Why the World Needs Ann Coulter

It’s not only annoying when people are hampered by political correctness; it’s downright dangerous.  By “hampered” I mean afraid to speak up and criticize bad behavior because it might get them labeled a bigot.  The prime example of this nowadays is the rank cowardice of people who won’t criticize fundamentalist Islam for fear of being called “intolerant” or “anti-Muslim.”

You can hardly blame them, I suppose.  Every time such a point is made – every time someone says that traditional Islam is oppressive to women, that thousands of so-called moderate Muslims cheered in the streets on 9/11, that anti-Semitic hatred and extremism is being preached in mosques, that we should favor scrutiny of people of Middle-Eastern descent over scrutiny of elderly Caucasian ladies at the airport – the PC Police cry foul and say “you’re unfairly labeling all Muslims, you big meanie!”

Never mind that no one said the first thing about “all” Muslims.  Look at what happened to Salman Rushdie.  Look at what happens when an elderly British teacher names a teddy bear after the prophet.  Look at what happens when a Danizh cartoon lampoons the prophet.  Look what happens when Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that by current laws, the prophet would be a child molester. (What is untrue about that, considering that he took a wife whose age was a single digit?)

Just because someone is criticizing the bad aspects of Islam doesn’t mean they’re criticizing all Islam, and it doesn’t mean they’re criticizing only Islam.  No reasonable person thinks that all Muslims are terrorists, or that the overall message of Islam is violent jihad.  I like to think that the civilized world is beyond such simple-minded stereotyping.  But to say that we don’t have a right to criticize terrorist murderers sworn to destroy us because they happen to be Muslims is absurd.

This problem isn’t solely limited to challenges of fundamentalist Islam.  If you censor Barack Obama, you become a racist.  Challenge Hillary Clinton, and you’re sexist.  Ask tough questions about God or faith, and you’re being disrespectful of people’s beliefs.  This is nothing but a way of slinking away from our responsibility to deal with the tough issues.  It’s intellectual laziness, it’s moral cowardice, and worst of all, it damages our ability to use reason.  How can we have an honest discussion about anything if we’re forced at every turn to worry about hurting someone’s feelings?

Recently I even saw a man on TV claiming that the term “black hole” is racist against blacks.  Words fail me.

It is to this end that I say the world needs more people like Ann Coulter.  Not because I agree with her, not because I think she’s always fair, not because I think people should mimic her viewpoints.  I wouldn’t repeat some of the things she’s said.  Hell, almost everyone I know calls her a heartless bitch for what she said about those 9/11 widows – and I’m talking about convicted felons here!

The point is that she’s not afraid to be despised by the PC Police.  She doesn’t care if they point that finger at her.  She won’t be guilt-tripped into silence by dingbats who whine about feelings getting hurt at the expense of critical inquiry.  If for no other reason, that makes her voice an important one.  If you can’t stand her, then let everyone know the reasons why.  Argue with her.  If she’s as horrible as you say she is, shouldn’t it be simple to expose her?  Wouldn’t it be more constructive to try to prove her wrong instead of trying to shut her down with shackles of political correctness?

Secular Humanist Martyrs?

“Secular humanism is an insufficient rallying cry.”  So says Mark Steyn in his excellent book America Alone.  The sentence was addressed to critics of Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, and Salman Rushdie who had called for Islamic states to turn away from fundamentalism and recognize inalienable secular human rights.

Mr. Steyn’s point bugs me not because I think it’s necessarily false, but because I’m a secular humanist and I don’t think he’s giving us our due.  In pointing out that secular humanism doesn’t insure happiness, he cited a study that found many Europeans weren’t hopeful about the future.  Steyn credited this to the high instances of atheism and secular humanism in European countries.  But really, might the cause of such gloom be because of the sluggish economies, the coddling of their nanny states, and the dim economic future of paying for so many entitlements?  Since Mr. Steyn spent much of the book speaking about how excessive entitlements sap the will of a nation’s citizens, you’d think this would be foremost in his mind.

