Thursday, July 06, 2006

After I read this story this image you see below was my reaction--

The animation is from the amazing watertiger.
Two things made me do that, here is one -

The picture you see is for real, and is from a NY Times article. I saw it in a dairy on Daily Kos here. From the times article..


July 5, 2006
Memphis Journal
Lady Liberty Trades In Some Trappings
By SHAILA DEWAN
MEMPHIS, July 4 -- On Independence Day, Lady Liberty was born again.
As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of the Lady, but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and "Jehovah" inscribed on her crown.
And in place of a torch, she held aloft a large gold cross, as if to ward off the pawnshops, the car dealerships and the discount furniture outlets at the busy corner of Kirby Parkway and Winchester that is her home. A single tear graced her cheek.
It was not clear if she was crying because of her new home, her new identity as a symbol of religion or, as the pastor said, America's increasing godlessness.

From the dairy

“All I keep thinking of is this quote by Sinclair Lewis: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.””

Based on what I have been observing for the past few years, we surely seem to want to go that way, well at least some do.

He further writes

I had an interesting conversation as I shared the story with my mother: is the image of the Statue of Liberty copyrighted? Is this kind of re-imagining of a national landmark allowed without permission of the copyright holder? However much the image offends me (both as a Christian and as an American), I wonder if a tactic to get this kind of thing nipped in the bud would be that peskily invasive copyright law of ours. If it can be used to sue 12 year olds and grandmothers and to put rootkit DRM software on our computers without permission, can it be used to stop the usurping of our national symbols by the American Taliban?
Or maybe that's just what they want. A court case that makes them take this monstrosity down. More "proof" of the "vast liberal conspiracy of godlessness". Sigh.

He then goes on to see if this is copyrighted and voila!

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted Pastor Alton R. Williams of Memphis, Tennessee all patent and trademark rights to the name and image of the Statue of Liberation Through and/or In Christ, also known as the Christian Statue of Liberty and the Lord’s Lady Liberty; described herein as the Statue of Liberty with an uplifted cross in one hand and the Ten Commandments or Bible in the other hand, or any like configuration thereof.


From the pastors website

11. To redefine the Statue of Liberty to include spiritual liberty that precedes complete liberation.
12. To promote, protect, and/or restore the Ten Commandments (or laws of God) back into public consciousness and display.
13. To promote religious freedom in America.
14. To promote godly values and restore America’s Biblical Judeo-Christian foundation.
15. To reconnect patriotism to Christianity.
16. A prophetic symbol that declares God’s desire to reach the lost, the poor, the brokenhearted, the sick, the oppressed, and the captive, just as The Statue of Liberty welcomed the tired, huddled masses and homeless.
17. To denounce the worship of idols and all other gods.

I found 13 priceless. I think they mean only their religious freedom don’t they? Cos look at number 17.

By 15 he means you cannot be patriotic unless you are Christian?

16. I think if god wanted some symbols he would send them to us directly don’t you think?

Granted this a church deep in the bible belt, but this mixing of the state with church is part of a movement within some parts of the religious right to make the bible a basis of government in this nation. Granted these movements are still small but they often get a disproportionate representation in the media and some Christian conservatives complain about the persecution of Christians and their religion in this country. That is laughable, this nation is overwhelmingly Christian and what these folks mean by persecution is simply that their religion doesn’t form a basis of governance and primacy in the government of this country and that is why they feel persecuted.

In this regard these folks have a lot in common with religious fundamentalists of all kinds who preach intolerance under the guise of religion. This is a comparison they will find less than flattering.

As a bumper sticker I once saw says something like “Lord save me from your followers”

The second bang my head on the desk moment -
Our senator Joe Biden..

A Biden Moment, as it were.

In thanking a young Indian-American man for the support of his Indian-American group, Sen. Biden touts how Indians are the fastest growing immigrant group in Delaware and says, "You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."

I am not a huge fan of Joe. He is a smart guy and then he has moments like these which make me cringe. And he says he was not joking. I mean if he had to say something complimentary about Indian Americans there are several ways of doing that. That was not one. Oy !!!

53 comments:

Keshi said...

Was that statue of Liberty really reformed that way? I mean really?


**You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."

hmm I think he must have been a bit jealous of the skilled migrants so he associated Indians with Dunkin Donuts :):)


Keshi.

ishita said...

to denounce the worship of idols and all other Gods ....!!!

ubelievable! It's scary sometimes to see how intolerant ppl are becoming...every where...

