Thought-crime
I’ve been wrangling for a couple of days with Brandon at Siris. He took exception to my post on Nussbaum and stereotypes, accusing me of resorting to stereotypes myself, especially in replying to a comment:
It is as if you actively doubted that a black man could be an honest, law-abiding citizen. “Why?” Nussbaum asks. “Isn’t this just the stereotype of the violent black man?” Then says Ophelia’s counterpart (I’m very sure Ophelia herself would never say this): “Why do stereotypes have to be the reason for it? Couldn’t some people think that honest, law-abiding citizenship is just more difficult for blacks for a lot of reasons…?
And more of the same unpleasant implication. I asked him some questions –
So you’re saying that it is simply a stereotype to ask ‘Does the Koran, and the relationship of Islam to the Koran, have nothing to do with it?’? So you’re saying that there is nothing about the relationship of Islam to the Koran that can ever make liberalism difficult for Muslims? That’s not what my liberal Muslim friends tell me. Similarly, you’re saying it is simply a stereotype to ask ‘Couldn’t it be that at least some people wonder if Muslim liberals still have the Koran to contend with, just as Christian liberals have the Bible, and if there is some tension?’? So you’re saying that there is no such tension? None at all? If so can you explain how that works?
And more of the same. He ignored the questions, and pretty much went straight for abuse, starting out by fairly drastically re-writing what I’d said and then flailing away at that. I took strong exception to a couple of his accusations, and he replied (I thought) more reasonably, so I replied in a more temperate way – only to be told that he can’t comment any more because he can’t keep his temper; ‘even reading your arguments above set my lips in a thin straight line more than once.’ So I must have said some really horrible things, right? Well no, I don’t think I did. So I’m puzzled – I’m puzzled by the whole thing. I thought Brandon was a reasonable guy, religiosity aside, but his claims here seem to me quite unreasonable. For one thing, as I said, he simply misreads what I said, and rewrites it and then attacks what he said instead of what I said – and he ignores all my ‘that’s not what I said’s. But more than that – he apparently does think it is simply a stereotype to ask ‘Does the Koran, and the relationship of Islam to the Koran, have nothing to do with it?’. He apparently does think it is both a stereotype and illegitimate (and racist-like) to ask questions of that kind. That’s why I’m puzzled. How can a question like that be simply a stereotype, and illegitimate and racist-like as well? How can it be so illegitimate that he can’t keep his temper while discussing it?
I think the question is simply a question, not an assertion. But I can put it in the affirmative. I think the relationship of Islam to the Koran does make liberalism difficult for many Muslims, just as the relationship of the Catholic church to the Vatican makes liberalism difficult for many Catholics, and the relationship of Southern Baptism to the Southern Baptist Conference makes liberalism extremely difficult for all Southern Baptists unless they leave the SBC, as Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter did. I do not think this is an illiberal thing to think, but Brandon apparently does. He thinks I’m dismissing ‘living, actual people’ out of hand and ‘tar[ring] a lot of pretty decent, and very real and concrete, people with a set of negative stereotypes.’ But he never actually says it’s not true that liberalism is difficult for members of very conservative religious denominations; he just expresses rage at the very idea. I don’t get it. To me that’s a little like expressing rage at someone who says ‘conservatives are conservative.’ To him it’s not. What am I missing?
I don’t even know if he thinks that Islam is not in fact a conservative religion, or if he thinks it is but no one should say so, or if he thinks it’s okay to say Islam is a conservative religion but not okay to say that it’s difficult for Muslims to choose liberalism. But if it’s the last – what I wonder is: how the hell could it not be difficult for Muslims to choose liberalism? Is the world making it easy for them right now? Is liberalism the primrose path for Muslims at this time? I don’t think so!
So, I’m puzzled. Also irritated, of course. I don’t want to pretend to be all high-minded about it – I think Brandon said some really offensive things, to use that over-used word in a precise sense for a change. And I think this whole way of carrying on – expressing barely controllable fury, suggesting the worst kind of thought crime, rewriting – is a way of trying to intimidate out of existence what ought to be a legitimate discussion. I do not take myself to be attempting to incite hatred against people, and I think that’s what Brandon is accusing me of. It’s puzzling and also rather…dubious.
The entire spectacle of ‘liberal’ people acting as thought police against criticising Islamic faults and crimes is terribly wrong. Long before Bush the same people were probably forwarding those chain emails for women’s emancipation in Afghanistan, yet seem to have totally forgotten it now.
How can they not realise that their behaviour is a total betrayal of liberal values, such as intellectual honesty? I blame Bush, its his fault they rotted their own brains with preening self-righteousness. It became no longer important to act in honesty and equity, when it was more important to find justifications to hate the right people.
It is certainly an odd exchange.
The guy, for reasons we do not know, is determined to be disagreeable, and intentionally (I suspect) refusing to read what you write and refusing to understand what you are explaining. He is stuck with his initial incorrect reading, and he final post is hysterical foot stamping. As my sainted mother told us, either his shoes are too tight or he is from Quebec. . . the only two excuses for snappish behavior. (My sainted mother but I never understood the Quebecois connection either).
Perhaps his reading comprehension is below grade level.