Indeed, his point was that Americans scored much higher on the “hopeful about the future” scale.  It would be interesting to survey American atheists and secular humanists and see where they stand.  I’ll go out on a limb and say that Americans will score much higher than the Europeans, if for no other reason than America’s economic future is not as grim.

I find the notion of an existential universe comforting.  To think that my destiny is in my own hands, to think that the meaning of my life is whatever I choose to make it, to think that my value is not a rationed peice of something greater from a father-figure deity – these are inspiring ideas.  Clearly, however, as Mr. Steyn noted, they are not to everyone.  Whatever its value, secular humanism can’t inspire the type of certitude and fervor that comes with “knowing” you’ll be in heaven one day.  It certainly can’t match an Islamic militant who’s happy to die (and slaughter kids) for his faith.  How can we compete with that?  Is there a single secularist humanist who is willing to die for the cause with a smile on his or her face?

Secular humanism should inspire this sort of devotion, I think.  We stand for ultimate freedom and individual responsibility.  We stand for truth.  We stand for a rational approach to evidence rather than a flimsy concept like faith (which is nothing but “opinion” with sugar on top).  We stand for the method of reason rather than the pompous surety of arbitrarily revealed knowledge.

Most of all, we doubt the “morality” found in religious texts.  We know better than to worship a deity who mas murders and legitimizes rape and slavery, who demands sacrifice, who holds us hostage with guilt, who damns us as sinners before we even have a choice to sin.  We know that such things are wrong, even from a deity.  We know that there are things God could never make moral, no matter how hard He might try.  We know that might doesn’t make right.

Personally, I’ll hold my belief in that value against any threat or promise Abraham’s God can throw against me.  I think He’s probably not real – but if He is and the mythologies of mankind turn out to be true, I still wouldn’t be intimidated by His spankings or lured by His gifts.  An Islamic militant blows himself up . . . so what?  He gets paradise and virgins.  For my belief, I’d defy my Creator and resign myself to an eternal lake of fire.

Islamic Radicalism Taught to Prisoners?

In his book America Alone, Mark Steyn speaks of prison imams teaching convicts a radical form of Islam.  Well, as an American prisoner, I’m here to set Mr. Styen straight:  There are no radical imams in this particular prison, or in any prison in this state of which I’m aware.  However, he might be interested to know that he has vastly underestimated the problem.

The imams aren’t necessary:  There are still Muslim prisoners who speak of going to the Middle East when they’re released and joining terrorist camps.  Of course most of this isn’t to be taken very seriously, but the problem is more inclusive.  The America-hating and irrationality is much more common among non-Muslim prisoners.  I know self-professed Christianprisoners who love Barack Obama’s plan of cozying up to terrorist supporters like Iran and Syria, who say that America deserved 9/11 (those secretaries and filing clerks got what they deserved, damn them), and who otherwise sympathize with Islamic terror.

Perhaps it would be better if there was a radical imam here in this prison; that would make this type of attitude more understandable.  To me, it’s a whole new kind of bad when this viewpoint is actualized simply by watching the BBC and listening to Rosie O’Donnell.

Mr. Steyn also makes the point that Islam is more appealing to prisoners because: “…a wimp church like the Congregational crowd doesn’t have much appeal to the average jailbird.”  This is most definitely true – many prisoners see Christians as pansies who turn the other cheek, and the Christian chapel services as havens for child molesters (whom most prisoners despise).  This doesn’t mean there’s an inclination to embrace a radical form of Islam as a replacement, but it does give some of them another reason to have antipathy towards “white Christian” America.

Since I quite often take the “controversial” position of defending America, I hear it all.  Guys in here have told me quite seriously that George Bush and John McCain are the real terrorists.  Standard America-hating fare, I suppose, but what’s hilarious is that these same people who are making moral judgements about Bush and McCain also tell me that Muslim extremists blowing up innocent people is okay because it’s “the only way they have of fighting a powerful nation like America.”

In other words, they’re incapable of creating anything of value themselves.  Countries like Iran and Syria produce little more than starving multitudes, subjugated women, and intolerant ideology, then use the money of hard-working Westerners who purchase their oil to prop their “economies” and fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah.  I have an idea:  Rather than resort to civilian murder to hurt a powerful nation, how about you become a powerful nation yourself?  Oops – the Islamic fascists haven’t yet accepted the fact that their religious ideology is the very thing that keeps them from rising above the level of parasites of Western markets and technology.

