The Sheila Variations

I wouldn't curse Doumani. I'm sure she is traumatized, she doesn't deserve it, and she's also probably having an intellectual crisis right about now.

If I had any idea that she would actually read my post, I would have been less blunt with her. But I doubt she'll see it, so I'm not worried about it.

And, hey, thanks for linking. :)

But this does bring up an interesting question.

When is naivete inexcusable?

I do feel bad for ... how baffled and hurt she sounds. I am sure you are right, that she is having a complete world-upside-down crisis right now...

Any thoughts on naivete though?

I think there is such a thing as willful naivete - people who cover their ears and eyes - and refuse to deal with reality.

Interesting to ponder anyway.

When is naivete inexcusable?

It is an interesting question. And I honestly don't know.

It depends partly, I suppose, on whether or not a person was presented with facts that were then swept to the side. On the other hand, the Red Cross attack is one hell of a rude fact for Nada Doumani and some others.

It's too bad it takes such an extreme intrustion of reality to jolt some people. But of course I have sympathy. Our whole country experienced that on 9/11. Few of us took Al Qaeda seriously before then.

Naiveté is only excusable when it is based on invincible ignorance. Vincible ignorance is never a reason to excuse someone for anything, especially naiveté that has an impact on the safety of others. Vincible ignorance, especially on the part of an intelligent person with plenty of information at her finger tips is not excusable.

However, I don't think Doumani's naiveté is based on ignorance. I thin kit is based on a desire to serve the contemporary notion that love and compassion requires that we do not "judge" people. As if we don't make judgments about things everyday. This Mrs. Doumani is a perfect example of why it is necessary to make judgments and why the failure to do so is dangerous.

Wouldn't you say so?

That last line was my attempt to temper my off the cuff, shouty comment. :-)

When is naivete inexcusable?

It is inexcusable after the truth has been presented with adequate proof. No one wants to say it but Islam is much more than just a "religion" as it is desperately refered to in the media these days. It is a path and a way of life that has to be fed with the elimination of all that is not of itself. Read the Islamic websites, it is all there. Non-muslims are to be converted or killed.

The corrupted muslims are evolving Islamic doctrine through action but the writings remain the same and the preaching is rarely tempered.

If I tell you the stove is hot and don't offer you any proof, say by moving your hand close so you can feel the heat, and you touch it, it is stupid but excusable since I didn't convince you. If I do all of the above and you still touch it then it is inexcusable.

Non-muslims are slowly and painfully discovering that there exists a group of people who wnat to kill them and are not interested in any dialogue. It is against all that we have come to believe and will require a lot of proof.

Spot on, Jim!

Here's a question: Do you feel at all uncomfortable saying this "in public?" I have a feeling that many people think the way you (and I) do, but they feel pressure to not appear intolerant or narrow minded.

I think Bush repeats the "religion of peace" b.s. for political reasons only. I think he's too smart a man to actually believe that.

I, for one, wish that we were not fighting a "war on terror" but a "war on radical Islam". But we don't call it that. Because God forbid some Muslims get their feelings hurt.

But I would be completely comfortable with "war on radical Islam" - and I think a lot of moderate Muslims who live trapped in those societies would hold secret little parties in their homes - saying: "Finally - someone has HEARD us. We have wanted somebody to help us get RID of those boneheads for years!"

Like when Reagan said the words "evil empire".

People who actually LIVED in the damn evil empire revered him for his courage, and still think he is the greatest American president for it.

On the flipside, though: I think, actually, that the "religion of peace" mantra is a sign of progress. As annoying as it was, and still is. It is a sign that we, as a society, have learned some lessons from the past. We will not demonize an entire race of people - we will warn people not to vandalize shops owned by Muslims - etc etc - because we live in a civil society.

WWI, WWII - German-American citizens harassed and looted, Japanese-American citizens interned -

I, for one, do not want to go back to that society. I have friends who happen to be Muslims. Whose parents fled Iran, fled Pakistan - because they wanted a better life.

It's radical Islam we must destroy. It's radical Islam.

Bull shit it's a war on terror. It's a war on those radical fundamentalists who want to take us all back to the 7th century - who will not be happy until we are all dead. Even a mass Western conversion will not be enough for those people - because, as is evidenced by homogenous Islamic societies - they murder and kill and torture each OTHER too - regardless of the fact that they all have the same religious beliefs.

They have no idea that they are walking down a dead-end street. But they ARE.

"Do you feel at all uncomfortable saying this "in public?"

Not as uncomfortable as when I'm talking about offshore outsourcing. The past 15-20 years I've been in a corporate setting so I'm essentially professing treason and right now I'm unemployed. I also don't want to come off as a racist. I'm coming to terms with this.

I will say that Islam is the enemy very carefully to varying degrees while trying to be sympathetic to the level of teachability and backgrounds of the people I'm talking too. I believe that the predominant purpose of any conversation about this should not be couched in winning or losing an argument but rather setting a stage for education and clarification and ongoing dialogue. Arguments or debates, outside of ego satisfaction, are only useful for getting someone's attention and establishing some low level of communication that wasn't possible any other way. The potential for true knowledge transfer then exists.