Important Fact from Galactic History, Number One:  (reproduced from the Siderial Daily Mentioner’s Book of Popular Galactic History)                               

The night sky over the planet Krikkit is the least interesting sight in the entire Universe.

(Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe, and Everything)[1]

Have you ever wondered how the stars would look if viewed from another planet?  To stand on a distant world and look up at the depths, into space and back in time, and to see how these two look from that vastly different vantage point — there is a certain breathtaking quality in the thought.  It is an experience we try to imagine but cannot imagine quite accurately, as no human has ever seen that view.

Although the view from another planet, another solar system, another galaxy is a wondrous thing to imagine, for right now, all we have is our view from right here on planet Earth.  We stand here, in our little corner of the cosmos, and as we look up into space, there are certain familiar sights:  stars and planets named by our ancestors, constellations drawn on the night sky by their imaginations — a mural of artwork drawn in intricate detail by an invisible artist.  We see the universe (or, at least, a small section of it) from here and wonder what else is out there in all the vastness of all existence.  Our planet seems sometimes an insignificant place to be, perhaps as uninteresting as the night sky over the planet Krikkit, but it is our home.  It is from this place that we wonder and imagine and try to figure out what all of this (life, the universe, and everything) means.

The night sky over the planet Krikkit may be the least interesting sight in the entire Universe, but in this Universe, sometimes even the most uninteresting and simple places and phenomena hold great allure for those who seek to discover and derive understanding from the cosmos.  As this little planet continues to travel around our sun, may we value the little corner we have and continue our fascination with the far reaches of space — and hopefully, one day, when this planet has traveled around our sun a great many more times, we will know more about that vast abyss we see when we look up at the night sky.

This is one of the most well-known first lines in the history of human literature, and this year was the 400^th anniversary of perhaps the most famous translation of the great work from which it is quoted, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

One can alter the Bible, and it has been altered many times, but this particular translation has a special place in our history and society.  Its phrases grace the pages of literature; its verses come readily to our lips.  The King James Version’s rendering of familiar Bible passages, such as Psalm 23 and the Beatitudes, are the ones that are often remembered and quoted.

¹ The LORD is my shepheard, I shall not want.

² He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures : he leadeth mee beside the still waters.

³ He restoreth my soule:  he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousness, for his names sake.

⁴ Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadow of death, I will feare no euill : for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

⁵ Thou prepares a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies : thou anoitest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.

⁶ Surely goodness and mercie shall follow me all the daies of my life : and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for euer.

(Psalm XXIII)

-

³ Blessed are the poore in spirit : for theirs in the kingdome of heauen.

⁴ Blessed are they that mourne ; for they shall be comforted.

⁵ Blessed are the meeke : for they shall inherit the earth.

⁶ Blessed are they which doe hunger and thirst after righteousnesse : for they shall be filled.

⁷ Blessed are the merciful : for they shall obtaine mercie.

⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart : for they shall see God.

⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers : for they shall bee called the children of God.

¹⁰ Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnesse sake : for theirs is the kingdome of heauen.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall reuile you, and persecute you, and shal say all manner of euill against you falsly for my sake.

(Matthew V:3-11)

The spelling has changed over the years, eventually standardized; the Apocrypha has been removed from many editions; the notes from the original 1611 edition removed and more recent ones inserted in some editions.  Still, though all that, the King James Version remains.  It seems fitting to remember this book and the effect is has had on us.

In July of 2010, I posted an entry with a comment I wrote about Terry Jones’ Burn A Koran Day event in response to an interview Hemant Mehta posted.[2]  In that entry, I also provided a link to a comment I wrote in response to an entry in which Mehta wrote about and recommended reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Nomad.[3]  The link to the particular comment no longer works because of his move to a different site with a different commenting system, so I’m posting my comment here.]

I still haven’t finished reading Infidel, but of what I’ve read so far, I really admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her bravery.  I look forward to reading Nomad soon.

