What was that? I think it's important that we stand for keeping our civil liberties intact... but could we do so a bit more coherantly?
try blocking it like this:
Fallwell, Robertson as introduction.
IDEA: we need to keep the WTC attacks from being an excuse
for others to restrict sexual freedom.
I. Appropriate for a secular state
II. Sexual expression is under attack
Instead of throwing examples around randomly, and taking a couple different positions, and asking all sorts of philisophical questions. You really lost your momentum doing that.
A truly pathetic attempt to find a "new" angle to the terrorist attack on New York City.
As a professional writer myself (two books, thousands of magazine pieces over a 40-year career), I found the idea weak, the writing muddled and the need by Nerve to present such a piece more than slightly disgusting.
We don't have to live our lives in a cloud of doom, but let's try to keep our thoughts (and our writing) faintly on target.
I enjoyed the article, but have one nit to pick. It's about the use of the word "media". That's a plural word that frequently is used in the various media as if it were singular (the media is ...). The printed word is a medium, as is radio, as is television. Collectively these are media.
Cutler's piece offers some salient reminders of the context in which the events of 11 Septmeber were wrought. It's sobering to remember that the fight for the right of sexual expression has deeper consequences than job descrimination, family issues, etc, etc. But didn't we already learn this when Matthew Shepard was murdered? Not to mention in numerous, less celebrated moments of tragedy?
I do take exception to Culter's use of the word "pathological" when describing the Taliban. That supposes a Western epistimology and that's precisely the intersection that defines tthis conflict. To be "pathological" one needs tto be situated in the "ways of knowing" of the West. We need to learn a language that exists in the border between our civilizations iif we are to truly resolve this conflict.
I don't agree with the people who thought the writing was muddled. To me, this was more of an exploration and provocation to thinking more about the subject, not so much a call to arms. So it was okay with me that it moved a bit from subject to subject. I didn't find it offensive at all.
An editorial comment:
What about a graphic design and photo credit?
IMHO: the folks in W.Va might be ticked,or tickled , about their part of the map - but I like it.
No, this writer is basically wrong, wrong in her premises and wrong in her adjurations. Al Q'aeda will not be satisfied if, for example, gay people like me return to their crates and closets, since they'll still have Britney Spears' legs to distress them. It should be obvious that fundamentalism of their sort, which of course we've practiced in the West from time to time (think Salem witch trials, Himmler's homo genocide, Joseph McCarthy's crusade, the Hollywood film codes . . .) is a monomania that cannot be satisfied with changed behavior anyway. They will keep raising their bar of standards until we all are found guilty of something-or-other and peace at last can be found in a Paradise of self-immolated corpses.
The writer speaks as though this is really a theological or ethical debate. Genocide is not a form of debate. No, darling, we don't need to close our nudey bars or dress in black like the SPaniards of the Counter-Reformation. We need to rip the Al Q'aeda movement into tiny shreds by any means necessary, and continue with the progress we've been building on legal, cultural, and social grounds here for the past 200 years. We need to stand up for freedom.
i found this piece misguided and distasteful. while i recognize the general content and purpose of the magazine, the author's willingness to sensationalize these events further for the sake of a terribly written article baffles me. "self indulgent" in the wake of what's happened? absolutely. if the author truly has so little understanding of what has been attacked and why then i am ashamed for her. if indeed she fosters a greater understanding of the situation and chose to write this vapid pseudo-intellectual garbage anyway then i am genuinely disgusted.
Underlying Maggie Cutler's essay is a slightly sexed up version of the Bush thesis: the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center do not like us because America is the land of liberty. Neither Bush nor Cutler get it: what primarily fuels fury against the U.S. in the world is not that we love liberty, either in Bush's puritanical mode or in Cutler's more sensuous mode. Bin Laden as an individual no doubt hates America's sexiness, but his grassroots support, dispersed around the world, has much more to do with the disparity between our wealth and their dispossession. What produces fury against America is that we take security and affluence for granted and pay no notice, say, to all those in Africa who are dying of AIDS because no medication is available to them. It is not our love of liberty but our place in a system of global inequality that fuels fury. To be sure I am not misunderstood, let me stress that nothing in this observation indicates one iota of approval for the horrific events of September 11. Historians generally agree that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles fueled support for fascism in Germany. Recognizing this in no way denies that Nazi rule was evil; but it does help us understand Nazi evil in a fashion that can guide us, so as to diminish the possibility of seeing similar evil arise again. Like the Bush thesis it resembles then, Cutler's argument only serves to mask the causes of evil, and thus participates, unwillingly of course, in its perdurance.
i do think that sounding a clarion call (however muffled) to expand sexual freedoms in the US at this moment is bound to produce negative response (not surprised to see it below), but i think this article made some interesting points
the attempts of religions/ governments to control the body / control women are one fundamental element of the ideological fissure out of which this conflict is erupting
of course the direct causes have far more to do with our misguided middle-eastern policy in the last 30 years and the appeal of fundamentalism in the midst of multi-generational war and abject poverty (for which the US is partially responsible
the author is not saying otherwise ... she's just offering a few fresh observations in an appropriate forum, and i am glad she did
this is a time in which people are quick to assume a righteous stance about any utterances that could appear indecorous or off-subject ... this is one of the effects of fear, and it is one very small step towards fundamentalism
Many commentators have noted that some of the suicide hijackers spent time in girlie bars and porn video stores without making the obvious connection: the most likely explanation is that these religious prudes were not there to sample the goods so much as to survey the dens of depravity they were trying to destroy.
There are fundamentalists on both sides, and I hope this article makes someone, someplace think about the fundamentalists of hedonism and how they are bollocksing it up for everybody. Public space in the light of common day is not the place for explicit sexuality. Maybe, once or twice a year, at midnight when all the kids are tucked in their beds, we can have some roistering... can't we just all agree on this? I hope that everybody knocks off frightening the horses, for war, making our spies comfie, or whatever reason, because the constant assault of commidified sexuality on my ears and retinas handicaps my ability to develop my own, truly liberated, truly independent and individual sexual self.
Also I agree with the people below who point out that no one would want to stop us partying if their children weren't starving.
