Sullivan's 'Christianists' and How it Gets Me Thinking

Tuesday, November 28. 2006

Sullivan's 'Christianists' and How it Gets Me Thinking

Yes, I find Andrew Sullivan's pompous and over-the-top rhetoric on 'war criminals' excruciating, but his silliness doesn't end there.

His focus on the danger of 'Christianists' and apparent equivalence with Islamists is equally exasperating, as Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds point out here, here, and here.

I wonder what folks like Sullivan think of a "Lapsed Catholicist" or an "Agnosticist" like me?

It can't be good... but is probably better than the fact that I'm a "Chicago Cubsist," which of course is really heinous.

Posted by Tom Elia in Satire at 13:45 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (377)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I'm a scepticist.

I think everybody should be forced to fact check and logic check.

#1 mhw on 2006-11-28 14:56 (Reply)

Lou Piniella. Alfonso Soriano. Neal Cotts. Henry Blanco. Mark DeRosa. Aramis Ramirez. Kerry Wood. Wade Miller. Today Wrigleyville, tomorrow the Nation. RECONSTRUCTING THE DOMINION!

#2 Sarge6 on 2006-11-28 15:01 (Reply)

From "Cubsists" to "North Side Juggernautists" in one off-season free-agent spending spree....

#2.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-28 15:15 (Reply)

I agree that the term can be used abusively. But I must point out that "Islamist" was not actually originally coined to mean terrorists. It was coined to describe people who wanted to institute Islamic law into the bedrock of civil government law. Indeed, there even exist some such Islamists who utterly abhor terrorism (yes, there really do, I can point you to them) and believe in things like free speech and free press even if it slams Islam.

So the question is: how do you suppose your average terrorist-hating muslim feels about indiscriminate use of the term "Islamist?"

#3 Dean Esmay (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 15:15 (Reply)

You have a point, Dean.

I should have written "Islamist radical" in order to be more precise.

However, the overarching point is that equating Christian fundamentalists with radical Islamists is simply foolish rhetorical hyperbole.

#3.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-28 15:20 (Reply)

I think that's entirely fair.

#3.1.1 Dean Esmay (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 17:44 (Reply)

> So the question is: how do you suppose your average terrorist-hating muslim feels about indiscriminate use of the term "Islamist?"

I'll care after said "terrorist-hating Muslim" does something that justifies me caring about what s\he thinks. (And no, that Muslim isn't "average". The typical ones are, at best, quiet. They're waiting to jump on the winning bandwagon. While that "discretion" doesn't win them many points with terrorists, it doesn't win them many points with me either.)

#3.2 Andy Freeman on 2006-11-28 15:37 (Reply)

But seriously, though, can you name a case where Sharia's been implemented that hasn't been fantastically brutal and repressive by Western standards?

See, there's something wrong with this question already, because the answer to you is, Sharia laws have been put in place in many countries that are not fantastically brutal and oppressive. There are multiple interpretations of Sharia, and there are many states where Sharia is woven in to parts of the law but are not the entire law where they aren't horrible, oppressive, monstrous places.

If you look at the Old Testament, you'll find that parts of it are monstrously oppressive--yet some parts of Christian and Jewish tradition are woven into our law and most of that which was oppressive is now gone.

Once again the intelligent thing to do here is, as I've mentioned to others, start really seriously dialoguing with actual Muslims. There are a ton of them in the Blogosphere now, many of them quite good and run by very decent people. I have two Muslim co-bloggers and regularly feature linkage to decent Muslims--I make the effort, and it's been consistently worth it.

However, rather than exploring my site, I suggest again checking out the bloggers of the Brass Crescent. Yes, you'll probably find some you don't like, but you'll find some that surprise you.

#3.2.1 Dean Esmay (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 17:55 (Reply)

"...how do you suppose your average terrorist-hating muslim feels about indiscriminate use of the term 'Islamist?'"

Good question. I propose that we ask both of them.

But seriously, though, can you name a case where Sharia's been implemented that hasn't been fantastically brutal and repressive by Western standards? Never mind terrorism; that's a red herring. Let's just talk about what it was like to live under the Taliban, on any ordinary day of the week. It was enormously more repressive than anything Pat Robertson would ever dream of. That's not controversial.

It's not negotiable, either: Islam doesn't just provide a "basis" for law. It provides the *law*, verbatim.

It's not meaningful to compare burqas and severed hands with the stuff American conservative Christians are into. Sullivan uses the term "Christianist" to suggest that denying gays the right to marry is the same as executing them. He's wrong. Both are bad ideas, but one is a hell of a lot worse than the other. It's the difference between your neighbor on a long flight elbowing you in the ribs, or gouging your eyes out. Given a choice, which would you pick, the ribs or the eyes? They're both bad manners, so they're both the same, right? Go ahead, tell me you'd flip a coin.