Personally, I would disagree with her recommendation concerning Christianity.  I can’t really say I left Islam, because I never agreed with it from the time I was very young; I always disagreed with the discriminatory rules.  For a while, I still believed in God.  I considered converting to Christianity and, after my first attempt to read the Bible, saw right away how horrible it was.  (I have to wonder if the people who converted from one of the three monotheisms to another read all three holy books and noticed the many similarities.)

My concern would be that the denominations of Christianity that are concerned with getting more converts due to their belief that everyone else will go to Hell aren’t the ones that would be a great improvement if Muslims converted to them.  Meanwhile, the denominations that are the nicer ones probably wouldn’t be the ones obsessed with converting people, since they think God loves everyone.  So, we end up with a paradox that the Christian denominations we (or at least I) would not want people to join are the ones actively seeking converts (via manipulation and lies).

I tend to agree with previous people who commented saying that secularism is what improved Christianity.  Christianity by itself doesn’t have very much to recommend it.

Anway, thank very much for the review!  I look forward to reading her book and learning more about her experiences and education!  Despite my disagreement on this point, I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a great role model; she show a lot of bravery and strength in the face of danger, and I’m so glad that she is speaking up about the problems of Islam.  We need more people like her who can show that a secular society is much better than a theocratic one.  I hope that people like her will encourage more former Muslims and even more moderate Muslims to speak out against the tragedies going on in the world today.

[About a month after Mehta’s entry about Ali’s Nomad, Adam Lee also posted an entry about the same book and Ali’s suggestion that secular people and Christians should form a strategic alliance.[4]  The following are some comments I wrote on that entry.]

Comment #2 (2 August 2010 at 8:02 pm)

I’m looking forward to reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Nomad.  I’ve read some of Infidel so far, and I think she’s a really braver person for standing up as she does.

Personally, for me, when I left Islam and considered Christianity, I found that I disagreed with it for many of the similar reasons why I disagreed with Islam.  There was no evidence for either of the two religions and, when I tried to read the Bible the first time around, I found right away that I didn’t agree with it any more than I agreed with Islam.

I tend to support promoting the ideas of secularism and equal rights and being allies with any religious people who also believe in these things.  I don’t think it’s such a good idea to be allies with one religion trying to convert another religion, such as being allies with Christians to convert Muslims, because that could lead to one religion gaining too much power and — as you mentioned — abusing that power to discriminate against others.  Even if the goal is to be allies with the nicer, moderate Christians only, it could mean that Christianity as a whole gains too much power and the extremists might abuse that power (even if it wasn’t the original intention of the alliance).[5]

Comment #3 (2 August 2010 at 8:04 pm)

“If we have to choose between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion, then of course, we should choose moderate religion.

But, I actually strongly disagree with AHA on her point about supporting Xian conversions of Muslims.

Who exactly is going to reach out to Muslim immigrants?  I can tell you who – the fundamentalist Xians.  The Mormons and the JWs and the Southern Baptists will be all over that.  1. I’m not sure that much if any improvement. 2. How easy a conversion is that going to be?”  [Edit: This quoted portion was written by Sarah Braasch in Comment #1]

I agree wholeheartedly.  This is exactly my concern as well.  The more extreme denominations are the ones who are more obsessed with converting everyone else, because they think others are going to Hell if they are not members of the “right” religion.[6]

Comment #5 (2 August 2010 at 8:31 pm)

@Ebonmuse (comment 4):

He-he.  You made me smile.  I often find it amusing when extreme members of any faith think they’re going to succeed in converting people by advocating discrimination against them.

