Yet Another Horrible New Atheist: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[Warren Stupidity]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch: [ɑˈjaːn ˈɦirsi ˈaːli] ( listen); born 13 November 1969) — birthname Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud;[a] — is a Somali-born American (formerly Dutch) activist, writer and politician. She is known for her views critical of female genital mutilation and Islam, and supportive of women's rights and atheism. She collaborated on a short movie with Theo van Gogh, entitled Submission (2004). Critical of Islam, it provoked controversy, and death threats were made against each of the two. Van Gogh was assassinated later that year by a Dutch Muslim.

Hirsi Ali is the daughter of the Somali politician and opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She and her family left Somalia in 1977 for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, settling in Kenya. In 1992 Ali sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands; her misleading application was later the subject of a political controversy. Following graduate work, she published articles on her political views and spoke in support of Muslim women, becoming an atheist. In 2003 she was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis related to the validity of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from parliament, and indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet in 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
These old white men are horrible people, aren't they?

[trotsky]

1. She really is an outstanding writer and critic of religion. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

80. She's been affiliated with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute

And she and her husband are proud defenders of Western imperialism.

I guess that makes her "outstanding" by your standards.

[trotsky]

81. LOL! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

2. She's already been dismissed as a right wing crank in this venue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126017

I'd hate to have to go through the experiences she's been through. Walk a mile, and all that.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. All the more reason she should have been in the picture of who

we should hate. Is it her pigmentation that kept her out? Her gender? What?

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Little from column A, little from column B.

[trotsky]

7. Well, what would she know from merely living it?

We have folks here who KNOW what religion truly is about who can correct her.

[rug]

9. There's that binary thinking again.

This is what Steadman wrote:

The reality is a bit more complicated. Although it’s undeniable that Hirsi Ali experienced horrific violence, her crusade for women’s rights seems to have transformed over the years into a crusade against Islam.

[MellowDem]

10. Considering Islam is explicitly misogynistic...

promoting women's rights would include opposing the beliefs of Islam to some degree, if a person is being intellectually honest and consistent.

[rug]

13. If a person is being intellectually honest and consistent, he or she would measure the degree

before popping off.

[MellowDem]

15. They wouldn't identify with bigoted belief systems...

While opposing the same, that's for sure.

[stone space]

19. Let me know when you renounce your US citizenship, OK?

Instructions for doing so can be found here:

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

[MellowDem]

28. US citizenship isn't a belief system...

Terrible analogy.

[stone space]

31. It's not an anology.

But I guess that it's your way of passing up the opportunity.

[MellowDem]

36. Then it's a completely irrelevant point?

I'll skip the opportunity to follow up your deflections.

[stone space]

40. Completely relevant.

You just didn't find the link as useful as I thought you would after reading your comments here.

[MellowDem]

47. What makes it relevant?

And why haven't you said what makes it relevant in 3 or so posts?

[stone space]

51. It may not be relevant to you.

It's only relevant for those of us who don't support everything our country does 100%.

It's not my place to say whether or not it is relevant to you.

I can just provide you with the information that you need to take action, should you see any relevance for yourself.

[rug]

33. Actually it is. It encompasses the obligations, as well as the rights, embodied in the Constitution.

[MellowDem]

37. None of which are a belief system.

[rug]

39. I take it you did not live under the draft.

[MellowDem]

46. It's not a belief system

[rug]

48. It absolutely is.

Not all belief systems have a religious basis. I would surmise most do not.

Citizens in a democracy derive benefits from the democracy.

Citizens in turn have obligations to the democracy.

Hence the draft.

The difference is these beliefs are backed by firearms and prison cells.

[MellowDem]

49. Obligations are not beliefs...

That's the difference.

[rug]

50. Various belief systems impose obligations, as well as purported benefits.

You underestimate the power of ideology in gaining compliance.

[MellowDem]

53. But the U.S. isn't one of them,

Because it's not a belief system.

[rug]

54. Watch how civics is taught in elementary school and see if that statement holds.

[stone space]

55. Then what are the pacifist purges...

...of the US university system all about?

Why are pacifists denied student loans and grants?

Why don't I have an undergraduate degree?

[MellowDem]

58. Because of laws?

US citizenship isn't a belief system. It doesn't mean you agree with laws, it doesn't say anything about what you believe. It's a legal status.

[stone space]

59. Laws in violation of the First Amendment.

A whole class of people denied an education because of their beliefs.

[stone space]

69. So, if laws are written to outlaw atheism, ...

...and to purge atheists from the US system of higher education, will you defend those laws as having nothing to do with beliefs?

Because of laws?

US citizenship isn't a belief system. It doesn't mean you agree with laws, it doesn't say anything about what you believe. It's a legal status.

Or do you get concerned about laws when they effect you, personally?

[MellowDem]

74. I have no idea why you are attacking that Strawmen...

Or where you got it, but more power to you.

I'm just stating that US citizenship isn't a belief system. Period.

[stone space]

75. Laws target people with blasphemous beliefs.

But it's not a "belief system".

OK.

[MellowDem]

76. Yes....

None of that fits the definition of a belief system.

Laws aren't what people believe.

[stone space]

77. Then why do we need Blasphemy Laws?

Why not allow everybody access to higher education?

Why discriminate against people for their beliefs?

[MellowDem]

78. I agree there should be no blasphemy laws...

I don't think people should be discriminated against for beliefs in general.

[stone space]

79. That would require the repeal of the Solomon Amendment. (nt)

I agree there should be no blasphemy laws...

I don't think people should be discriminated against for beliefs in general.

Imagine how much easier life would be for militant atheists if it were to be repealed.

We would become eligible for federal student loans and grants for college, just like everybody else.

Imagine being able to get loans to go to college. That would be like a dream come true!

Wouldn't that be great?

[Heddi]

60. How can you have a PhD in Mathematics and be a mathematics professor

if you don't have an undergrad degree?

[stone space]

62. I didn't say it was easy. (nt)

[Heddi]

63. no, what you didn't say was how you can have a PhD

And teach university-level maths without having an undergrad

[stone space]

64. It wasn't easy. (nt)

[Heddi]

66. how did you do it?

Im interested in this, from an academic perspective

[stone space]

68. It's one of those "Don't try this at home" kind of thingies.

There are much easier methods for militants to get a PhD, such as winning the lottery and using the proceeds to pay for an undergraduate degree first.

The method I used is simply not available to most militants.

I got lucky. Very, very lucky.

[Heddi]

70. what does militancy have to do with

Having a PhD without an undergrad?

[stone space]

71. The government doesn't like militants.

And the government controls student loans and student grants that tax dollars from militants pay for.

People demonize militants, so the government feels safe in blatantly discriminating against us.

It's not like the folks who demonize us are going to complain about it.

To them, we're evil, and we deserve what we get.

[Heddi]

72. Thanks for the non-answer

I'm unsure why you're so repeatedly unwilling to answer how you have a PhD without an undergrad. I know sometimes it's hard to keep stories straight, so perhaps that's why you're so reticent

[stone space]

73. I told you it was hard.

But we can work together to stop the demonization of militants and change these laws.

We can oppose discrimination.

That is, assuming that you actually do oppose discrimination.

You haven't made that clear, yet.

[stone space]

52. Belief in and willingness to use violence.

None of which are a belief system.

Opposition to that is a HUGE part of my militant atheism.

[Lordquinton]

61. did you just say you militant in your opposition to violence?

A militant pacifist?

[stone space]

65. Yes, I'm a militant atheist and a militant pacifist.

People like you who demonize militants make it harder for people like me to be allowed an education.

[Goblinmonger]

67. Yeah, I know, right

[rug]

32. I see your ability to distinguish the part from the whole remains obtuse.

[MellowDem]

35. I see your ability to excuse cognitive dissonance...

Is still poor.

[rug]

41. It would be condescending to excuse you.

I will simply rebut.

[struggle4progress]

5. .. in .. a 2007 interview with Reason .. Hirsi Ali .. repudiates the notion that her enemy is merely

radical or political Islam. When Hirsi Ali describes a “war with Islam,” the interviewer asks simply, “Militarily?” Hirsi Ali responds in the affirmative ... I reported two years ago on an event — another award ceremony for Hirsi Ali — where she spoke on “the advocates of silence.” In the speech, she raised the anti-Muslim Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. Hirsi Ali denounces his act, but then gives a credulous voice to the justification Breivik used: “He says very clearly that it was the advocates of silence. Because all outlets to express his views were censored, he says, he had no other choice but to use violence” ...

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/196399/no-brandeis-isnt-silencing-ayaan-hirsi-ali/

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Hirsi actually experienced being brutally silenced with no outlet.