I read the whole thing too. It seems to me as though he is not willing to understand the vital difference between “Muslim” and “Islam”. People often fallaciously equivocate “Muslim” with race, where really what they mean by “Muslim” is actually “Middle-Eastern” (it seems people generally aren’t thinking about Indonesian Muslims or Indian Muslims when they are referring to “Muslims” as a whole, or even Lebanese and Turkish Christians). As this is the fallacy on which the rest of his argument is built, if he admits that it was wrong he has to admit it was all subsequently wrong. He’d rather stick to self-righteous indignation than admittance of error.
I also think it was fair enough to tell him “fuck you” for his comments about “using Muslims” because that was directly personally insulting and extremely unfair mud-slinging (and is also a result of his fallacious equivocation). Don’t let him get to you, I think you’re obviously much more intellectually honest with yourself than he is with himself. It’s a shame that his inability to pick the nuance in your position means he might affect others’ perception of your stance, because I think the work you do bringing to light the abuse of human rights by religious organisations is really important at this point in world politics. So keep your head held high OB, I for one appreciate your work.
After ‘nosing around’ Brandon’s website for an hour or so, his ‘misreading’ of what you said about Islam, the Qu’ran, and the difficulty that is posed by both of these for liberalism is, I think, typical. He has an exchange with Jason Rosenhouse which rather deliberately takes issue with something in a way which, with the best will in the world, cannot be read otherwise than as biased in the direction of religion, specifically, Christian religion.
The question, in this case, is whether humanity is, in some sense, the goal of creation. Brandon says that the only thing which makes humanity special is the atonement, but he neglects to mention that the only reason for the atonement is because humanity is central to creation. This is typically theological. Find a chink in your armour? Say that it’s not your armour after all, and was never intended that to be.
Take Anselm’s question: Cur Deus homo? Well, simple. God became man because man is centrally important to God. But Brandon would have it otherwise, flying in the face of nearly 2000 years of theology. Even Paul says that the whole of creation groans in labour pains awaiting the redemption of human kind. But Brandon says: “But in a sense the whole point of human life is recognizing that we are not the point of the world.” If anyone can take that from Christian theology, he’s not paying attention.
Unavoidable, I’m afraid. You have to be a fake now in order to be reflectively religious. You have to know in your heart that the game was up years ago. You just have to keep ducking and diving. I would do more than hold my head high. When religious people are flailing about, looking for justifications of the unjustifiable, don’t get too close. It’s not only water they’re drowning in.
All righty. I had thought (as mentioned) that he was a reasonable guy, apart from the religiosity, but that was on the basis of very scant acquaintance, so I guess it was just a mistake.
Rose – yeah, I think the ‘fuck you’ was justified too; that’s why I said it and why I didn’t withdraw it: that particular comment of his was really dirty, and entirely false.
Okay. Tight shoe guy; religious apologist; not worth bothering with. I just wanted to make sure.
Then again…there he is announcing on his front page that “her response seemed to me to be a set of equivocations and red herrings of a pernicious kind that should not be tolerated on such an important subject as people’s lives.” In other words I tell lies in such a way as to damage or threaten people’s lives. He’s a slanderous bastard, under the veneer of politeness, isn’t he.
The veneer is pretty thin. I can see the doody headedness right through those words. . . the temper tantrum at the end gives him away.
Yeah – the veneer is thin and kind of self-congratulatory at the same time. ‘Look what a great guy I am, I admit it when I lose my temper, but of course I lost my temper because that OB is such a dangerous lying Muslim-basher.’
Now he’s trying to tell me I shouldn’t comment on his blog. Hah! He gets to trash-talk about me but it’s really distasteful of me to reply.
Bad form. Time to wap his face with your glove perhaps.
I haven’t looked at his blog yet, but it may be that he is so paralysed by an internal censor (religious/ecumenical or PC) that he is ‘put out of communication with his reason’ as soon as certain topics arise.
Well I figuratively wapped his face with my glove – after the latest round of self-righteous passive-aggressive accusation by implication. Dang, he has an annoying way with him! Moving the goalposts every time he replies – tsk.
Oh, come on guys and gals! You already knew all this. God comes with the next interpretation, … and the next, …, and the next.
Yeah but – ! Even with already knowing it, the particular instantiations can sometimes surprise. Or maybe I’m just being gormless or something.
Well, I kinda flicked through his blog and he does have some impressive links and interesting topics. He seems interesting at first glance but I think he’s not really that intellectually impressive. Imho, he needs to apply a bit more critical thinking to his own thinking. How did you come across him in the first place, OB?
It was awhile ago, Rose…I think he was discussing an earlier post of mine (amicably that time). Something about morality I think. We didn’t agree but we didn’t quarrel.
Call me unsophisticated (well, many things, really), but as soon as I read this wee tag-line below his blog header:
“A Golden Chain from Tar-Water to the Trinity, With Thoughts Relating to Philosophy, Christian Theology, and the Universe Generally”
the words, “pretentious”, and “oh dear” instantly formed in my head.
Along with some others, would you believe…?
Well, yes…I admit I can’t really remember why I thought he was reasonable. I guess it was just what Rose indicated – some interesting topics and the like.
But yeah, highly pretentious. The whole moral struggle thing is wildly pretentious – and also a very convenient out. All you have to do if you don’t feel like making an argument is just ‘lose your temper’ and then announce that you have a rule that when you do that you immediately stop replying and that that is part of your moral whatsit. You get to lose your temper and then end the whole thing while seizing the moral high ground. Really sleazy, if you ask me.
I have been reading B and W for several years now and fail to understand how this guy arives at the conclusion that he does about what you say O.B, I just think he is deliberatly mis understanding what you write.