This made a very interesting though disturbing read...hmmm!!!

thanks fr visitin my space and ur wishes:)

Aditi said...

Well
Spiritual liberty?? so isnt that freedom to be spiritual in whatever way it suits u

I think the native americans need a movement to reclaim america from the riff raff that is currently crowding it. Raise questions about the injustices on the trail of tears (shoot i forgot) and claim the statue of liberty as their symbol for liberation from the reservations.
Yea ppl like these do exist and they will always continue to exist, sometimes not that much different from RSS is it?

As for the Senator, obviously he has never walked into an engineering firm? or an IT firm or a research lab undoubtedly he will find indian accents haunting those hallways as well.

karmic_jay said...

@Keshi..Yes it was. If you click on the links, they will take you to the original article from the Times.

@Ishita.. I agreee thanks for stopping by.

@Aditi . I agree with you.

Mr. J said...

This thing is getting scarier by the day.. whatever happened to sensibility. But I hear there was something going on to seperate the state from the religion?? Whats up on that..

Mr. J said...

n go easy on yourself, the table might break :p

karmic_jay said...

@Me.. Ye I fear for the desk me being hard headed n all.. lol

Well to believe the nuts they think there ain't no wall that separate church n state.

Sudeep said...

Thts so insane n i thought only India was dealing with religious problems

btw, i need to read more on the Statue of Liberty.. dont know much 'bout it

Jordan's Dad said...

Ha ha!! LOVE the Dems. All about diversity!

Remember when Hillary quoted Gandhi and said, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

Yeah - she's down with her peeps!

Interesting that most (if not all) of this church's followers appear to be black. Isnt it?

The tide is turning. The Democrats' anti-religion and anti-family rhetoric is finally coming home to roost.

See ya in November!

karmic_jay said...

Remember when Hillary quoted Gandhi and said, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

Ya I remember that, it was pretty stupid.

Interesting that most (if not all) of this church's followers appear to be black. Isnt it?

Well religious nuts come in all stripes, colors and shades. BTW these folks are not fond of your JD's mom's religion or where she comes from or folks come from. Before you feel so thrilled that they will vote republican..digest that for a bit..

The tide is turning. The Democrats' anti-religion and anti-family rhetoric is finally coming home to roost.

It's turning alright in your mind. There is nothing wrong in condemning religious intolerance no matter what kind it is. No democrat official that I know said much about this particular article. It was a pure news item. Now don't be silly to sip so much kool aid that everything the times says is the democratic POV.

See you in November and regardless of what happens the fight will continue.

Paresh said...

Oh.. Good.. Christ... I have no words. None. *shaking head in sheer disbelief*

karmic_jay said...

Paresh...lol yep.

opinionatedinjerzee said...

omg, this world is getting scarier by the minute!

Anonymous said...

Hey JD...there's a difference between being opposed to turning this country into a theocracy, and being opposed to allowing citizens to worship whomever they wish to worship. Obviously, you would like to conflate the two.

Also, did you see the part that said the statue would be a symbol of condemning all competing religions? That is about as blatant as one can get in expressing opposition to religious freedom. The statue is a symbol in favor of oppressing anybody who doesn't believe in Christianity.

I have an honest question. What makes you think that Democrats are anti-family? Let's be honest here! You sound like a lost soul.

JD, do you really believe your own claptrap?

Jordan's Dad said...

And a lot of people from my wife's religion arent fond of people from my religion (jewish, "non- practicing") and the same goes for people from my religion. I wont go into it, but my in-laws werent exactly thrilled with their daughter dating a non-muslim.

Are Christians the only ones who are required to be tolerant of other religions? Part of treating people equally is holding them to the same standards you would anyone anyone else. Liberals just dont seem to get that.

As long as no one lays a hand on anyone else, people can think and do what they want. And we can always try to change their minds.

Dadoji said...

Where did Biden stand on India-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement? I knew but forgot.

Hillary continues to disappoint me.

And yes, US has all the potential to turn into anti-Taliban Taliban. The march has started but can yet be stopped.

Diana said...

I'm trying to come up with something to say but I'm just too horrified. That Sinclair Lewis sure knew what he was talking about.

karmic_jay said...

JD, both you and her have to be commended for doing what you did.

Are Christians the only ones who are required to be tolerant of other religions? Part of treating people equally is holding them to the same standards you would anyone anyone else. Liberals just dont seem to get that.