She's also experienced people close to her being murdered by Islamic extremists for the most trivial of reasons.

I don't expect an unbiased view from her. One might similarly ask the Garner Family how they feel about Police Officers and procedures right about now. You're not likely to enjoy the answer.

Some people are carrying massive burdens, and that should be taken into account when you encounter their opinions.

[stone space]

21. What did they say?

One might similarly ask the Garner Family how they feel about Police Officers and procedures right about now. You're not likely to enjoy the answer.

If the Garner family has advocated taking military action against the police, and continues to advocate it even after a reasonable time period to process their grief, then expect that their views will be met with a bit criticism, however much pain and anguish such views may result from.

But I really want to be careful here and not assume that they have done so without some actual evidence.

Otherwise, we are dealing with nothing but a vicious slander against the Garner family.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. That isn't what i meant :/

I could have been a little more specific though. My point was about bias, imwasnt saying the Garner family was advocating violence.

[stone space]

26. I found some commenbts by the Garner family.

I posted the below.

My point was about bias, imwasnt saying the Garner family was advocating violence.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Garner family has bias.

But when you added this (my bold below), I wasn't exactly clear on what it was about the answer that we were "not likely to enjoy ".

(Whatever it may mean to "enjoy" comments from people whose lives have been touched by violence, but that's something else...)

One might similarly ask the Garner Family how they feel about Police Officers and procedures right about now. You're not likely to enjoy the answer.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. They are clearly upset.

Expected and normal.

They will be so, for some time. Hirsi on the other hand, is exposed to information from people she knows, whom still live in those conditions, every day. Imagine the state of the Garner family if they lost another family member to the police every day, or even every month or once a year? Bad enough there's a hole in their family that can never be filled.

I was not articulate in my original response though, I do apologize that it appeared I was casting the Garner's as being violent or advocating violence. They are not. Mea Culpa, I'll choose my words more carefully in the future. It was not the best analogy.

[stone space]

22. You mean this?

One might similarly ask the Garner Family how they feel about Police Officers and procedures right about now. You're not likely to enjoy the answer.

What exactly are you expecting reasonable folks to object to here?

Eric Garner Family Won't Forgive NYPD Officer For Chokehold Death



NEW YORK -- Eric Garner's widow said she will not accept an apology from the New York City Police Department officer who put him in a chokehold as he repeatedly screamed "I can't breathe" minutes before he died. Esaw Garner said she is determined to obtain justice for her husband, the latest victim in a series of recent police killings across the nation that have ignited debate over excessive force and how law enforcement officials treat black men.

"Hell no. No, I don't accept his apology," Esaw Garner said Wednesday night at a rally in the historically black neighborhood of Harlem in New York City hours after a grand jury decided not to bring charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo. "This fight ain't over, it has just begun. I'm determined to get justice for my husband. He should be here celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas. Somebody who got paid to do right, did wrong. As long as I have a breath in my body, I will fight to the end."

Gwen Garner, the victim's mother, joined her daughter-in-law in calling for greater police scrutiny. "I don't know what video they were looking at. Evidently it wasn't the same one that the rest of the world was looking at," she said, referring to a widely circulated video that showed Panteleo choking Garner, 43, as he gasped for breath. She also urged supporters to avoid the violence and rioting that broke out in Ferguson, Missouri, in recent months after the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in August. A white police officer also will not face criminal charges in that case.

"We need peace throughout the support," Gwen Garner said as a crowd of protesters began chanting "boycott." "Yeah, we want you to rally, but rally in peace. Do what you have to, but do it in peace."

snip--------------------

http://www.ibtimes.com/eric-garner-family-wont-forgive-nypd-officer-chokehold-death-1733522

[struggle4progress]

6. Neither a Critic of Islam, Nor a Champion of Women's Rights

Nathan Lean
Posted: 04/18/2014 6:12 pm EDT
Updated: 06/18/2014 5:59 am EDT

... A "critic."

That's a lukewarm description for someone who has expressed her support for defeating Islam (not extremists, but the entire faith) by military means if necessary. Let's be clear: Such measures do not constitute "criticism." Instead, they are dangerously close to advocating genocide.

Similarly, it is not "criticism" to promote the idea that the 2010 massacre carried out by the Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik, was a result of his supposed censorship. That is dangerously close to justifying an act terrorism that killed 77 and injured more than 300 others.