#3.3 Ed on 2006-11-28 15:55 (Reply)

So the question is: how do you suppose your average terrorist-hating muslim feels about indiscriminate use of the term "Islamist?"

Where are all these terror-hating Muslims? I haven't seem much indication of them.

#3.4 Red Paul on 2006-11-28 16:56 (Reply)

As long as you don't become an Evangelical Agnosticist!

#4 TBinSTL on 2006-11-28 15:26 (Reply)

"Islamist" was not actually originally coined to mean terrorists

You're going to have to back that up with some facts, because my memory of the etymology of the word islamist is precisely that of an islam-driven terrorist.

As for how do you suppose your average terrorist-hating muslim feels about indiscriminate use of the term "Islamist?", given the refusal by so-called moderate moslems to condemn islamist (terrorists), one can hardly tell.

After all, if they don't like the term islamist they can repudiate them, vociferously. I know I'm waiting for such an event.

Tick. Tock.

#5 Paul A'Barge on 2006-11-28 15:30 (Reply)

I don't have a reference handy for your flawed memory, sorry. I was reading the term "Islamist" even before 9/11. You're simply mistaken.

And in fact there are Islamists who are entirely non-violent and non-terroristic. You might, however, want to start with reading this excellent interview by Michael Totten of two anti-terrorist Islamists.

And by the way: you're waiting for such an event? You mean an event that's been happening regularly and happens practically daily all over the Islamsphere? Well. Perhaps you're waiting around in the wrong place then.

See some of my other comments. You're working from ignorance. Spend a wee bit less time at LGF and JihWatch and go visit some Muslim bloggers. There are tons of them now.

Piece of advice though: if you're going to engage, start by not being rude and presuming they're terrorist supporters and practicing "taqiyya" if they don't immediately fall all over themselves to explain to a total stranger why they aren't terrorists.

#5.1 Dean Esmay (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 18:00 (Reply)

So, technically, is Andrew Sullivan's demagoguery Christianistism?

#6 Cover Me, Porkins on 2006-11-28 15:47 (Reply)

I'll care after said "terrorist-hating Muslim" does something that justifies me caring about what s\he thinks. (And no, that Muslim isn't "average". The typical ones are, at best, quiet. They're waiting to jump on the winning bandwagon.

What shamefully hateful nonsense. Seriously. Such a position can only come from someone who has not even tried to explore the Muslim side of the blogiverse or engage any Muslims in serious and respectful dialogue.

Here's a suggestion: consider spending slightly less time at places like Little Green Footballs and Jihadwatch, and more at Muslim blogs. A good place to start is probably at the Brass Crescent Awards site, which you can find right here. Start exploring the blogs linked there. Pay special attention to bloggers like Ali Eteraz--who also, as it happens, blogs from my place.

#6.1 Dean Esmay (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 17:50 (Reply)

Well, Tom, being a "Cubsist" isn't exactly heinous, but it gives you a less than sterling reputation in other National League cities. Here in San Diego, and up in L.A., local fans have noted long time residents, originally from Chicago, who are normal people until the Cubs come to town. Then they put on Cubs caps and jackets, come to the local ballyard, and are loudly and raucously, even obnoxiously, rooting for their old Cubbies. It leads the locals to conclude that there's no such thing as a former Cubs fan. Did you know that you have an incurable disease?

#7 Lorenzo on 2006-11-28 15:49 (Reply)

To the casual baseball observer it may appear that "Cubsists" such as myself are suffering some kind of malady, but our almost century-long World Series drought is really part of a devious plan to lull the rest of Major League baseball into a false sense of security before we pounce...

(Ixnay on my eaklay of the devious plan though, please.)

#7.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-28 16:01 (Reply)

You don't even know the worst of it. Four words: Ronnie "Woo Woo" Wickers.

#7.2 Sarge6 on 2006-11-28 17:24 (Reply)

As someone who has been to hundreds of games at Wrigley, most of them in the bleachers (I prefer right-center field), I can proudly say that I have on more than one occasion told 'Ronnie Woo-Woo' to shut the hell up and go somewhere else, preferably Comiskey.

#7.2.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-28 17:35 (Reply)

Or Shea. Or Busch. Anywhere but where I am...

#7.2.1.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-28 17:37 (Reply)

http://www.ronniewoowoo.com

End of hijack.

#7.2.1.1.1 Sarge6 on 2006-11-28 18:03 (Reply)

If he's the "Unofficial Troubadour of the Cubs," I'm the best centerfielder in team history...

#7.2.1.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-28 18:06 (Reply)

At least since Jerry Martin....

#7.2.1.1.1.1.1 Sarge6 on 2006-11-29 09:26 (Reply)

Good ol' Jerry Martin!

#7.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-29 10:43 (Reply)

Now the lid is off can we discuse more important things, like gayists?