Also, I haven’t yet read the book (as I wrote previously) but I’m not sure if I could advocate Catholicism without having a guilty conscience.  I know many Catholics are more accepting of women, the LGBT community, people of other religions, etc. than some fundamentalists, but the Church and its official policies are way too extreme and hateful.[7]

Comment #7 (2 August 2010 at 8:53 pm)

“It’s funny, because, depending on the circumstances, sometimes the hardcores of one religion are the greatest supporters of the hardcores of other religions.”  [Edit: This quoted portion was written by Sarah Braasch in Comment #6]

I’ve noticed that as well, such as when extremists of various religions work together to advocate discrimination against LGBT people.  When my state was considering same-sex marriage (which was eventually defeated) I remember seeing a news report on the televisions showing protestors from both Christianity and Judaism who were opposed to same-sex marriage.

I’ve also seen Christians defending the burqa as a way to be “modest” without admitting that women are often forced to wear it.[8]

Comment #84 (5 January 2011 at 3:07 pm)

The fact that people are converting to Islam is something I find interesting, because I personally left the faith. It seems some of the Muslims discussed in the article converted not because they became convinced that the Qur’an was dictated to Mohammad by Allah via the Angel Gabriel, but because they liked some aspect of the lifestyle (e.g. modesty) or wanted some meaning in their lives. This leads me to ask the following: Why not take on the ideas you like without converting? For example, I still don’t drink alcohol and I still dress modestly (though I don’t cover my hair), even though I left Islam. Personally, I wanted to make my own meaning in life, instead of following one prescribed by a religion.

This is just a guess, but I have to wonder how much of this is an example of the grass seeming greener on the other side. The person who left Catholicism Khadijah Roebuck compares Islam with the Church, saying she found peace in Islam, but not in the Church. When I left Islam, I briefly thought that maybe Christianity would be a better option, but then decided against it. I think I was able to see the bad parts of Islam, since I was looking at it from the inside, but got a false good impression from Christianity, since I was looking at it from the outside, with practitioners trying to make the religion look good to outsiders.

I obviously can’t judge from just a few paragraphs on each person, but it seems they’ve done what many people do: follow some aspects of the faith and not others. I think their beliefs are totally wrong; whether or not this is dangerous depends on their actions.

I agree with previous comments who pointed out that it would be a good idea to compare this with how many people are leaving Islam.

@AA (comment #1):

“I still think that immigrants should adopt the culture of the country they choose to move to.”

There isn’t just one culture in any country.

It’s always bothered me when people refer to immigrants (and children of immigrants, like myself) as having become “Westernized” or “Americanized” as if ideas like freedom, equal rights, etc. are somehow the property of one country, instead of a good idea for everyone. I adopted those ideas because they’re good ideas, not just to go along with what country I’m living in.

I think all cultures should be subject to criticism to remove the bad parts and keep the good, and that people should be able to choose for themselves which ideas they want to follow (provided they’re not harming others). The content of the ideas should be used to judge them, and we shouldn’t just go along with whatever the majority is doing if the majority is wrong.[2]

I want to expand upon the part where I wrote, “I think I was able to see the bad parts of Islam, since I was looking at it from the inside, but got a false good impression from Christianity, since I was looking at it from the outside, with practitioners trying to make the religion look good to outsiders.”

Clearly, there are times when being on the inside actually makes one less likely to see the problems within an ideology or institution.  I think I was able to see the bad parts of Islam because I had the opportunity compare the religious ideas with the ideas of equal rights and secularism; I could see the differences and knew that Islam was not the only or best option.  While being on the inside, I could see the ways in which my life would be negatively affected and limited if I stayed in the religion.

Meanwhile, Christianity seemed like a viable religion because I had gotten a vague but generally decent picture of it due to its portrayal in our society and culture, with moderate religious people saying that the extremists were not practicing the religion accurately.  Ironically, though I was (and am) looking at Christianity from the outside, I was (and am) living in a country where Christianity is in the majority, so I was getting a generally positive message about the religion from my surroundings.

Last year, I wrote Why Weasley Sweaters Are the True Meaning of Christmas, in which I sought the meaning of Christmas in the Harry Potter series.[5]  This year, I am continuing that theme by writing about Polyjuice Potion.

The holidays can seem like a time when we have to put on a different face and pretend to be cheerful, even we do not truly feel that way.  We may feel pressured to feign happiness when around people who we don’t know so well or people who we do not trust with our true selves.  When we are in the company of those with whom we feel comfortable enough to be ourselves, however, the holidays (and indeed many other days) can be a wonderful time.  The Polyjuice Potion allows the drinker to take on the appearance of another person,[6] to put on another face, but Harry and his friends do so, not to hide who they are, but to help their friends and others — to do the right thing, to be their best selves — and they are able to do this in the company of friends who they know will be by their side.

During their second year at Hogwarts, Harry, Ron, and Hermione endeavor to find who has been opening the Chamber of Secrets.  Ron suggests that it might be Draco Malfoy, given his hateful comments after the attacks.  Harry thinks Ron’s suggestion is but wonders how they can prove it.

‘There might be a way,’ said Hermione slowly, dropping her voice still further with a quick glance across the room at Percy.  ‘Of course, it would be really difficult.  And dangerous, very dangerous.  We’d be breaking about fifty school rules, I expect.’

The dangerous plan she suggests, which they later attempt, is secretly brewing Polyjuice Potion to sneak into the Slytherin common room to speak with Draco.[7]  It is during the Christmas holidays that they are finally able to complete the potion, and Harry and Ron (having to leave Hermione’s behind in the bathroom as her transformation went awry) sneak into the Slytherin common room while disguised as Draco’s friends Gregory Goyle and Vincent Crabbe.[8]

These three young students (aged twelve and thirteen) take it upon themselves to figure out who is committing the terrible attacks upon their fellow students, and although the heir of Slytherin turns out not to be Draco Malfoy but Lord Voldemort (the Dark Lord formerly known as Tom Marvolo Riddle), these three friends play an integral part in figuring out the identity of the heir and stopping him from sending the basilisk after Hogwarts inhabitants.  They demonstrate intelligence and bravery, showing their best selves despite fear, uncertainty, and danger.

Several years later, a few days before Harry’s seventeenth birthday, the Order of the Phoenix plans a way to get Harry safely to The Burrow, because the magical protection that kept Harry safe while he lived at 4 Privet Drive will end when he turns seventeen.  Fourteen people (including Harry, six people disguised as Harry, and seven protectors) will leave from 4 Privet Drive, so that there are six decoys to throw off the Death Eaters and Lord Voldemort.  When Alastor Moody first explains the plan, Harry does not want to do it.

From inside his cloak Moody now withdrew a flash of what looked like mud.  There was no need for him to say another word; Harry understood the rest of the plan immediately.

‘No!’ he said loudly, his voice ringing through the kitchen.  ‘No way!’

‘I told them you’d take it like this,’ said Hermione, with a hint of complacency.

‘If you think I’m going to let six people risk their lives –!’

‘– because it’s the first time for all of us,’ said Ron.

‘This is different, pretending to be me –’[9]

Harry is reluctant to go forward with the plan, because he knows that his friends will be risking their lives.  He knows that he is the person who Lord Voldemort most wants to kill, so the danger that his friends already take by being part of the Order of the Phoenix will be increased if they are disguised as him.  Eventually, however, they are able to convince him to participate.  As Ron points out, it is not the first time they are risking their lives.  They know how important it is to oppose Voldemort, to protect innocent people from his horrific plans.  Though they are all flawed human beings, they all (with the exception of Mundungus Fletcher, who abandons the fight) show their best selves on that day.

The spirit of the holidays, of love and kindness and goodness, is important to keep in mind, to keep secure in the heart, throughout the year.  No one is perfect and no one is happy and cheerful all the time.  Those who are close, our trusted loved ones, understand that.  They are the ones who know our faults, who let us be ourselves around them, and whose presence and memory motivates us not to display a false version of ourselves to others, but to seek to be our best selves.

#

Notes/Acknowledgements

Inspiration for the title of this entry is taken from the title of the fictional book Moste Potente Potions in which Hermione Granger looks up the recipe for Polyjuice Potion.[10]

Much thanks to J. K. Rowling, as always.

I found the first Hitchens article from 2005 (footnote #3) via P. Z Myers at Pharyngula[11] and the second posthumously-published one (footnote #4) via RichardDawkins.net.[12]  The man really did write about almost every topic under the sun and wrote wonderfully.

In response to these articles, Adam Lee has written, in ’Tis the Season for Holy War Nostalgia, about “apologists who are openly nostalgic for an era when religious disagreements were settled not through peaceful persuasion, but through violence, torture, and bloodshed in the streets” and who “think it’s cowardly for atheists to file lawsuits enforcing the separation of church and state”.[3]

The following is a comment I wrote in response to Lee’s blog entry.

What really bothers me is the way the apologists who use arguments like this are using other people’s bravery to make themselves and their entire religion look good.  It sounds like they’re trying to identify with Christian martyrs, insinuating that their situation is in some way similar.  In reality, the people who make these kinds of arguments aren’t displaying the bravery of martyrs; they’re displaying immaturity.

This reminds me of Daniel Fincke’s “Top 10 Tips For Reaching Out To Atheists” at Camels with Hammers.  (http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2011/02/22/top-10-tips-for-reaching-out-to-atheists/)  For point #10 he responds to people who brag about how Christians tolerate mistreatment and how they’ll have to stand up for their rights one day.  (A quote:  “Do you know when a Christian instantly loses all credibility?  It is when they say something like this, ‘Our enemies assume that just because we are Christians we are going to turn the other cheek, but at some point we have a right to stand up for our beliefs!’ Really, any obnoxious, pugilistic behavior in defense of your supposed Christianity convinces people you have none.”)

They want to compare atheists and secularists living in secular countries to Christian martyrs, because if you compared the Christian right in the US to the people who are in support of secularism, it’s clear which sides comes out looking like a bunch of whiners.  The people who are in support of secularism are upset about legitimate discrimination, while many of the people on the Christian right are complaining about not getting special treatment.

About the whole fatwa envy thing:  I’ve noticed that, too.  They seem almost jealous of the violence that is used by certain Muslim groups to silence criticism.  At the same time, though, they want to be able to brag about how much better, more peaceful, etc. Christianity is compared to Islam.  I don’t know how many of the people who say things like this actually want violence.  I suspect that some probably do, but I don’t know about most.  There does seem to be a double standard, though, in that Muslims who say anything violent are considered suspicious or dangerous, whereas Christians who say something violent get the benefit of the doubt until they actually do something.  I think the Christians who say things that insinuate violence (but don’t intend to act on it or don’t actually want it to happen) know that they live in a society that gives them leeway, or they would stop and think before saying it.  As for those who actually do want violence, they’re obviously horrid.

The above passage is the final paragraph of the preface to the paperback re-edition of Christopher Hitchens’ Hitch-22: A Memoir. The book was written while the author was probably already ill, though he did not know it at the time, and the preface was written after he was diagnosed with cancer. The narrative of his life, unfortunately, concluded on 15 December 2011.[2]

He leaves behind countless reams of writing and hours of speaking. In addition to his family and friends who grieve him, many others who have never met him are thinking of him upon learning of his death. He wrote on a wide variety of topics — everything from how to make tea[3] to the importance of the King James Bible to our language and culture,[4] from book reviews (such as his review of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy)[5] to a confirmation that waterboarding is torture (after having undergone the procedure himself),[6] from the untruth and undesirability of religion[7] to defenses of war (especially the war in Iraq).[8] He wrote with great eloquence, drawing on history and literature, and managed to both inspire and infuriate readers.

After his diagnosis,[9] he wrote various essays about his experience with cancer: Tropic of
Cancer,[10] Unanswerable Prayers,[11] Tumortown,[12] Miss Manners and the Big C,[13] Unspoken Truths,[14] and his latest, Trial of the Will.[15] He addressed the subject of his illness (and impending death) with his usual wit. Although Hitchens acknowledged that his illness might not allow him to “do death in the active and not the passive,” these essays displayed bravery and thoughtfulness in the face of death.