I think this piece deserves credit for explaining what some people call a "war of civilizations" is all about. Religious fundamentalism all over the world and throughout history has always been obsessed with sex and the first step it takes is to put/keep women down. Has anybody noticed that most terror attacks in the world are carried out by young Muslim men ? That these organizations have failed to attract a single woman and that their so-called Islamic credo is basically limited to keeping women covered up , in the home and out of work (cf interviews with Taliban prisoners in North Afghanistan)? At the same time these crazed morons dpend their final hours looking at porno flicks and longing for the 72 virgins who are waiting for them in Paradise. While this is certainly not the only impulse in fundamentalist terrorism, it is certainly as valid an explanation as any based on various conflicts throughout the world.
How odd this appears the same day Salon publishes a piece on sleeping with a porn star. The questions Maggie Culter raises are right on, and I'm glad to read her, especially in a forum that, should this appear elsewhere, may have criticism toward its warnings against hedonism. I'm a decadent person with liberal attitudes toward sex and am fond of drunkenly shouting inhibitions are so last Century. But at the same time, I agree with the sentiments of caution here and how perception, reality and perversion conspire and conflagrate is something for consideration and should give us pause. Thanks for running this. k.lezak
Re: "The minute the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center and the lives of thousands within them were reduced to smoking rubble by suicidal Islamic fundamentalists, it occurred to nearly everyone at once that fundamentalism was perhaps a bad idea."
I think most people (the majority tend to be moderate and compromising) already had this opinion about religious fundamentalism. The event probably served to cement this view. It won't be easy to be a jerry falwell, at least for awhile. I thought about the falwell/robertson gaffe and have concluded the reaction against what they said was more an expression of offense that anyone would blame (any) americans for the events that transpired. There are plenty of right wing conservative americans who feel that their society has been weakened by liberal social policies. i'm thinking of the dr. laura followers/stalwart republicans/right-to-lifers, etc. and dr. laura wouldn't be so inept (and strategically self-sabotaging) as to publicly blame a lesbian but she would blame a culture that supported "loose" morals, relaxed law enforcement and "wussy" attitudes towards "irresponsible behaviour" for a weakening in national security. If Falwell or Robertson had put it in that context at a later date, they'd have all kinds of support for that view.
The article seeks to name something within american culture (besides a host of much more obvious examples like foreign policy and multinational corporate interests) that assigns a certain responsibility and i'm the author isn't sure of where she's going with that. i mean on the one hand she describes the perverse psychology of fundamentalist terror (against which all reason fails) and at the same time she is citing western sexual evolution as a possible reason for america being a target. i hasten to point out that human beings are practicing sexual liberation in other industrialized countries and none of them are as juicy a target for bin laden.
"...Still, the terrorists are mostly of the pseudo-Islamic Wahhabi sect that, like the Taliban, interprets Sharia (or Islamic law) to mean that a woman uncovered
Interesting comments, V, and I managed to read through even without the paragraph breaks, but I still stick to my guns about the fundamentalist obsession with women and sex. Look at hijacker Atta's will : no women at his funeral and please, when his body is washed, keep your hands away from his
I think it's a mistake to reduce the evolution of an ideology and its mass appeal to one thing. the oppression of women is but one feature of this ideology - there's a whole lot else going on, like the desire to return the world to the stone age (that goes a little beyond sex, eh?). i understand why cutler has written this for nerve.com since nerve is about sexual exploration but her essay is wobbly and she's all over the map about it. what would interest me more is some analysis of the evolution of fundamentalism and the conditions which support it. i disagree with the author that women in america should exercise restraint and that the so-called hedonistic culture (arguable at best) is a contributing factor in the attacks. what's ironic about her essay is the complete absence of any acknowledgement that women are still exploited and objectified in the free-world. of course we have more freedom in north america but the ability to wear crop tops and expose our nipples through our shirts doesn't quite classify as "liberation". i think it classifies as "responding to the fashion template of the month". real liberation is founded on economic freedoms: the ability to work, earn equal pay for equal work, have access to education, be able to vote, be able to live without fear of attack, choose who we marry, if we marry etc. that's precisely what the taliban has denied women in afghanistan. an educated woman is a big threat there and prior to the taliban taking control, women were still covered from head to toe and observant of certain customs but they were going to school and earning money. what cutler is suggesting in her article is that native north americans should make an effort to tone down so that they can build some respect with the moderate muslims who will be the role models for people who might admire terrorists. i think this is a stupid postulation. leaders (clerics) of the muslim community have every ability to condemn terrorism and the abuse of their religion by terrorists. they do not require women to change how they dress to do that. besides which, the muslim community is itself extremely diverse. gah, her simplistic ideas and ill thought out argument render it weak.
I think good sex is an antidote to madness. I don't think feeling guilty about sex or about sexual expression is going to help the world at all. When people feel confused, feel that they don't understand what's happening in the world, they often clamp down to try to make things seem more secure. I think we should resist the clampdown of spirit. We have to carry the flame of individuality, dissent, and respect for the fragility and subtlety of the human. Appreciation of sexuality is an important part of this.
maggie relies:
I'm pleased to see so much heated yet thoughtful discussion of, particularly, the meaning of sexual equality. --------------
But as some of you noticed, it wasn't my purpose to propose a single cause for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Inevitably the people's motives in a terrorist enterprise are complex and vary a great deal from individual to individual. Some terrorists have political ambitions, envies or complaints (valid and not), others suffer from a host of more personal motives... misogynist disorders, family conflicts, the need to belong, mistaken concepts of honor, impotent rage, etc. It's likely that most people who sacrifice their lives to commit a terrorist act will have connected to the cause on more than one level, political, psychosexual, conceptual, even spiritual. Because I was writing in Nerve I narrowed my focus to the sexual. As I said, I don't think this war is *caused* by hatred of sexual freedom, only that culture clash is a significant feature of it.
------------------
Additionally it was not my desire to prescribe any particular response to terrorism. I wanted to -- and did -- propose that we as a community begin to think about what responses best serve us. To that end I walked the reader through a disperate assortment of arguments that I think we will encounter frequently, and raised the question of how we want to negotiate our differences with fundamentalist groups.
---------------------------
For the record, I don't personally think that hiding one's nipples from the neighbors is "the answer" in any programmatic sense, although I can imagine that at certain times and in certain circumstances it might be wise to apply some diplomatic sagacity to the impulses of self-expression. There's a difference between censorship or repression and simple consideration and, without issuing any edicts on the matter (I have none to issue) I think it's a difference worth exploring.