Let me try to explain this and may be you will not look at this as coming from the "liberal" pov, but of someone who has had to live thru religious intolerance.

No Christians are not the only ones required to be tolerant of others religions, other have to do the same.
But ppl of the Christian faith have a responsibility, others faith do not have. They are a majority in this country. So just as Hindus in India would have a responsibility to respect other minority faiths in India so do Christians.
I am very tolerant of other religions, that does not mean I should brush off attempts to paint other religions in a poor light(cos they are not Christian), and watch by as a group coopts our national symbols to modify them to look as if they are symbols of their faith alone.
Do they have a right to do that? Surely they do have aright to talk about their faith, but we also have a right to talk about that and shine a spotlight on them.
I was also with my post pointing to some of the inherent contradictions in their positions. How is that being intolerant? It is not. But then you want to call that intolerant? Sometimes you might just want to drop the whole "liberals do this" shtick.

Also let me mention that having lived thru religious riots and violence, I can tell you this often starts with supposedly harmless things like the majority talking about persecution in their own land, talking about special favors to minorities. There are enough gullible folks and soon that becomes a platform to win power and the whole thing thay have created is hard to control.
The hindu fundamentalists (whom I absolutely dislike)did exactly that in India and scores lost their lives in riots.

There is no reaason to believe that we are inherently better or different and that it won't happen here. Maybe it won't which is great, but there is no reason to ignore it or not comment about it.

Let me also tell you that when I visited India after the religious riots in the early 90s, I was told to shave my heard by some well meaning folks. The reason? Apparently people with beards had been trageted and killed cos they looked Muslim. Go figure, I was nto going to shave my beard cos of that.

One last point
"As long as no one lays a hand on anyone else, people can think and do what they want. And we can always try to change their minds."

I agree with that and except for some fringe groups most folks may be ok. As long as I don't see an incitement to violence I am ok, but you may want to read the Sussex county post about the Jeish family who had to leave and move to Wilmington cos of death threats and percieved threat of violence.
No one laid a hand but making threats is akin to that.
Talking about that recently folks at a Rwandan radio station were convicted of inciting violence that lead to deaths of minority Tutsis.
BTW what standards are liberals not holding someone else to? remember being the majority comes with soem responsibilities and wherever that has been lost it has led to problems.
Anyways this just something thru the prism of my experiences and not liberal as such, so take ot from that perspective if you can.
Have a good weekend.

karmic_jay said...

@Dadoji.. I have no clue about the Biden stand on the Indo-US deal. I really did not follow it closely. It was going to be mostly business aspects of the issue that would determine it I thought. But not sure.
And I hope the US fundies come to their senses, let hope so.

@Daian, I hope it stays only a quote and never becomes a reality.

karmic_jay said...

Diana.. sorry did not meant to mess up your name..sigh typos!

karmic_jay said...

BTW JD.. no one is talking about banning this group or anything.
Banging head on desk is not intolerance.. :-)

Anonymous said...

Hey JD...

How would you feel if some Islamic group in this country decided to co-opt the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of their religion? Perhaps she could shed a tear for all of us infidels and brandish a sword instead of a torch. Yeah.

You want to smear all liberals? Well...maybe you should look at how Republicans smear Islamic worshippers like your very own wife before you start throwing stones from your glass house. Michelle Malkin advocates the internment of Islamic people in this country. Do you support that? A lot of people from your "Republican religion" do.

Did your wife or perhaps her parents come to this country from abroad? Your "Republican religion" should dictate that you oppose allowing this to happen!

Jordan's Dad said...

This "anonymous" person is just a complete idiot. Very indicative of the left these days. So angry that they cant seem to win an election.

Keep talkin' my friend.

Viva La Conservative Revolution!

Anonymous said...

I'm an idiot? Just because you called me one, it doesn't make me one. In fact, I am PROUD to be called an idiot by you. It only serves to highlight what kind of person you are.

Your blind adherence to a political party that would like to detain people like your wife indefinitely (as Michelle Malkin has said so many times) is astounding and an insult to your wife. You are either in favor of detaining your wife or you must admit that the political party you support *gasp* actually has flaws and you *gasp* actually have a mind of your own and *gasp* you actually don't agree with this part of your political party's agenda!

Anonymous said...

