identifying oneself as Christian was very risky. Indelibly marking one's body with a Christian symbol was a bold statement, and in doing so, these early Christians knew they were putting their lives on the line for their belief.  A tattoo on the inner wrist could be easily hidden by a sleeve.  It could be used to identify themselves to other Christians, since no one else would risk such a thing.  Having such a tattoo discovered by the authorities, on the other hand, was pretty much a death sentence.

The key point, however, is identity. These symbols boldly state to the world, "this is what I believe.  This is who I am."  What does a veil do?  It hides identity.  "This is what I believe, but you can't know who I am."  The veil hides the believer from the rest of the world, even from other believers, since Muslim women are expected to hide their faces from all men not their father's, brothers or husbands.  Some Muslim women have even gone so far as to never show their faces to their own husbands.  The veil becomes, not a symbol, but a barrier.  A wall of separation quite different from open symbols of faith.  With the veil, Islam becomes a hidden, secret thing, separating the wearer from everyone else, even within their own faith.

Which leads me to the final objection I have.  The veil is not just a physical barrier, but a psychological one.  It dehumanizes the wearer and isolates her.  There's two statements made here.  For the forced wearing of the veil, the woman behind the veil becomes nothing.  She is no one.  She is less than chattel; she is not worth even her own identity.  She is no longer allowed to be human.

For those who choose to wear the veil, the psychological barrier is different, but no less disturbing.  Here, the statement is reversed.  It's not that the woman behind the veil is not worth an identity; but that those on the other side of the veil are not worth knowing her identity.  In an open faced society, this psychological barrier is perhaps more damaging than forced veiling.  At least with forced veiling, those who disapprove of veiling can feel empathy for the woman behind the veil.  She is still a person to them; if her own culture does not value her as an individual, ours does.  For the woman who deliberately walls herself off from everyone else behind a veil, she is dehumanizing those who do not believe as she does.  We are the ones who are unworthy; unworthy to see her face; unworthy to be part of her world; unworthy of knowing who she is.

In the end, my objections to the burka and the niqab comes from two sources.  The legal objection is one of security, based on hidden identity and it not limited to just the veil.  I believe that, barring the need to protect one's face from the elements or similar reasonable exceptions, facial coverings in public should be illegal.  My other objection is psychological.  Whether the veil is worn by choice or by force, it is a damaging psychological barrier that seperates and isolates the wearer from everyone else, including those who follow the same faith.

Update:  A hearty welcome to my visitors from Blazing Cat Fur.  I hope you enjoy your stay. :-)