----------------------------
Personally, I would rather that we had an articulate, well-organized group of sexual libertarians who could approach fundamentalist religious leaders and better s'plain to them what we're about and possibly negotiate ways that disagreements about sex could be better handled between our various communities. But we're nowhere close to being able to do that because -- as a group -- our ideas about why sexual liberty is a human and social good are as yet so infrequently articulated in terms that those who disagree with us might respect, even if they did not agree with them.
---------------------------------
In wanting to see more than individual defiance I differ somewhat from, the e-mail circulated essay attributed to Salaman Rushdie of Oct 2, the last paragraphs of which I'll append separately.
This is attributed to Salaman Rushdie -- I'm checking the attribution, but manwhile, it's nice, whomever wrote it, and germane: -------------------------------------------
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list -- yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for? ----------------------------------
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world- view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
re: last post here. again, you are looking for a way to appeal to the "fundamentalist" who "believes we believe in nothing". look, the fundamentalist's idea of conversion is to put a gun to your head and "make you" agree or die. it doesn't matter whether you believe in ANYTHING; if it differs from what's mandated you're irrelevant and an infidel. fundamentalism=terrorism no matter what its particular ideology. that's the problem with it. it doesn't matter whether it's a falwell, an ira bomber or a taliban member. what matters is moderate, reasonable people shaking hands across fences, not trying to find a way to appeal to murderers and thieves of human rights and dignity. no matter who we are and what we believe we want to live and not die horrible deaths or exist in re-education camps. your search for a solution that works "with" the fundamentalists disturbs me more than anything because i think you fail to see the end of that particular path. i am speaking of your ultimate end at their hands. because honestly even if you became one of them you'd still die fighting for them in their holy war which is perpetual. don't you see that? isn't it evident by now?
I remember reading about the last will and testament left by one of the suicide pilots. He made it all too clear, emphatically stating over and over again, that no women were to attend his funeral. Nor were any women allowed to visit his gravesite. Ever.
I don`t understand why sexual liberties and expressions have anything to do with what happened on September 11th. If there are links like suggested in Body Politics then surely it would have been another country that would have felt the extremes of Islamic Fundamentalism. The United States of America is far from being the most liberal nation in the world. Perhaps a few hundred years ago the Statue of Liberty showed unprecedented uniqueness, but in present times most Western nations have legitimate reasons for erecting such a display. The attacks were not against freedom, they were against imposing forces. The U.S. government is one of the most oppressive forces in the world.
Bringers of the Dawn- Barbara Marciniak...i read this book over the summer, it really opened my eyes to the power of sexuality and certain possible truths about good versus evil...it's kinda out there, that is actually quite fitting considering all the has happened and is still happening....some interesting coincidences anyways,,,i recommend reading it.
The current regime in Washington only proves further that the wall between church and state be built taller, wider, and reinforced with the commitment to our individual rights. I often feel as frightened by the threat of "sacrificing some of our liberties" - a statement made by W during his first speech after the attacks - as I do by the threat of the terrorists themselves. I think that more than ever, personal rights should be cherished and fought for - perhaps by sacrificing the rights we grant outsiders who choose to enter this country until they can prove that like us, they can embrace the rights of us all to be individuals.
Falwell apologized for his weird comments about the terrorist massacre on 9-11. It is astounding that apparently some of 19 evil savages on board the airliner bombs often sat in Florida strip clubs and drank booze.. these little SOBs claim to hate our American way of life so much but guess what is the most watched TV program in the Middle East--"Baywatch"! At least among the limited amount of American TV shows. The little cowards lived it up here and as I have always said about Nazis, the only good one is a dead one. Our war is five sided but I hope our B52s and the other strikes by Navy sorties put the fear of God in them, to the point that as a German veteran of WWII told me in 1963, we never understood how utterly ruthless and aggressive you Americans can be when you are determined to end a war. This former infantry officer had been under fire from Russian rockets (Katushas) but he had never been more fearful than being under air attacks by US rocket firing fighters and bombers. These are fearful times but there is time of fun sex and my hot young girlfriend and I enjoyed Halloween last night under the first full moon in over 45 years. Old Falwell, like so many uptight bleeding deacons, like Ken Starr, just can:t imagine that someone, somewhere, is having fun!
The fact that some of the evil skyjackers spent time and money in strip bars and buying porno videos is not surprising to me. The most popular US TV program in the Middle East is "Baywatch", featuring blond babes cavorting in skimpy swimsuits. Alcohol and strip shows have been featured among upper class Saudis for years--even if they went to Beirut to the red light zones to indulge. I am damned glad the feds are going to tighten our immigration laws for students and for everyone else. These little suicidal monsters took advantage of what our nation stands for and they are going to pay dearly. My main fear is that with winter approaching the media (e.g. CNN) will stress the sensational stories (anthrax cases, God knows what else) that will affect very few innocent civilians. Of course it is a form of war unknown to us before. The British could not imagine the V2 ballistic missiles pounding London in 1944 either. But the Brits prevailed. Adm. Nimitz after WWII wrote that US war games our Navy indulged in before Pearl Harbor envisioned everything--except the kamikaze suicide pilots and their planes plowing into our ships off Iwo and Okinawa. My point is that I am learning to live my life, not in ignorance of what is going on but to turn off the media and try to live in emotional and mental balance. Hell, anyone over 50 remembers the nuclear threat! Duck and cover, bomb shelters, the Cuban Crisis. A B52 lost a Hbomb off Spain in 1966. JFK vs Khrushchev over Berlin. My new girlfriend and me are going down to the tip of Baja to kayak and snorkel over Christmas. No Tv, radio or newspapers. My Dad went with the Sierra Club up into the Sierra range several times during WWII although gas was rationed and so was much else. LIFE GOES ON! Body politics--I have enjoyed equality as several times women I am attracted to have asserted themselves for dates and getting it on. I met several striking women at nudist resorts for fun sex and just enjoying bare fun in the sun. My new babe often gets me to talk about my adventures and whether or not I was aroused when I chatted them up. I met one honey at a snack bar who rubbed against me as I bought her a beer as she saw me get aroused and said, "Is that a pistol on the counter or are you just glad to meet me?" I love America!