I never met the man, though like many, I enjoy his writing and speaking immensely. The first of his works I read was God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything as part of an effort to read more about religion and atheism. At the time, I was already questioning the existence of God and beginning to consider myself an atheist, but his book (among others) inspired me to think more about the questionable morality of religion and especially about the questionable desirability of the afterlife, even Heaven. His now famous comparison of Heaven to a celestial dictatorship, though it may seem harsh to some, as well as his recent essays about cancer have helped me in the ongoing process of dealing with my fear of death.

I’ve read only a small fraction of his lengthy bibliography, though I plan to read more in the future. There are times when I cheer on the inside while reading what he wrote and hearing what he said, other times when I cringe inwardly, and still other times when I become absolutely infuriated. He could be moral and upstanding one moment and absolutely loathsome the next, inspiring both gratitude and anger. His death does not change this about his writing. (The admonishment to speak no ill of the dead is overrated and would be ironic if applied in this case anyway.) No matter whether I agree with him or not on the topic being discussed in a particular piece, his writing challenges me to read more about the topics he’s written on — to learn more and figure out if I think he’s right or not, because one should always seek to keep learning and make up one’s own mind. Disagreeing and debating with him is a challenge, as acknowledged by The Onion’s obituary,[16] but one should want an opponent like him to truly test one’s own views.

Yesterday morning, I had a momentary thought of toasting his memory with a drink (preferably Johnnie Walker Black), despite the fact that I don’t drink alcohol, but I won’t go through with it. Remember always to keep reading, keep thinking, and keep fighting on.

There is probably not God and probably no afterlife, but on the off chance that these do exist, may Hitchens speak on the side of the prosecution against the Almighty.

Comment #10 (14 December 2011 at 6:43 pm)

I’m rather confused about whether this is a separate thing or a continuation of the mini-controversy/discussion/confusion over the Facebook post by Ernest Perce V, the PA state director of American Atheists. I agree with Dave Silverman’s statement, though I thought EPV was walking the line between criticizing an ideology and making accusations against an entire group of people, due to the way he wrote his statement.

On the issue itself, I tend to agree, of course, with being critical of Islam, especially considering the great amount of harm it does due to the teachings that are described in the Qur’an. Even though many Muslims conveniently ignore some or many of the teachings, that doesn’t stop them from being there, and it doesn’t stop other Muslims from actually taking the Qur’an at its word when it says that it’s from God.

On the topic of “worshiping Mohammad”: Muslims aren’t supposed to worship Mohammad. In fact, it’s considered wrong to elevate anyone to the status of God. (This is part of the reason for why people were upset about the Mohammad cartoons — not that I think they were right to be upset. The people who were upset were wrong.) However, there’s a certain irony here. By being so adamant about enforcing the rule about not drawing Mohammad, certain Muslim groups act as though they have elevated Mohammad to a higher status than others, since they don’t get upset about drawings of Adam, Moses, Jesus, etc. (even though these figures are also Prophets who should not be drawn, either, according to some Muslims). There are people who cite Mohammad’s actions as a reason why they should do something (or should be allowed to do something) — everything from the horrendous (like marrying little girls) to the just odd (random stuff like when to cut your nails).

I’m not joking about that last one. A very religious uncle of mine once came up to a couple of my cousins and myself when we were talking at a family party and started telling us about this.[4]

I think I_Claudia’s point and also Lina Baker below make good points.