How about this:  If you’re moralizing the murder of babies to defeat your foe, then by comparison your foe doesn’t seem quite so bad anymore, does he?

It’s amazing.  The “military” tactics of these terrorists consist of nothing more than slaughtering civilians, exploiting the West’s tolerance and opportunity, and destroying themselves for the reward of popping seventy-two cherries.  For this, they’re called brave heroes.  In contrast, America is called evil and cowardly for using its unparalleled military might to wage the softest, most humane, politically-correct war we possibly can against a global movement bent on destroying our entire way of life.  Go figure.

Why Suicide Bombers are Really Cowards

I don’t want to call terrorists cowards because they target innocent people.  For that, I would call them murderous, unjust, evil, dishonorable, and contemptible.  Likewise, I don’t think the 9/11 hijackers are cowards simply because their targets were helpless civilians who had nothing to do with their “cause,” and I don’t necessarily call Osama bin Laden a coward because he hides in caves and kills little kids.

In my view, they’re cowards for a bigger reason.  Some people like to say that these suicide bombers are brave for choosing death to further their cause, but how is it bravery if you’re given an eternal reward?  Where’s the sacrifice?  They’re dying to attain paradise and a bevy of virgins.  They’re materialists.  Their highest aspiration is a beautiful place to love and indiscriminate sex.  They want what they’re too “pious” to attain in real life.  They’re ashamed of their earthly lust, but somehow it becomes okay to own seventy-two prostitutes if the price you pay is your life.  (I’ve always wondered: What exactly do the seventy-two virgins get out of the deal?)

They’re worse than the American materialists that they constantly shriek about.  At least us Americans only want material things in thislife.  Even the silliest Christians aren’t under any illusions about heaven being full of gold mansions and pliable maidens.  These terrorist “martyrs” want divine paradise because it justifies the humanity they openly despise  Is divine materialism somehow nobler than earthly materialism.  I think not.  I’m a de facto atheist and I still understand that tainting the divine this way is a travesty.  If your spirituality consists of behavior to earn an award that you aren’t allowed to pursue on earth, what’s the point?

I’ll give you an example of real bravery, realy martyrdom.  How about dying for a cause here on earth when you know oblivion waits for you?  How about defying an unjust God and gladly facing damnation for your conviction?  That’s courage.  When you get nothing out of the deal but the knowledge that your death helped accomplish whatever goal or point you deem so important.  A father who willingly goes to his death to save his child isn’t thinking about what awaits him, is he?  He doesn’t care about being a martyr, or pleasing God, or all the virgins he gets to deflower in heaven.

That’s courage.  That’s a hero.  That’s what makes a martyr: caring about something or someone else more than you care about yourself.  If you get a wondrous eternal reward out of the deal, doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole purpose?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was Right to Lie

Another criticism I’ve received about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the fact that she lied about her history (even her name) to get around the Dutch asylum laws.  This was when she was trying to flee from a forced marriage to safety in Holland.  She didn’t use her real name because she was afraid that her family would find her and force her to return.

Yes, she lied.  She falsified her application for Dutch citizenship.  It came back to bite her in the end, and her Dutch citizenship was revoked.  But read her autobiography Infideland again ask yourself if she did something morally wrong.  She wanted to live in a country that is peaceful, safe, and fair to everyone.  A country in which she wouldn’t be forced to marry a stranger, submit to his dominance, and give up her hopes of education and a career.  Can you blame her?

And observe what she did with the Dutch citizenship that she gained through duplicitous means.  She became independent and self-sufficient, she worked and learned the language, she helped as a translator for other Somalian Muslim immigrants, she went to shcool, and she became a member of the Dutch parliament as well as an internationally best-selling author.  In America we call this type of thing a “success story,” though rarely does one unfold on such a grand scale.  (She actually lives in America now, working for the conservative think tank in the American Enterprise Institute.)