A feature on slate.com discussed porn in Pakistan, of all places. When I think of the country, I recall cheap knock off knives, imported dress shirts and dirty nukes aimed at India. Of course, the most popular American TV program there is " Baywatch"; but what porn magazines, etc. would be big there? I imagine blond women are very attractive to many men over there as they are in Mexico. I went to Tijuana with my very blond girlfriend in high school and we were followed around for blocks by men and boys; this was over 40 years ago. The subjugation of girls and women, especially in the Taliban culture is a good example of how threatening females are to men in many countries. Women set the agenda for relationships, including sex and whether or not children will be part of the man-woman setting. The "Mars, Venus" analogy is valid, I think, and I conclude with a joke from the Hefner roast by Gottfroid, "My Muslim name is Hasn't Been Laid, and after hearing about the 19 terrorist savages, esp Atta, these evil "men" are not of this planet.
Sexual Politic aside..George Harrison was the Man. Have you ever seen a hard days night... that probably why they want to kill us to much fun... Yeah right uh huh...
As a former U.S. expatriot of Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, and the largely Muslim city of Mombassa, Kenya it's my opinion that there is not a homogenous view of sex in the Muslim world, any more than there's a homogenous view of sex in the U.S. In my experience, sex in many places in the Islamic world can be expressed beautifully by a paraphrase of the old Victorian saying, "You can do anything you like as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."
The prophet Mohommed himself recieved his financial start in life by marrying a wealthy widow. One of his wives was a tanner, and another, after his death, was the figure head of an army, and a battle was fought around her and her camel. The perversions of Islam by groups like the Taliban in Afganistan and the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia owe a great deal to indigenous tribal traditions, rather than to the teachings of Islam.
However, it is fairly obvious that the U.S. government and more importantly U.S. companies should give real thought to the policies and products that they're marketing abroad and what those products say about America. A good friend who was living in India once found herself surrounded by a a group of Indian men who had just come from the movie, "Basic Instinct." You can imagine the effect that Sharon Stone's vagina might have had on men who belong to a culture where a man might not see a naked woman until his wedding night. As you may have guessed, my friend had a few uncomfortable moments. She might as well have had "Western Whore" stamped on her forehead.
It's fine to create a movie like "Basic Instinct," which is meant to be shocking and controversial, even in the U.S. But when we export our culture, do we really want American womanhood represented by a nymophomanic, psycho killer, with a penchant for flashing? Exporting our culture becomes problematic when these are the only visions people from other countries see of the United States and the West. To marketers this makes sense because sex sales, anywhere, and so does violence. So the films that get released often have both, without anything to balance the gun toting, bed hopping, version of fast times in America.
Much of the world contains more conservative cultures than we have in the United States and Western Europe. We should recognize that and respect it. Does it mean changing how we live and love at home? No. But it might mean expanding how we represent ourselves. We might want to think of giving people around the world a more accurate representation of American people. One that includes portrayals of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, loving committed relationships, in addition to Sharon Stone's pussy, or Britney Spears' midrift, or Mel Gibson's bare ass.
Lets not kid ourselves. 9/11 was a cruel and misguided reaction to a long history of similar cruel and misguided policies followed by Uncle Sam. A look at the history of the Middle East, and the US governments blatant disregard for the lives and welfare of the people who live there, shows the folly of focusing on sex. It really has nothign to do with it.
The questions raised in Body Politics are very important today. Several devout Muslims work in stores in my neighborhood who may know of terrorist sleepers in their own neighborhoods and who might risk their own lives to warn us. We greet each other warmly, talk as human beings. Without hesitation, they gave free supplies to anyone volunteering as rescuers at Ground Zero. They showed sympathy to me for my loss of about 300 colleagues I had worked with for a year. They seem to respect me as an equal, a human being, not a stereotype of a woman although they are practicing Muslims from Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Morroco, India, etc.
I'm also aware that if I got to know their wives, I might be appalled by the men I'm so friendly with now... and that if the men in the stores knew about my beliefs that repressed sexuality is more responsible than any priest's devil for evil in this world, they wouldn't let me meet their wives. Before I could help them understand my values, I think I would have to learn to accept without judgment the ways in which they value group obediance, family dominance, women's submission and unquestioning acceptance of traditional rules in their lives without judgment. Maybe, as an American, I'm already there because I certainly would warn them if any of my people were planning to hurt them. By coming to America, even if only to make money not to join our society, many many Muslims here have in some unspoken way accepted the right of people to live according to very different values... something that's still difficult for many of our own conservatives who long for a return to pre-sixties repressed sexuality (have you heard people saying with delight "So many flags... it's like the 50s on college campuses"? Maybe between AIDs and terrorism, they'll get their longed for regression.)
But the question still remains, how do we explain that what often looks like decadence is proof of our society's attempts, even if often flawed, to show deep respect for diversity, compassion for full range of human possibility, and commitment to letting both hedonists and fundamentalists live their lives as they wish, as long as they do not physically harm anyone else? Particularly when fundamentalists and other puritans feel our openness is emotionally harming them and endangering their survival?
This was circulating the Net soon after 9-11:
A Memo to American Muslims
> M. A. Muqtedar Khan
>
> In the name of Allah, the most Benevolent and the Most Merciful. May this memo find you in the shade of Islam enjoying the mercy, the protection and the grace of Allah.
>
> I am writing this memo to you all with the explicit purpose of inviting you to lead the American Muslim community in soul searching, reflection and reassessment.
>
> What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values. The fact that even now several Muslim
scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad. Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal
against
>
Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act? While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and
>
> Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109. 3:159, 5:85). Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale. They protest against the discriminatory practices of Israel but are silent against the discriminatory practices in Muslim
states. In the Gulf one can see how laws and even salaries are based on ethnic origin. This is racism, but we never hear of Muslims protesting against them at International fora.
>
> The Israeli occupation of Palestine is perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West. While acknowledging that, I must remind you that Israel treats its one million Arab citizens with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens. Today Palestinian refugees can settle and become citizens of the United States but in spite of all the tall rhetoric of the Arab world and Quranic injunctions (24:22) no Muslim country except Jordan extends this support to them. While we loudly and consistently
condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)? Remember Pakistani army's excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shiis? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don't. We condemn Israel because we hate "them".
>
> Muslims love to live in the US but also love to hate it. Many openly claim that the US is a terrorist state but they continue to live in it.
>
Their decision to live here is testimony that they would rather live here than anywhere else. As an Indian Muslim, I know for sure that nowhere on earth, including India, will I get the same sense of dignity and respect that I have received in the US. No Muslim country will treat me as well as the US has. If what happened on september 11th had happened in India, the biggest democracy, thousands of Muslims would have been slaughterred in riots on mere
suspicion and there would be another slaughter after confirmation. But in the US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders. In many places hundreds of Americans have gathered around Islamic centers in symbolic gestures of protection and embrace of American Muslims. In many cities Christian congregations have started wearing hijab to identify with fellow Muslim women. In patience and in tolerance ordinary Americans have demonstrated their extraordinary virtues.
>
> It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World.
>
> If you disagree than prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. If you do not leave and do not acknowledge that you would rather live here than anywhere else, know that you are being hypocritical.
>
> It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot. For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam? The biggest victims of hate filled politics as embodied in the actions of several Muslim militias all over the world are Muslims themselves.
>
> Hate is the extreme form of intolerance and when individuals and groups succumb to it they can do nothing constructive. Militias like the Taliban have allowed their hate for the West to override their obligation to pursue the welfare of their people and as a result of their actions not only have thousands of innocent people died in America, but thousands of people will die in the Muslim World.
>
> Already, half a million Afghans have had to leave their homes and their country. The war has not yet begun. It will only get worst. Hamas and Islamic Jihad may kill a few Jews, women and children included, with their suicide bombs and temporarily satisfy their lust for Jewish blood, but thousands of Palestinians then pay the price for their actions. The culture of hate and killing is tearing away at the moral fabric of the Muslim society. We are more focused on "the other" and have completely forgotten our duty to Allah. In pursuit of the inferior jihad we have sacrificed the superior jihad.
>
> Islamic resurgence, the cherished ideals of which pursued the ultimate goal of a universally just and moral society has been hijacked by hate and call for murder and mayhem. If Binladen were an individual then we would have no problem. But unfortunately Binladen has become a phenomenon -a cancer eating away at the morality of our youth, and undermining the spiritual health of our future. Today the century old Islamic revival is in jeopardy because we have allowed insanity to prevail over our better judgment. Yes, the US has played a hand in the creation of Binladen and the Taliban, but it is we who have allowed them to grow and gain such a foothold. It is our duty to police our world. It is our responsibility to prevent people from abusing Islam. It is our job to ensure that Islam is not misrepresented. We should have made sure that what happened on Sept.11th should never have happened. It is time the leaders of the American Muslim community woke up and realized that there is more to life than competing with the American Jewish lobby for power over US foreign policy.
>
> Islam is not about defeating Jews or conquering Jerusalem. It is about mercy, about virtue, about sacrifice and about duty. Above all it is the pursuit of moral perfection. Nothing can be further away from moral perfection than the wanton slaughter of thousands of unsuspecting innocent people.
>
> I hope that we will now rededicate our lives and our institutions to the search for harmony, peace and tolerance. Let us be prepared to suffer injustice rather than commit injustices. After all it is we who carry the divine burden of Islam and not others. We have to be morally better, more forgiving, more sacrificing than others, if we wish to convince the world about the truth of our message. We cannot even be equal to others in virtue, we must excel. It is time for soul searching. How can the message of Muhammad (pbuh) who was sent as mercy to mankind become a source of horror and fear? How can Islam inspire thousands of youth to dedicate their lives to killing others? We are supposed to invite people to Islam not murder them.
>
> The worst exhibition of Islam happened on our turf. We must take first responsibility to undo the evil it has manifest. This is our mandate,our brden and also our opportunity.
>
>
> Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
> Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI
> Association of Muslim Social Scientists
An outstanding synopsis of the trends that should be sending all of us outside, screaming in the streets about the death of civil liberties or, "coup--coup".
You know the etymology of fundamentalist , it at the other end of the intellectualist unless one can contextualise both in humanist. Blame is the view from one side or the other. The middle is in motion. Your call for awareness of where we are going is keen. Sexual physics may mimic the universe.
Anywhere women are repressed is a place where men are afraid of women, and they feel threatened by women's intellect, afraid of falling into a woman's "trap" of emotional and sexual power. Women identify with nature, and all that goes with it. Men identify with "territory", ownership, and control of all that's theirs. That includes their women, their children. One of the reasons women are so controlled in so many sub-cultures is so that the man knows the babies that are produced come from them and not some other man, for if that were to happen, the child is an attack on their manhood, a betrail so blatent that other men will look at them as weak, and regard them with contempt. So, women are kept covered, and covered, their feminine charms will not tempt any other men. This is the root of all conservative, all rigid religeous standards of sexual control. All diseases that have evolved started somewhere, at some point in ancient time, with men messing with animals. Most std's today are given by men to women, all originating from men's sexual adventures. It's evolved into a world where sex is sold in most countries via media, all the while knowing how dangerous unprotected, casual sex is today with not only one person, but especially multiple partners. Religion has always been a useful tool for making dangerous or disagreable practices a "sin". All this fighting and warring in the middle east is based on territorial rights. All wars are based on man's ego trips, and of course money and politics, also based on men's ego trips. Women run societies are peaceful, where territory is something to share and blend in with other territories and traditions. Religion is in tune with mother earth and nature, and love and nurturing of all of nature, including each other and children, no matter who is the father. Men become bored with such societies. Too much testosterone to be peaceful and loving. Providorship isn't enough. Love isn't enough. Peace isn't enough. It's impossible in this world for any gains to be made simply to benifit mankind. For men as a whole, profit must be made, at all costs. Now women, having been taught by men, are becoming more and more like men. Instead of influencing men into a more gentle world, we are becoming more "territorial", more concerned with power, money, more blatent with our sexual powers. Possibly when the earth spits most of us out, cleanses itself, we can start over and evolve into what we were meant to be, whatever that is.
Commentarium (38 Comments)
What was that? I think it's important that we stand for keeping our civil liberties intact... but could we do so a bit more coherantly?
try blocking it like this:
Fallwell, Robertson as introduction.