Hey JD, would it be okay with you if your wife's mosque commissioned a Statue of Liberty with a sword instead of a torch, and the imam said that the statue would:

Promote, protect, and/or restore the Koranic Verses (or laws of God) back into public consciousness and display.

Promote godly values and maintain America’s Islamic foundation.

Reconnect patriotism to Islam.

Denounce the worship of idols and all other gods (behead the infidels!!!)

What's the matter? A little religious freedom never hurt anybody!

You are a hypocrite of the highest order, and it is you who fails to uphold the same standards for your religion that you uphold for the religions of others.

Jordan's Dad said...

Hilarious! You just keep proving my point that you're an idiot!

Anonymous said...

JD...the fact that you can't rebut the FACTS that I have presented only speaks volumes about your failings as a human being. You have shown the readers of these comments just how intellectually incapable you are. Did you REALLY earn your JD or did you get it from one of those Internet universities? LOL.

Anonymous said...

Do you support detaining people like your wife? Or do you disagree with the Republican party and Michelle Malkin on this issue?

Answer? Or will you continue the name-calling? LOL!

Anonymous said...

What if your wife's mosque commissioned a Statue of Liberty complete with Koran in hand, and made it a symbol of American Islamic hegemony? Would you approve?

Please answer. Urgently.

Or will you continue your feeble-minded name-calling like the troll that you are?

karmic_jay said...

JD.. Why not respond to anon's points instead of calling him/her names.
You are very much close to troll country or in it, if all you do is call names.

Jordan's Dad said...

C'mon Jay, you have got to admit that this Anon person is an idiot. He/she doesnt raise any points or "facts" worth responding to. Its just complete stupidity. He/she apparently thinks Michelle Malkin is an elected official!

You, on the other hand, while wrong 95% of the time (which is pretty darn good for a liberal! hee hee...), raise more valid points in a generally civilized manner. Thus, you are worthy of a response (if I have time).

Dont you get tired of all the heads nodding in unison? You need someone who disagrees with you from time to time. Dont you?

Jordan's Dad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hey JD...

You didn't respond to my questions. You started with the condescending talk and the name-calling. If you want more, I will continue berating you. You are an intellectual pygmy.

Michelle Malkin is not an elected individual, but that is hardly a loophole that you can use to escape from my questions. She talks for NUMEROUS Republicans, and last time I checked, nobody from YOUR party has rebuked her for her statements. NOT EVEN YOU. Your inability to admit that somebody "on your side" just might have the WRONG IDEA speaks volumes.

Nice try to escape on a technicality and obfuscate the TWO QUESTIONS that I had.

1) Do you support detaining people like your wife? Or do you disagree with and Michelle Malkin and the Republican party (who appear to side with her by failing to say that her idea was a bad idea) on this issue?


2) Would you approve of your wife's mosque commissioning a Statue of Liberty complete with Koran in hand, and making it a symbol of American Islamic hegemony?

What's the matter? Is the cognitive dissonance too hard for you to resolve, so you have to refuse to answer two SIMPLE questions? Of course, you're against drug abuse (and I am, actually) so you probably favor years of jail time for addicts unless their first name is "Rush" and their last name is "Limbaugh"...or maybe "George" and "Bush".

You deserve to be bashed. You're a troll with nothing better to do than to act condescendingly toward liberals and misrepresent what they believe while failing to be intellectually honest about the differences between your own beliefs and the official policies of your professed political party.

Jordan's Dad said...

You see, Jay? There's just no point in responding to this silliness.

Still cant wait to try that dosa recipe... I'm hungry just thinking about it!

Anonymous said...

LOL JD...which part of my post was silly?

The part that highlighted your hypocrisy and obtuse stubbornness with two simple questions?

Come on, JD! Which part?

Are you unable to answer my simple questions? Or are you afraid of the truth?

karmic_jay said...

JD, Why don't you respond to him? He has some valid points. Just because Malkin is not an elected official doesn't mean her views don't count? She is on Fox and other TV as a pundit. She has put people's prviate contact info on her web site, called them seditious. How does that help?
She does support internment of Muslims btw. That should casue you concern cos she speaks for your side.

Also you will promptly pull out some quote from someone like Harry Belafonte to throw at us and he is just some artist.

Jordan's Dad said...

I'm not taking the bait and being drawn into a meaningless debate just because you happen to agree with whoever this Anon person is. I'm also very surprised at you Jay. I gave you a lot more credit than that. Apparently I was wrong.

I think the both of you need to put your thinking caps on and come up with some "facts" you can actually prove and then make a logical argument.

Do you still have the little orange "Deaniac" caps? Maybe those would help.

Jordan's Dad said...

By the way, Harry Belefonte calls Bush a terrorist while standing next to Hugo Chavez. Later on, he appears at a democrat rally standing next to Hillary. If you cant see the difference in that, then you are blind. Anon is just stupid.

Anonymous said...

LOL JD...you're a meaningless hypocritical troll.

1) Do you support detaining your wife or do you support people who speak for your political party like Michelle Malkin?

2) Do you have a problem with an Islamic Statue of Liberty meant to symbolize the desire to impose religious dominance on this country's citizens? If so, then why don't you have a problem with the Catholic version?

You're a hypocrite and a liar.

Anonymous said...

JD...if the debate is meaningless and silly to you, then why do you keep answering with such meaningless and silly responses? Do you ALWAYS feel the need to have the last word even when you know that you're wrong? Are you one of THOSE people? LOL!

You turn to insults when you can't find a way to debate constructively and positively. Typical conservative, you are.

karmic_jay said...

By the way, Harry Belefonte calls Bush a terrorist while standing next to Hugo Chavez. Later on, he appears at a democrat rally standing next to Hillary. If you cant see the difference in that, then you are blind. Anon is just stupid.

He did not call for the internment of people belonging to your wife's religion like Michelle Malkin. I don't like Belafonte. But you still defend the types of Michelle Malkin who calls for the internment of Muslims? Thats just precious.

As for facts, you just ignore them and if you don't want to give me any credit, thats fine too. It's not like I need your stamp of approval or something like that.

Jordan's Dad said...

"He did not call for the internment of people belonging to your wife's religion like Michelle Malkin."

This is a "fact" you cannot prove. So the questions based on this "fact" are nonsense.

karmic_jay said...

This is a "fact" you cannot prove. So the questions based on this "fact" are nonsense.

Malkin stops short of calling for internment but lays all the ground work for it by calling for discrimination and profiling of Muslims and minimizing the internment of Japanese Americans. Where do you think it is going?
Here are a couple of links ( 1, 2).

If you don't think Michelle Malkin is calling for stopping your wife and profiling her based on her religion then you have another thing coming. I suppose that is ok with you? Well I am not holding my breath, all you do is indulge in name calling and call facts names cos they are biased against you is it?

So Michelle Malkin sets up the groundwork for discrimination and prifiling which she whole heartedly justifies. You think that is ok eh?

Whatever reservations Malkin may have about a mass incarceration of Arab- and Muslim-Americans are confined to a single sentence: "In part because of the geographical dispersion of the current threat of Islamofascism, it is hard to imagine parallel circumstances under which America would be compelled to replicate something on the scale of the West Coast evacuation and relocation during World War II."


How about muslim reasident aliens being told they won't get their green cards back unless they cooperate with the FBI by spying on other Muslims. Go read it here. Everything is ok with you as long as your party supports it.

I will make my stand against extremists on the left and the right, you on the other hand will support your party no matter what.

You, on the other hand, while wrong 95% of the time (which is pretty darn good for a liberal! hee hee...), raise more valid points in a generally civilized manner. Thus, you are worthy of a response (if I have time).


Where did you get that statistic? The same people that gave you intel on WMD's in Iraq eh?

Jordan's Dad said...

"She does support internment of Muslims btw" - Jay #1

"Malkin stops short of calling for internment..." - Jay #2

Who's the liar now Jay?

BTW, Malkin does not speak for me - she speaks for herself. But she never called for interment of Muslims, as you admit, so your question was idiotic and did not deserve an answer.

Very disappointed in you Jay.

Jordan's Dad said...

Malkin responds to liars like you here:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001148.htm

"The false allegation that Pipes "has fond visions of rounding up Muslim Americans and putting them in concentration camps" is one that has been leveled at me as well. It is repeated here, here, here, here, here, and here. It is a blatant lie, a malicious smear. And it is simply astounding when such lies are spewed by a professor of history at one of the most prestigious universities in the country."

Do your research next time.

karmic_jay said...

JD, She did not say that she supported internment verbatim and I should have said that. But we know where she is going with her argument. What she wrote is something often done to set people up for a more radical idea such as internment. What? you are not familiar with this kind of dublespeak?

Her book was torn apart by a lot of people the facts are out there, if you want go purchase one of those and see what she missed in her book.

In any case what do you think of her calling for profiling your wife based on her religion?
Ofcourse you choose not to address that.
Are you so blind that you cannot even recognize those on your side that hate you because you are Jewish and your wife Muslim? All I am trying to say is wake up dude to the hatred being spewed by some conservatives. Don't defend them blindly, think about it! But all you do is defend them and launch in to all liberals. Atleast I am not supporting those on the Christian right who hate non -Christians like me. But look at you, just a useful tool for them, and you feel mighty proud I bet calling me a liar.

It's very convenient that you say Malkin does not speak for you but then when you pick on a idiotic quote by M. Moore and ascribe it to all liberals. And you have the friggin gall to call me names? I have never defended Michael Moore on my blog or anyplace else, unlike you who hangs out here merely to spew venom and flame.

Oh BTW thanks for calling me names. Do you even recall that most of the times you have nothing to counter the facts I have?
As for this quote, I knew you were going to say look she did not say that. I do my research and am honest with my quotes unlike you who won't even address facts and ignore things that are not convenient for you and resort to name calling.

I love how you get all moralizing and preachy while conveniently ignoring things that don't agree with you. What does that make you a paragon of virtue?

Anonymous said...

Hey JD...are you serious? Michelle Malkin only said that she didn't call for the internment of MUSLIMS in her book that was about the internment of the JAPANESE during WWII. She did make the case for widespread racial profiling in that book, though, and she did lump the two topics in the same book. It doesn't take a Jedi mind trick to conclude that she supports the internment of MUSLIMS now. Only by parsing her words very carefully would one come to a different conclusion. Even Fox News has presented what she was saying as an assertion that she supported the detention of Muslims in this country.

So you finally have admitted that Michelle Malkin doesn't speak for you. Do you agree with the racial profiling that she suggests? How about the next logical step after that?

http://michellemalkin.com/aboutidoi.htm

----------------------

You still haven't addressed my question about the Statue of Liberty as a religious icon for those who believe in Islam.

----------------------

You're a troll...and I will continue to point that out to everyone else who reads your comments. They can decide who to agree with.

karmic_jay said...

She did not say that she supported internment verbatim and I should have said that. But we know where she is going with her argument. What she wrote is something often done to set people up for a more radical idea such as internment. What? you are not familiar with this kind of dublespeak?

As always you missed the argument. Very cleverly she sets the stage for removing moral ambiguity over Muslim internment. She does it by mimimalizing Japanese internment by making it sound like no big deal and legit. Maybe you can get your defend GOP at all costs mind around this. Here is a link .

karmic_jay said...

From that link..
I'll present the argument formally; it has two lemmas (minor conclusions), A6 and B10, and one major conclusion, C:
A1: In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens residing in the United States constituted a certain level of risk, R1, to US national security.
A2: In wartime, extraordinary measures are morally justified in order to protect the nation's security.
A3: The nation's wartime leaders, with access to credible intelligence concerning the nature of R1, concluded that R1 was sufficiently high to necessitate extraordinary security measures being taken against Japanese aliens and citizens of Japanese descent as well.
A4: The particular measure taken, the internment of the Japanese population of the west coast of the United States, was morally justified on national security grounds.
A5: If any resident sub-population P, in time of war, constitutes a threat level greater than or equal to R1, then the government would be morally justified in taking the same measure R1 against P.
A6: Therefore, in wartime the government would be morally justified in interning any resident sub-population that constituted a threat to national security greater than or equal to the threat posed by the Japanese and Japanese-American sub-population during World War II.

B1: The United States is at war in 2004.
B2: One of the primary (or at least best-known) tactics of the United States' enemies is to infiltrate Western nations and create furtive terrorist cells within them.
B3: The membership of such cells is overwhelmingly (very close to if not exactly 100%) Muslim.
B4: "Sleeper" cells have been uncovered all over Europe, and the men who hijacked the planes on Sept. 11, 2001, were operating out of such a cell.
B5: There is a discrete, non-zero probability, likely greater than .5, that sleeper cells are operating out of the United States right now.
B6: The aims of such cells are far more directly violent and injurious to Americans than the espionage that could potentially have been conducted by Japanese citizens and residents during WWII.
B7: The proportion of Japanese citizens and residents who could credibly have been suspected of endangering national security during WWII was very small relative to the entire sub-population.
B8: The proportion of Muslim citizens and residents who could credibly be suspected of endangering national security in this war is, similarly, very small relative to the entire sub-population.
B9: The conjunction of B6, B7, and B8 entails that the threat to national security posed by Muslim citizens and residents in 2004 is certainly no less than and in all likelihood greater than the threat posed by Japanese citizens and residents in 1942.
B10: Therefore the risk level, R2, constituted by the resident Muslim sub-population in 2004, is greater than or equal to R1.