Further – and this is rather important – Hirsi Ali never tried to hide what she’d done later on.  When she was running for the Dutch parliament, she immediately informed them that she had falsified her application for citizenship.  Indeed, she admitted it several times, every time it was asked of her!  And this did not stop her from being elected.  It was only later, when she’d made political enemies and was at the center of her “controversial” position on Islam, that it became an issue and her citizenship was revoked.

She was up front about it before it mattered, before it became an issue, before it was brought to light.  In a world of politicians and other leaders who apologize and show contrition only after they’re caught, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was honest before she was required to be, before it was necessary to save face in the court of public opinion.  That’s something called “integrity.”

So she told a lie to escape injustice and live in a free country.  Is this the worst thing that can be dredged up about Ayaan Hirsi Ali?  The biggest skeleton in her closet?  If so, I’d say she’s doing pretty well.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Critical of Islamic Fundamentalism – Not Muslims

It seems Ayaan Hirsi Ali was quite prophetic in Infidel when she spoke of how anyone who is critical of Islam is often given the label of “anti-Muslim.”

After praising Hirsi Ali’s autobiography Infidelin a post, I received an opposing response.  The point was that by discussing the female genital mutilation, denial of women’s rights, and unjust patriarchy imposed by traditional Islam, Hirsi Ali apparently paints a “blanket negative” about the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.

I disagree.  From her book (as well as interviews of her I’ve seen and read), it is clear that she is not censoring Muslims at all, but the fundamentalist Islamic law under which many of them suffer.  There is a distinction, and it’s not as fine as some would believe.  Attacking a belief system that is oppressive and unjust to women is not the same as attacking the adherents to that belief system.  Nor does Hirsi Ali’s criticism extend to the Sufis and other Muslims who espouse a more moderate view than the fundamentalists.

Islam never went through the Enlightenment as Christianity in the West did.  I was told that neither did orthodox Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, or Sikhism.  So what?  Are there Buddhist states enriching uranium and threatening to “wipe Israel off the map?”  Are there international Sikh terrorists blowing up embassies, planes, and Israeli couples in cafes?  Are there orthodox Catholics training terrorists in desert camps?  And Jainism – you have to be joking.  These are the people who are so pacifistic that they sweep the ground in front of them to avoid stepping on bugs.

I was told that honor killings and female genital mutilation can be found among other religions such as the Ethiopian Jews, Sudanese animists, and Jordanian Catholics.  We should be speaking out against those, as well, and I’m glad this information was brought to my attention.  We should criticize any and every belief system that advocates such injustice.  But how does that negate the fact that honor killings and female circumcision are also happening among Muslims?  And for the record, in Infidel, the author brought up the point that genital mutilation predates Islam and not all who do it are Muslims.

I was told that Ayaan Hirsi Ali should not be regarded as a reliable source, that it’s all too easy for non-Muslims to read her book and automatically assume that she is an “insider” with privileged information.  Very well, then.  What of Ibn Warraq and his book Why I Am Not a Muslim?  Is he unreliable, as well?  He presents a very precise and detailed critique of fundamentalist Islam and the Koran.  What of Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Prize winner for human rights and author of Iran Awakening?  Another “insider” – is she wrong in her assessment of the human rights violations in post-Islamic-Revolution Iran?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is critical of a dangerous ideology.  Are there others?  Of course.  But are there others so pervasive, and wielding so much political power?  Is there another religion that rules countries like Iran and Syria, both of which sponsor terrorism?  Is there another religion that inspires worldwide holy wars, civilian murder, and utter intolerance for Israel and the West?  Is there another religion whose holy law states that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s?  Is there another religion that spurs riots, violence, and flag burning when someone lampoons their faith or names a teddy bear after their prophet?

Hirsi Ali has never attached Muslims; she has attacked the oppressive belief system to which some Muslims subscribe.  She points out that in general, governments controlled by Islamic law lag in civil rights and economic stability.  She condemns the awful things happening under traditional Islamic law; she does not say that there are onlyawful things.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not anti-Muslim – she is anti-injustice.  That she happens to speak against injustice in the Muslim world seems rather incidental to me.