IDEA: we need to keep the WTC attacks from being an excuse
for others to restrict sexual freedom.
I. Appropriate for a secular state
II. Sexual expression is under attack
Instead of throwing examples around randomly, and taking a couple different positions, and asking all sorts of philisophical questions. You really lost your momentum doing that.
Yeah... i'm a nerd. I'll go back to my work now.
A truly pathetic attempt to find a "new" angle to the terrorist attack on New York City.
As a professional writer myself (two books, thousands of magazine pieces over a 40-year career), I found the idea weak, the writing muddled and the need by Nerve to present such a piece more than slightly disgusting.
We don't have to live our lives in a cloud of doom, but let's try to keep our thoughts (and our writing) faintly on target.
I enjoyed the article, but have one nit to pick. It's about the use of the word "media". That's a plural word that frequently is used in the various media as if it were singular (the media is ...). The printed word is a medium, as is radio, as is television. Collectively these are media.
Cutler's piece offers some salient reminders of the context in which the events of 11 Septmeber were wrought. It's sobering to remember that the fight for the right of sexual expression has deeper consequences than job descrimination, family issues, etc, etc. But didn't we already learn this when Matthew Shepard was murdered? Not to mention in numerous, less celebrated moments of tragedy?
I do take exception to Culter's use of the word "pathological" when describing the Taliban. That supposes a Western epistimology and that's precisely the intersection that defines tthis conflict. To be "pathological" one needs tto be situated in the "ways of knowing" of the West. We need to learn a language that exists in the border between our civilizations iif we are to truly resolve this conflict.
I don't agree with the people who thought the writing was muddled. To me, this was more of an exploration and provocation to thinking more about the subject, not so much a call to arms. So it was okay with me that it moved a bit from subject to subject. I didn't find it offensive at all.
An editorial comment:
What about a graphic design and photo credit?
IMHO: the folks in W.Va might be ticked,or tickled , about their part of the map - but I like it.
No, this writer is basically wrong, wrong in her premises and wrong in her adjurations. Al Q'aeda will not be satisfied if, for example, gay people like me return to their crates and closets, since they'll still have Britney Spears' legs to distress them. It should be obvious that fundamentalism of their sort, which of course we've practiced in the West from time to time (think Salem witch trials, Himmler's homo genocide, Joseph McCarthy's crusade, the Hollywood film codes . . .) is a monomania that cannot be satisfied with changed behavior anyway. They will keep raising their bar of standards until we all are found guilty of something-or-other and peace at last can be found in a Paradise of self-immolated corpses.
The writer speaks as though this is really a theological or ethical debate. Genocide is not a form of debate. No, darling, we don't need to close our nudey bars or dress in black like the SPaniards of the Counter-Reformation. We need to rip the Al Q'aeda movement into tiny shreds by any means necessary, and continue with the progress we've been building on legal, cultural, and social grounds here for the past 200 years. We need to stand up for freedom.
**********
-Marc DeFrancis
i found this piece misguided and distasteful. while i recognize the general content and purpose of the magazine, the author's willingness to sensationalize these events further for the sake of a terribly written article baffles me. "self indulgent" in the wake of what's happened? absolutely. if the author truly has so little understanding of what has been attacked and why then i am ashamed for her. if indeed she fosters a greater understanding of the situation and chose to write this vapid pseudo-intellectual garbage anyway then i am genuinely disgusted.
Underlying Maggie Cutler's essay is a slightly sexed up version of the Bush thesis: the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center do not like us because America is the land of liberty. Neither Bush nor Cutler get it: what primarily fuels fury against the U.S. in the world is not that we love liberty, either in Bush's puritanical mode or in Cutler's more sensuous mode. Bin Laden as an individual no doubt hates America's sexiness, but his grassroots support, dispersed around the world, has much more to do with the disparity between our wealth and their dispossession. What produces fury against America is that we take security and affluence for granted and pay no notice, say, to all those in Africa who are dying of AIDS because no medication is available to them. It is not our love of liberty but our place in a system of global inequality that fuels fury. To be sure I am not misunderstood, let me stress that nothing in this observation indicates one iota of approval for the horrific events of September 11. Historians generally agree that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles fueled support for fascism in Germany. Recognizing this in no way denies that Nazi rule was evil; but it does help us understand Nazi evil in a fashion that can guide us, so as to diminish the possibility of seeing similar evil arise again. Like the Bush thesis it resembles then, Cutler's argument only serves to mask the causes of evil, and thus participates, unwillingly of course, in its perdurance.
i do think that sounding a clarion call (however muffled) to expand sexual freedoms in the US at this moment is bound to produce negative response (not surprised to see it below), but i think this article made some interesting points
the attempts of religions/ governments to control the body / control women are one fundamental element of the ideological fissure out of which this conflict is erupting
of course the direct causes have far more to do with our misguided middle-eastern policy in the last 30 years and the appeal of fundamentalism in the midst of multi-generational war and abject poverty (for which the US is partially responsible
the author is not saying otherwise ... she's just offering a few fresh observations in an appropriate forum, and i am glad she did
this is a time in which people are quick to assume a righteous stance about any utterances that could appear indecorous or off-subject ... this is one of the effects of fear, and it is one very small step towards fundamentalism
Many commentators have noted that some of the suicide hijackers spent time in girlie bars and porn video stores without making the obvious connection: the most likely explanation is that these religious prudes were not there to sample the goods so much as to survey the dens of depravity they were trying to destroy.
There are fundamentalists on both sides, and I hope this article makes someone, someplace think about the fundamentalists of hedonism and how they are bollocksing it up for everybody. Public space in the light of common day is not the place for explicit sexuality. Maybe, once or twice a year, at midnight when all the kids are tucked in their beds, we can have some roistering... can't we just all agree on this? I hope that everybody knocks off frightening the horses, for war, making our spies comfie, or whatever reason, because the constant assault of commidified sexuality on my ears and retinas handicaps my ability to develop my own, truly liberated, truly independent and individual sexual self.
Also I agree with the people below who point out that no one would want to stop us partying if their children weren't starving.
I think this piece deserves credit for explaining what some people call a "war of civilizations" is all about. Religious fundamentalism all over the world and throughout history has always been obsessed with sex and the first step it takes is to put/keep women down. Has anybody noticed that most terror attacks in the world are carried out by young Muslim men ? That these organizations have failed to attract a single woman and that their so-called Islamic credo is basically limited to keeping women covered up , in the home and out of work (cf interviews with Taliban prisoners in North Afghanistan)? At the same time these crazed morons dpend their final hours looking at porno flicks and longing for the 72 virgins who are waiting for them in Paradise. While this is certainly not the only impulse in fundamentalist terrorism, it is certainly as valid an explanation as any based on various conflicts throughout the world.
How odd this appears the same day Salon publishes a piece on sleeping with a porn star. The questions Maggie Culter raises are right on, and I'm glad to read her, especially in a forum that, should this appear elsewhere, may have criticism toward its warnings against hedonism. I'm a decadent person with liberal attitudes toward sex and am fond of drunkenly shouting inhibitions are so last Century. But at the same time, I agree with the sentiments of caution here and how perception, reality and perversion conspire and conflagrate is something for consideration and should give us pause. Thanks for running this. k.lezak
Re: "The minute the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center and the lives of thousands within them were reduced to smoking rubble by suicidal Islamic fundamentalists, it occurred to nearly everyone at once that fundamentalism was perhaps a bad idea."
I think most people (the majority tend to be moderate and compromising) already had this opinion about religious fundamentalism. The event probably served to cement this view. It won't be easy to be a jerry falwell, at least for awhile. I thought about the falwell/robertson gaffe and have concluded the reaction against what they said was more an expression of offense that anyone would blame (any) americans for the events that transpired. There are plenty of right wing conservative americans who feel that their society has been weakened by liberal social policies. i'm thinking of the dr. laura followers/stalwart republicans/right-to-lifers, etc. and dr. laura wouldn't be so inept (and strategically self-sabotaging) as to publicly blame a lesbian but she would blame a culture that supported "loose" morals, relaxed law enforcement and "wussy" attitudes towards "irresponsible behaviour" for a weakening in national security. If Falwell or Robertson had put it in that context at a later date, they'd have all kinds of support for that view.
The article seeks to name something within american culture (besides a host of much more obvious examples like foreign policy and multinational corporate interests) that assigns a certain responsibility and i'm the author isn't sure of where she's going with that. i mean on the one hand she describes the perverse psychology of fundamentalist terror (against which all reason fails) and at the same time she is citing western sexual evolution as a possible reason for america being a target. i hasten to point out that human beings are practicing sexual liberation in other industrialized countries and none of them are as juicy a target for bin laden.
"...Still, the terrorists are mostly of the pseudo-Islamic Wahhabi sect that, like the Taliban, interprets Sharia (or Islamic law) to mean that a woman uncovered
for pete's sake, nerve, build paragraph breaks in for those of us who have longer comments, eh?
Interesting comments, V, and I managed to read through even without the paragraph breaks, but I still stick to my guns about the fundamentalist obsession with women and sex. Look at hijacker Atta's will : no women at his funeral and please, when his body is washed, keep your hands away from his
I think it's a mistake to reduce the evolution of an ideology and its mass appeal to one thing. the oppression of women is but one feature of this ideology - there's a whole lot else going on, like the desire to return the world to the stone age (that goes a little beyond sex, eh?). i understand why cutler has written this for nerve.com since nerve is about sexual exploration but her essay is wobbly and she's all over the map about it. what would interest me more is some analysis of the evolution of fundamentalism and the conditions which support it. i disagree with the author that women in america should exercise restraint and that the so-called hedonistic culture (arguable at best) is a contributing factor in the attacks. what's ironic about her essay is the complete absence of any acknowledgement that women are still exploited and objectified in the free-world. of course we have more freedom in north america but the ability to wear crop tops and expose our nipples through our shirts doesn't quite classify as "liberation". i think it classifies as "responding to the fashion template of the month". real liberation is founded on economic freedoms: the ability to work, earn equal pay for equal work, have access to education, be able to vote, be able to live without fear of attack, choose who we marry, if we marry etc. that's precisely what the taliban has denied women in afghanistan. an educated woman is a big threat there and prior to the taliban taking control, women were still covered from head to toe and observant of certain customs but they were going to school and earning money. what cutler is suggesting in her article is that native north americans should make an effort to tone down so that they can build some respect with the moderate muslims who will be the role models for people who might admire terrorists. i think this is a stupid postulation. leaders (clerics) of the muslim community have every ability to condemn terrorism and the abuse of their religion by terrorists. they do not require women to change how they dress to do that. besides which, the muslim community is itself extremely diverse. gah, her simplistic ideas and ill thought out argument render it weak.
A while back we heard, "She's so heavy ...". Remembering is good, changing is better (isn't it?)
I think good sex is an antidote to madness. I don't think feeling guilty about sex or about sexual expression is going to help the world at all. When people feel confused, feel that they don't understand what's happening in the world, they often clamp down to try to make things seem more secure. I think we should resist the clampdown of spirit. We have to carry the flame of individuality, dissent, and respect for the fragility and subtlety of the human. Appreciation of sexuality is an important part of this.
maggie relies:
I'm pleased to see so much heated yet thoughtful discussion of, particularly, the meaning of sexual equality. --------------
But as some of you noticed, it wasn't my purpose to propose a single cause for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Inevitably the people's motives in a terrorist enterprise are complex and vary a great deal from individual to individual. Some terrorists have political ambitions, envies or complaints (valid and not), others suffer from a host of more personal motives... misogynist disorders, family conflicts, the need to belong, mistaken concepts of honor, impotent rage, etc. It's likely that most people who sacrifice their lives to commit a terrorist act will have connected to the cause on more than one level, political, psychosexual, conceptual, even spiritual. Because I was writing in Nerve I narrowed my focus to the sexual. As I said, I don't think this war is *caused* by hatred of sexual freedom, only that culture clash is a significant feature of it.
------------------
Additionally it was not my desire to prescribe any particular response to terrorism. I wanted to -- and did -- propose that we as a community begin to think about what responses best serve us. To that end I walked the reader through a disperate assortment of arguments that I think we will encounter frequently, and raised the question of how we want to negotiate our differences with fundamentalist groups.