#8 David on 2006-11-28 15:57 (Reply)

I have always disliked the Christianist term. Andrew's subjective intent does not avoid the rest of us automatically making the link between Islamists and Christianists. He coined Christianist to be provocative. It's the hyperbolic nature of the word that many of us do not like. Equating hypocritical and contemptible Christians with psychotic and murderous Muslims is not fair. Merely saying Andrew didn't intend that is not much different than Mel Gibson saying he didn't intend to be anti-Semitic or Richards claiming he didn't intend to be racist. For example, Sullivan called Romney a Christianist for pandering recently, but how about just accusing Romney of pandering (which many of us did with John Kerry)? The use of Christianist also inadvertently waters down the true evil represented by the word Islamists. Perhaps we should scratch that word and go back to Islamo-fascist again.

If Sullivan wants to use the term to describe the tiny group of evil Christians--such as Fred Phelps or the Army of God--fair enough. The Christianist label fits them. It does not fit Mitt Romney (who Sullivan has pointed out is not a Christian anyway--he just wears funny underwear and panders to Christians).

#9 Joe on 2006-11-28 17:14 (Reply)

Yes, I'd like to discuss gayists--those gay people who want to impose gayism, or andrew sullivan's beliefs, on everyone else--I'm not referring to the moderate nice gays, but to fundamentalists like Sullivan. That's why I call "ordinary gay people" gay and call those who are "trying to bully their way around the political world" gayists.

#10 kat on 2006-11-28 17:14 (Reply)

Gah. I didn't realize this site links and other HTML were automatically stripped here. Oh well.

Two links of interest:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001170.html

http://www.brasscrescent.org/

#11 Dean Esmay (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 18:02 (Reply)

Sullivans criticism of 'christianists' now extends to their choice of
underwear (see his blog if you think I am kidding). Apparently, he
thinks this is politically significant. When confronted with this, his
defense seems to be that the theocons made him do it (at least it wasn't a
tedious Oakeshott quote). Sullivan has been losing brain cells for quite
some time, but this latest sillyness has prompted me to quit reading
him. I find it impossible to take him seriously anymore.

#12 ian on 2006-11-28 18:13 (Reply)

Sullivan is a bit of a Cubsist himself, as during the playoffs a few years ago when the Cubs blew up (as usual) against the Marlins, Sully's "b/f" (that's boyfriend) was a huge Cubs fan.

#13 Tom Blumer (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 18:47 (Reply)

Does all the above make me an atheistist? Or that one atheist is more atheistist than another?

#14 Bruce Lagasse on 2006-11-28 19:57 (Reply)

Cubsist? Now, that's beyond the pale.

#15 ahem on 2006-11-28 20:10 (Reply)

Sullivan's interest in some guy's underwear is just plain weird. Who in their right mind cares what kind of underwear Romney wears or does not wear...it's just no one's business. Should we ask Teddy Kennedy to post pics of his large undies, or Nancy Pelosi of hers? Sullivan has lost it.

#16 kat on 2006-11-28 20:47 (Reply)

"Chicago Cubsist"

I read that as "Chicago Cubist," which meant you were a disciple of that hideous Picasso sculpture, which would indeed mark you as the member of a sect diserving extermination for horrible taste...

#17 Lawrence Person (Homepage) on 2006-11-28 23:19 (Reply)

I don't know dick about Picasso, Cézanne, and the rest of those cubist guys.

I don't know shit about art in general; the only Art I ever knew was the guy who used to book my bets, and the vig he charged was too heavy, as I later learned.

But he had a nice sister.

#17.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-29 02:55 (Reply)

I don't tend to read much Sullivan but have read this debate. The whole "equivalence" whine is a red herring.

Fact is, there ARE great similarities, as well as differences between Christianists and Islamists, once you set aside your allegiance to one over the other. And, not all Islamists are violent. Just like Tim McVeigh wasn't representative of the entire right wing are angry bombers. most are just angry.

#18 AlphaLiberal on 2006-11-28 23:34 (Reply)

Alpha Liberal,

What nonsense. The underlying theme that is being posited by folks like Sullivan is that radical Islamists are equivalent to fundamentalist Christians.

After looking at the empiracle evidence of such a claim, only a fool would believe that...

#18.1 Tom Elia on 2006-11-29 02:48 (Reply)

No doubt opposing gay marriage is the same as imposing Sharia - also when will the US be imposing the ban on all other religions? Impose the death penalty for prosletyzing? Start permitting honor killings for premarital sex? There are really a (*lot*) of similarities.

#18.1.1 Bandit on 2006-11-29 07:19 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Tuesday, November 28. 2006

Sullivan's 'Christianists' and How it Gets Me Thinking

Stephan Challenge

Search

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Tuesday, November 28. 2006

Sullivan's 'Christianists' and How it Gets Me Thinking

Stephan Challenge

Search

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites