Maybe they should take a tip from the Orthodox, who settle their disputes the old fashioned way: Witnesses said that the robed and bearded priests scuffled for more than an hour using fists, brooms and iron rods as weapons.

Stop right there. Only proctologists can use the word 'asshole.'

They should claim wankers as well.
All the best for the New Year.

The parent in me thinks, "You know what? If you two can't work this out, then neither of you can use the word."

Jeez, I'm glad I'm not your kid. Muslims — not a small, rag-tag band of "radicals", mind you, but the Muslim-oriented government of an actual, you know, country — unilaterally start some shit with Christians over a matter that had been a non-issue for centuries, and your solution is to have both groups "work this out"? Yeah, that should produce a fair and equitable outcome, given that the Muslims are in power and the Christians exist more or less at their sufferance.

I hope you give Cassidy more of a fair shake if her brothers start picking on her.

The problem in Malaysia has surfaced because someone in government has chosen to use government to favor or disadvantage particular religions.

That never happens in other countries; certainly none that GB cares about. It's just some shit that bad people (mainly Islamofascist demagogues) unilaterally start, unconnected with other developments.

In his own house, Apo might be both the governemtn AND g-d. But then again, it's more likely his wife.

Anyway, I sure hope we see an abatement in this kind of nonsense, but I'n not too sanguine about it. People love to split into groups, and politicians often can make political hay by fostering divisions.

"The problem in Malaysia has surfaced because someone in government has chosen to use government to favor or disadvantage particular religions.

That never happens in other countries; certainly none that GB cares about. It's just some shit that bad people (mainly Islamofascist demagogues) unilaterally start, unconnected with other developments."

Stop, please. My sides are hurting.

As long as neither of them says "Yahweh"!

Aren't religions just so cute when they fight over their nonsense?

"As long as neither of them says "Yahweh"!"

You say it Yahweh and I'll say it Mine.

your solution is to have both groups "work this out"

I'm not offering a solution, dude. I'm saying it's just about the stupidest damn argument ever.

No, it's not a stupid argument. It's a stupid claim by the Muslims, and a sensible rebuttal by the Christians.

Calling the argument as a whole stupid removes the need to place blame on one side of it. Given that the argument was started by the Muslim faction, by writing its ridiculous position into law so that Chrisitans could not simply choose to ignore it, a policy of blaming both sides helps the Muslims (who are trying to get away with something greedy, hateful, and stupid) and hurts the Christians (who are trying to stand up for their rights).

That never happens in other countries; certainly none that GB cares about. It's just some shit that bad people (mainly Islamofascist demagogues) unilaterally start, unconnected with other developments.

Okay, Tom, I'll bite: What terrible "developments" compelled Malaysia's 60% Muslim majority to take action against its 9% Chrisitian minority? Face it, there is no justification for this law, and you're going to hurt yourself bending over backwards far enough to excuse the bigotry behind it.

Fortunately, while many countries are home to tensions between their different religious groups, most of them would never let something this stupid happen.

GB: Clearly not yet a parent.

What terrible "developments" compelled Malaysia's 60% Muslim majority to take action against its 9% Chrisitian minority?

Gaijin is so right. It's completely impossible to imagine any events, anywhere in the world, that could currently be of use to anti-Christian bigots in Muslim countries. But it's reassuring to know that only in a Muslim country could this sort of bigotry take hold, and that crankish linguistic tomfoolery never happens anywhere else. I'm glad that's all cleared up.

(This just in: decision reversed.)

I think

its great

that intolerant dicks miss the point

about

intolerant dicks.

1. Money shot from the "Christians": "Justice Brennan, who should be dug up and buried in a foreign country for issuing this ruling and destroying 2 centuries of Christian progress under the US Constitution."

2. Straight Talk: I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition...

3.Huck Sinn: “I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.”

4. After George W Bush's re-election, few people doubt that the United States is a Christian nation.

5. a House resolution to recognize the importance of Christmas and Christianity

At least they're starting an asinine debate over the name of God, and not freedom-ly fried potatoes.

Seeing everybody pile onto Gaijin Biker fills me with warm holiday feelings.

Happy New Year to you all!

Yeah, there are people who think the US is or should be a "Christian nation", but even the craziest of them would never dream of passing laws restricting what words people can use to refer to God. Of course, the usual suspects can be counted on to miss this point in their quest to prove that the US is just as bad, if not worse, than any given Islamic regime.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that there are at least a few grown-ups in the Malaysian government and the law is no more.

shpx.ohfu, even though I haven't dug through your entire list o' links, two egregious errors jumped out at me:

First, Justice Brennan didn't "issue a ruling" in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp. He concurred with the opinion of the Court, as written by Justice Clark, which was that states cannot require Bible passages, or the Lord's prayer, to be recited at the beginning of the school day.

Brennan himself wrote:

Daily recital of the Lord's Prayer and the reading of passages of Scripture are quite as clearly breaches of the command of the Establishment Clause as was the daily use of the rather bland Regents' Prayer in the New York public schools. Indeed, I would suppose that, if anything, the Lord's Prayer and the Holy Bible are more clearly sectarian, and the present violations of the First Amendment consequently more serious.

Way to miss the point.

Second, the "House resolution to recognize the importance of Christmas and Christianity", while undoubtedly a silly waste of time, was also a knee-jerk response to equally silly and wasteful recent resolutions praising other religions, such as H. Res 635, "Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and expressing respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion", and H. Res 747, "Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali", the holiest event for America's 3-million-odd Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains. Maybe a better approach would be to keep Congress out of the praising-religion business all together.

But anyway, thanks for reminding me of one of the main reasons why I gave up daily blogging: the drudgery of carefully and patiently refuting the dashed-off, groundless criticisms of idiots.

Dr. Slack, it's your contention that the Iraq war and Guantanamo motivated Muslims in Malaysia to try to ban Malaysian Christians from using the word "Allah"? I see it now, yes, very logical indeed.

Also, the last two links in your post demonstrate that (1) there are at least some people in America with strong anti-Muslim sentiments, and (2) some people in Texas think it would be fun to say Heaven-o instead of Hell-o as a greeting. How either of these items is comparable to an official government action placing legal restrictions on a religious group is unclear.

Dammit, there I go again with the careful, patient rebuttals.

He concurred with the opinion of the Court, as written by Justice Clark, which was that states cannot require Bible passages, or the Lord's prayer, to be recited at the beginning of the school day.

I see. In the US, religious fundamentalists try to use the state to enforce their religion on others, but the legal system prevent it. Whereas in Malysia, it's completely different: Religious fundamentalists try to use the state to enforce their religion on others, although the legal system prevents it.

Have I got it?

GB, sorry to have initiated a pigpile.

In a narrow, sense, of course you're right - in Malaysia, it's the dominant Muslims who are wrong. But there's a bigger picture, too, and it behooves us to be aware of it.

We can't cure intolerance with a stick, but by gradually building bridges and making the common points more important than the differences. We might even consciously try to avoid throwing fuel on fires and by easing off on our own behavior that feeds into the primitive reaction patterns that more barbarous societies/Republicans exhibit.

Best wishes for the New Year!

Not quite, Lemmy.

First, Malaysia's Muslim faction tried to prevent Christians from using the word "Allah" to refer to God. I have never heard of an American attempt to make certain words off-limits to particular religious groups, probably because Christians have no problem with non-Christians calling God "God", but also because our strong culture of free speech makes it clear to even the looniest fundamentalists out there just how ridiculous such an effort would be. While American Christians may try (and fail) to get Christian prayers read in public schools, I strongly doubt we'll ever see the day when they would presume to dictate how non-Christians may and may not pray on their own time.

Second, attempts to get Christian prayers read in American schools are largely the handiwork of local school boards. They are not national laws. And they are shot down as soon as our courts gets a look at them, because they are clearly unconstitutional. In Malaysia, by contrast, Muslims succeeded in getting a national law passed restricting the rights of non-Muslims. It's nice that the Malaysian government changed its mind soon afterwards and killed the law, but it was under no legal compulsion to do so.

You are right that every country and every faith has its zealots. Nevertheless, this fact remains completely irrelevant to the point I made in my initial comment on this post, which was that when Group A attacks Group B, it is unjust to blame both groups equally for the resulting conflict, no matter how "dumb" it may appear. The case at hand involved Muslims and Christians, but it could just as easily have involved Mac and Windows users, or Coke and Pepsi drinkers. The principle remains the same, and it has nothing to do with Islam or Christianity.

Out of all the people who responded to my initial comment, only Apostropher responded to the point I actually made, instead of reflexively spewing out unthinking condemnations of a supposed anti-Muslim bigotry that I never demonstrated. Happy new year.

dashed-off, groundless criticisms
See the quotation marks and the phrase "...from the Christians"? Most folks would recognize them as a sign that the material contained therein is written by someone else. In this case, the item mischaracterizing Brennan's opinion you wrongly attribute to me was written by your fundy fellow traveler. My point is that Brennan was right, and it is your Republican colleague who wanted Brennan's corpse desecrated for writing the concurrence; thereby showing the intolerant christian dickishness of those opposed to the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. In the "missing the point" department you get top honors.

Maybe a better approach would be to keep Congress out of the praising-religion business all together
As for my second "egregious error," in the way of Republican cultists, you come around to the point the rest of us were making all along and claim it as your own. The pernicious injection of religion into government of this country is a core plank of modern Republicanism and its incessant pandering to the intolerant fundy base. Thus, constitutional amendments embodying christian views on gay people, the packing of the Justice Department with Regent Law School graduates intent upon christianizing the US government, militant christian conduct at the US Air Force Academy, christian propaganda distributed by the Pentagon, millions of dollars poured into "faith-based" intiatives, overtly religious goals for the Republican party presidential front runners and so on are A-OK with you. If on the other hand the Malay government adopts overtly religious (Islamic) goals those are "ridiculous positions" and we need "to place blame on one side of it" when a dispute arises. This is "the point you originally made."

First, Malaysia's Muslim faction tried to prevent Christians from using the word "Allah" to refer to God.

Yup, the stories are not exactly the same. The Malaysian case involves using the state to force everyone to use the fundamentalists' chosen words for God, whereas the American case involves using the state to force everyone's children to make the fundamentalists' preferred daily prayers. Why this is such a critical distinction continues to elude me.

And they are shot down as soon as our courts gets a look at them, because they are clearly unconstitutional.

Again yup. the United States has stronger liberal institutions than many developing countries. We are genuinely fortunate in this. But I'm inclined to see it as a result of history, circumstances and political struggle than any inherent difference between Christians and Muslims.

when Group A attacks Group B, it is unjust to blame both groups equally for the resulting conflict

But seeing this as "Group A attacking Group B" depends on myopically focusing on just this one case and ignoring all the other examples of Group B attacking Group A. As most of the comments here have noted. Points can be missed on both sides, I reckon.

The real issue is this:
1. I have no ties to (or really, even knowledge of) Malaysia;
2. there is a linguistic dispute in a language I have never even heard spoken;
3. the dispute is between members of two religions, neither of which I claim as my own.

I suppose I could sit down and study up so that I could better inform my terribly important opinion on the matter since the Malaysian government was surely on pins and needles, anxiously awaiting my pronouncement. But honestly, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other. The only part of this story that was remotely interesting to me was its inherent absurdity.

Gaijin, I'm not sorry to have been part of the pigpile, and I'm going to leave it up to you to decide how clever your carefully-literal reading of my post is. Your complaint is the height of ridiculous prissiness.

I have to admit, shpx.ohfu, you are completely correct that I missed the point of your Justice Brennan reference. Bad on me.

Thus, constitutional amendments embodying christian views on gay people, the packing of the Justice Department with Regent Law School graduates intent upon christianizing the US government, militant christian conduct at the US Air Force Academy, christian propaganda distributed by the Pentagon, millions of dollars poured into "faith-based" intiatives, overtly religious goals for the Republican party presidential front runners and so on are A-OK with you. If on the other hand the Malay government adopts overtly religious (Islamic) goals those are "ridiculous positions" and we need "to place blame on one side of it" when a dispute arises. This is "the point you originally made."

Um, no.

Not only did I not make such a point — ever, anywhere — but I am in fact opposed to the initiatives you list.

I hate you, Milkman Dan.

22: reflexively spewing out unthinking condemnations of a supposed anti-Muslim bigotry that I never demonstrated.

GB, you protest too much. You persistently exhibit not so much "bigotry" towards Muslims as a us vs. them vibe (unless it's something heart-warming about New York City) that, while understandable given what Jews (and other distinct minority groups) have suffered at the hands of dominant groups, seldom notes the bigger issues of intergroup dynamics, political opportunism and conflict abatement.

The only bigot here is me, remember?

FWIW, I agree with you that Apo's "it's all absurd" approach may provide some emotional release, but at the cost of useful analysis.

Regards,

Tom