C: Therefore the government would be morally justified in interning the sub-population of Muslim-American citizens and Muslim resident aliens.

karmic_jay said...

it continues.. Very few of these premises should seem contentious. In fact, there are only two, A3 and A4, that I think are false, and one more A2, that I think is true as long as it is not interpreted overly broadly (and that means some significant constraints). Of these, A4 is the major argument of Malkin's book, and A3 is an ancillary argument she offers in support of A4 (I think Eric Muller and Greg Robinson have sufficiently discredited Malkin's "scholarship" already).

If Malkin wants to deny the conclusion, C, then she has to find another proposition to reject. None of the B propositions (except maybe B1) are very good candidates; they are just a realistic, historically contextualized assessment of the potential threat posed by covert enemy agents inside the United States. If Malkin were to argue that we're not at war now (~B1), then there could be no inference made on the basis of A2, and thus she would not be committed to C. But I doubt, somehow, that Malkin would say that we're not at war now.

Malkin's statements that she is not calling for a round-up of Muslims therefore look like a flat rejection of A5, the conditional premise that says that what's morally justified in the case of one particular threat would be morally justified in the case of an equally severe or greater threat. And that, dear friends, is a move she's not entitled to make. She might offer non-moral reasons for not resorting to the same measures in a later case that were used in an earlier one, but she most certainly is in no position to argue against the moral justification of such measures in the later case. (Note that the foregoing argument is completely neutral about what moral system is in play. It will be valid for any coherent set of moral principles.)

So Malkin is committing herself to having no moral objection to the internment of Muslim citizens and residents. Hasn't she already given up the game? And if the government were to start rounding up Muslims, how, exactly, would she argue against doing so?

karmic_jay said...


UPDATE: In the comments section, I responded to "cpl" asking, in effect, what's so bad about a non-moral case for opposing the internment of Muslims. My condensed answer is that it does Malkin and us no good to argue that it wouldn't be wrong per se, but merely non-efficacious, to intern our Muslim neighbors. Put it this way: I don't want the sanctity of my civil rights or those of any of my friends to be contingent on Michelle Malkin's calculations of what is and what isn't strategically efficacious.

All the foregoing, of course, redounds to the enormous discredit of Malkin apologists like Glenn Reynolds (this is what really soured me on the guy, if anyone's curious), who should know better than to sign onto a project whose ultimate end is the undermining of the moral foundation of civil rights.

Jordan's Dad said...

"He did not call for the internment of people belonging to your wife's religion like Michelle Malkin. I don't like Belafonte. But you still defend the types of Michelle Malkin who calls for the internment of Muslims?" - Jay

You are not saying here that Malkin called for the interment of Muslims? Are you serious?

You are either stupid, or a liar. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt calling you a liar.

As for your other "arguments" - you changed the debate. NOW we're talking about racial profiling. Before we were talking about internment. I am not going to sit here and act as Malkin's defender. She does not speak for me and she is not a GOP representative. She's a writer. So go knock down your own straw man.

Enjoy your day.

karmic_jay said...

You are not saying here that Malkin called for the interment of Muslims? Are you serious?

There are more than one ways of doing that. If you read the link from my earlier post, she is doing it in a very indirect manner. By first trivializing the internment of Japanese -Americans coupled with racial/ethnic profiling of Muslims. She is making a case in a very indirect way.It's smart really, it allows her deniability.

I don't have to knock down Belafonte for his stupid comments, the comments speak for themselves. What he says and Malkin says are equally stupid, with one calling the president names while the other goes after a entire class of people based on religion. Not the same degree of stupidity.

Now for calling me names. Guess you can't make a point without that eh?
You clearly are out of the mainstream. I don't need any benefits of doubt from someone who ignores most of the facts or things I post, and picked on one misstatement about the meaning of what Malkin said.

I have heard that about ppl like Malkin and others in the far right. They use language very artfully to push thoughts that would never fly if stated simply.