The first thing I noticed is that Ernest Perce V’s post sounds self-congratulatory.  He seems to be bragging about how brave’s being by saying something negative about Islam.  About whether he is talking about Islam and/or Muslims:  In some way, he brings the misunderstanding on himself, because he starts with “I will say to you Islam…”  One could read this as him talking about Islam, not all Muslims.  One could also point out that it’s weird to address Islam.  (Who says “I will say to you Islam/Christianity/Judaism”?)  The sentence reads like something you’d say when addressing a group of people, not an ideology, as though he’s written it about Muslims but put in the word Islam so he can later claim he wasn’t generalizing about Muslims.  If he had said these things about, maybe The Qur’an specifically, then I would tend to be more on his side.

What’s happened, in my view, is that there are many people unwilling to criticize Islam, and so someone who says something — anything — negative about Islam thinks they’re being brave by doing so, and there are those who praise any criticism of Islam, no matter how much or how little thought went into the criticism itself.

Similar comments that are broad generalizations are written about Christianity as well, but the difference seems to be that there are also people who write blogs, articles, books, etc. that actually explain their disagreement with Christianity, make good points, etc.  When it comes to Islam, this kind of comment seems to be standard, with few exceptions, perhaps because many people (at least here in the US) know more about Christianity than Islam.

Comment #54 (4 December 2011 at 11:08 am)

It’s so sad. There aren’t insults horrible enough to describe the horrible people who commit such attacks. This whole practice of using religion or culture (or some combination of the two) to excuse such violence is unacceptable. This weird idea of preserving one’s “honor” by killing members of the family who refuse to follow some ancient and horrible tradition is, I think, one of the worst ideas human beings have ever thought of. The idea that certain beliefs cannot be challenged due to the fact that they are “traditional” gets used to excuse the bad consequences, because somehow breaking that tradition would be “dishonorable”, while they don’t notice the absolute dishonor of killing someone who didn’t do anything wrong. I really hope that more people who are being hurt are able to escape from the abuse and receive help if this problem is brought to light and more people become aware of it.

Re: The response to problems like this

Am I the only one who’s annoyed by how articles about a problem in Islam (and/or about a problem in Islam that’s also in other religions) are followed by complaints about immigration, with an assumption that the Muslims in the country are somehow a problem from outside, rather than fellow citizens in the country? After all, many of the victims of the attacks are also Muslim — but rather than showing concern for them, any article like this gets used as a reason to post claims of persecution, about how immigrants are ruining the country, or self-congratulatory comments about how immigrants should assimilate into the culture of the country they’ve moved to (as if any country has only one culture).

How about this: Everyone should be treated equally under the law. A Muslim who commits such a crime should get the same punishment as a non-Muslim who committed the same crime. When it comes to beliefs (rather than violence) we should all try to figure out the best beliefs to have, the best actions to take, etc. based upon the real world. This includes everyone. Rather than saying that immigrants should just assimilate, I think it’s better to say that everyone should seek to have correct beliefs, and we should try to convince others to support equal rights, etc. by explaining why these ideas are better, rather than just treating immigrants like robots who should do/believe whatever someone else is doing/believing. People should be in favor of equal rights and against such honor killings because these views are in line with the real world, considering the consequences that result — not because of the beliefs of most of the people in the country they’re living in. (After all, if you’re an atheist in a country with a Christian majority, you wouldn’t just decide to be Christian, since that’s the majority religion, right?)

@Metamag (#8):

Of course such crimes are rising.. When you have multiculturalism instead of assimilation this is what happens. Same thing in Netherlands and every other European country infested with muslims and multiculturalism.

Did it occur to you that many of the victims of the attacks are also Muslim? They’re not an infestation. They are human beings and they’re just as much a part of the countries they live in as anyone else in that country.

@Osiris (#49):

“Moderate Muslims”….I tend to think of them in the same way as the Yeti, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Leprechauns….people talk about them but they are never seen or heard.

There’s a difference between supernatural characters that don’t exist and people who do but may be hesitant to speak up due to many factors, including fear of retribution or of alienating their families. I tend to agree that there are not enough Muslims speaking up about the problems within Islam, but that does not mean moderate Muslims are comparable to fantasy beings that don’t exist.[3]