It is fine to be a critic of Islam or any religion. But Hirsi Ali crosses a line. Suggesting that her views are simply unfavorable normalizes extremism. It also dilutes genuine critiques by lumping them into one vague category that contains calls for military action against Muslims and reasoned negative appraisals alike. And, it legitimizes the idea that reasoned criticism of Islam is enough to warrant the denial of a public platform ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-lean/ayaan-hirsi-ali-neither-a_b_5175604.html

[MellowDem]

11. Islam is a bigoted belief system...

Not sure what it means to oppose it militarily, but it would be like saying fascism should be opposed militarily. Is that a call to genocide for fascists? Not how I hear it, but religion gets special privilege other ideas don't. Especially considering the idea being opposed worships a God that commits and orders genocide.

[struggle4progress]

14. Malcolm X's Letter from Mecca

... Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors ... There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blondes to black-skinned Africans. But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white ... I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color ... During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana ...

http://islam.uga.edu/malcomx.html

[MellowDem]

16. Tell me, are non-Muslims allowed in Mecca?

And are women treated differently? Malcolm X had some rose colored glasses, to say the least.

And what is the punishment for leaving Islam?

And who would worship a God that not only commits genocide, but sanctioned slavery?

You would have to lie to yourself and jump through several intellectually dishonest hoops to oppose all those things and subscribe to the Abrahamic religions, and people have spent thousands of years perfecting their rationalization of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Consider who probably is and isn't implied by the word "brotherhood"... N.T.

[edhopper]

23. Malcolm and the brotherhood of Muslims.

Remind us again who killed Malcolm?
What group was behind it?
True brotherhood.

[stone space]

20. I think it means killing people and blowing stuff up.

Not sure what it means to oppose it militarily

[MellowDem]

29. If you lived in a society...

under Sharia law, you may find it justifiable to oppose the regime militarily.

[stone space]

30. You seemed unsure of its meaning.

I'll leave it to your guesswork on who I would be if I wasn't me.

Just trying to be helpful.

[MellowDem]

34. Does it mean genocide?

Not to my mind.

[stone space]

44. I think it means killing people and blowing stuff up. (nt)

[Lordquinton]

38. So being a militant atheist means "killing people and blowing stuff up"

Or do you have a completely separate definition about what militant means and how it has no connection whatsoever to militarily?

[stone space]

43. Why do you keep attacking militant atheists?

What did we ever do to you?

[Heddi]

56. --

[Lordquinton]

57. I've met militant atheists

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

And you, sir, are no militant atheist.

[MellowDem]

12. She seems more conservative...

in some ways than most of the old white "new atheist" imperialists we saw on the other thread, but no mention of her there.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I'm afraid I think Hirsi Ali is one of the few high-profile New Atheists who really is a bigot.

I agree with a lot of what she has said. But she has also written

"Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."

and a bunch of other stuff in a similar vein.

I think it's hard to skin that as anything other than simple bigotry - she's not added any qualifiers; she's made no attempt to suggest that she doesn't mean "all Islam, anywhere, as practised by all Muslims", and I think that it's probably that that's because that's what she did mean.

I think that we could do with more, more uncompromising, ruder liberal criticism of Islam *as practiced by most Muslims*, often of kinds that will *offend* all Muslims (it makes me wince when liberals talk respectfully about Mohammed or the Qu'ran). But two things we absolutely *don't* need are

:- Any criticism that state that all Muslims, rather than just a significant majority, hold illiberal and repressive views.
:- Any criticism that hints, even if it doesn't outright imply, that the majority of Muslims are Out To Get Us.

[Lordquinton]

42. "inherent in Islam" =/= "All muslims"

similar to "The RCC is a bigoted organization" =/= "All Catholics are bigots" it's a subtle, yet important distinction, and the constant "Well, you didn't specify that you weren't talking about all believers, so I'm gonna state that you did and make you defend the strawman" it's tone policing at it's worst, so the one catholic who doesn't follow their church's teachings on the bigotry can get a pat on the head for being a decent person, even though no one said otherwise.

"Atheists are" or "New atheists are" actually is talking specifically about all atheists because it specifies atheists, not atheism.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. It is the Aflek blunder.

Why is it that liberals fall into this trap with such regularity? Or, phrased differently, how many decapitations in the name of god are required before we admit that there might be a problem?

[Odin2005]

24. She is a classic case of the "new convert fanatic".

And she is being played like a fiddle by the Imperialists.