---------------------------
For the record, I don't personally think that hiding one's nipples from the neighbors is "the answer" in any programmatic sense, although I can imagine that at certain times and in certain circumstances it might be wise to apply some diplomatic sagacity to the impulses of self-expression. There's a difference between censorship or repression and simple consideration and, without issuing any edicts on the matter (I have none to issue) I think it's a difference worth exploring.
----------------------------
Personally, I would rather that we had an articulate, well-organized group of sexual libertarians who could approach fundamentalist religious leaders and better s'plain to them what we're about and possibly negotiate ways that disagreements about sex could be better handled between our various communities. But we're nowhere close to being able to do that because -- as a group -- our ideas about why sexual liberty is a human and social good are as yet so infrequently articulated in terms that those who disagree with us might respect, even if they did not agree with them.
---------------------------------
In wanting to see more than individual defiance I differ somewhat from, the e-mail circulated essay attributed to Salaman Rushdie of Oct 2, the last paragraphs of which I'll append separately.
This is attributed to Salaman Rushdie -- I'm checking the attribution, but manwhile, it's nice, whomever wrote it, and germane: -------------------------------------------
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list -- yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for? ----------------------------------
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world- view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
re: last post here. again, you are looking for a way to appeal to the "fundamentalist" who "believes we believe in nothing". look, the fundamentalist's idea of conversion is to put a gun to your head and "make you" agree or die. it doesn't matter whether you believe in ANYTHING; if it differs from what's mandated you're irrelevant and an infidel. fundamentalism=terrorism no matter what its particular ideology. that's the problem with it. it doesn't matter whether it's a falwell, an ira bomber or a taliban member. what matters is moderate, reasonable people shaking hands across fences, not trying to find a way to appeal to murderers and thieves of human rights and dignity. no matter who we are and what we believe we want to live and not die horrible deaths or exist in re-education camps. your search for a solution that works "with" the fundamentalists disturbs me more than anything because i think you fail to see the end of that particular path. i am speaking of your ultimate end at their hands. because honestly even if you became one of them you'd still die fighting for them in their holy war which is perpetual. don't you see that? isn't it evident by now?
I remember reading about the last will and testament left by one of the suicide pilots. He made it all too clear, emphatically stating over and over again, that no women were to attend his funeral. Nor were any women allowed to visit his gravesite. Ever.
I don`t understand why sexual liberties and expressions have anything to do with what happened on September 11th. If there are links like suggested in Body Politics then surely it would have been another country that would have felt the extremes of Islamic Fundamentalism. The United States of America is far from being the most liberal nation in the world. Perhaps a few hundred years ago the Statue of Liberty showed unprecedented uniqueness, but in present times most Western nations have legitimate reasons for erecting such a display. The attacks were not against freedom, they were against imposing forces. The U.S. government is one of the most oppressive forces in the world.
Bringers of the Dawn- Barbara Marciniak...i read this book over the summer, it really opened my eyes to the power of sexuality and certain possible truths about good versus evil...it's kinda out there, that is actually quite fitting considering all the has happened and is still happening....some interesting coincidences anyways,,,i recommend reading it.
The current regime in Washington only proves further that the wall between church and state be built taller, wider, and reinforced with the commitment to our individual rights. I often feel as frightened by the threat of "sacrificing some of our liberties" - a statement made by W during his first speech after the attacks - as I do by the threat of the terrorists themselves. I think that more than ever, personal rights should be cherished and fought for - perhaps by sacrificing the rights we grant outsiders who choose to enter this country until they can prove that like us, they can embrace the rights of us all to be individuals.
Falwell apologized for his weird comments about the terrorist massacre on 9-11. It is astounding that apparently some of 19 evil savages on board the airliner bombs often sat in Florida strip clubs and drank booze.. these little SOBs claim to hate our American way of life so much but guess what is the most watched TV program in the Middle East--"Baywatch"! At least among the limited amount of American TV shows. The little cowards lived it up here and as I have always said about Nazis, the only good one is a dead one. Our war is five sided but I hope our B52s and the other strikes by Navy sorties put the fear of God in them, to the point that as a German veteran of WWII told me in 1963, we never understood how utterly ruthless and aggressive you Americans can be when you are determined to end a war. This former infantry officer had been under fire from Russian rockets (Katushas) but he had never been more fearful than being under air attacks by US rocket firing fighters and bombers. These are fearful times but there is time of fun sex and my hot young girlfriend and I enjoyed Halloween last night under the first full moon in over 45 years. Old Falwell, like so many uptight bleeding deacons, like Ken Starr, just can:t imagine that someone, somewhere, is having fun!
The fact that some of the evil skyjackers spent time and money in strip bars and buying porno videos is not surprising to me. The most popular US TV program in the Middle East is "Baywatch", featuring blond babes cavorting in skimpy swimsuits. Alcohol and strip shows have been featured among upper class Saudis for years--even if they went to Beirut to the red light zones to indulge. I am damned glad the feds are going to tighten our immigration laws for students and for everyone else. These little suicidal monsters took advantage of what our nation stands for and they are going to pay dearly. My main fear is that with winter approaching the media (e.g. CNN) will stress the sensational stories (anthrax cases, God knows what else) that will affect very few innocent civilians. Of course it is a form of war unknown to us before. The British could not imagine the V2 ballistic missiles pounding London in 1944 either. But the Brits prevailed. Adm. Nimitz after WWII wrote that US war games our Navy indulged in before Pearl Harbor envisioned everything--except the kamikaze suicide pilots and their planes plowing into our ships off Iwo and Okinawa. My point is that I am learning to live my life, not in ignorance of what is going on but to turn off the media and try to live in emotional and mental balance. Hell, anyone over 50 remembers the nuclear threat! Duck and cover, bomb shelters, the Cuban Crisis. A B52 lost a Hbomb off Spain in 1966. JFK vs Khrushchev over Berlin. My new girlfriend and me are going down to the tip of Baja to kayak and snorkel over Christmas. No Tv, radio or newspapers. My Dad went with the Sierra Club up into the Sierra range several times during WWII although gas was rationed and so was much else. LIFE GOES ON! Body politics--I have enjoyed equality as several times women I am attracted to have asserted themselves for dates and getting it on. I met several striking women at nudist resorts for fun sex and just enjoying bare fun in the sun. My new babe often gets me to talk about my adventures and whether or not I was aroused when I chatted them up. I met one honey at a snack bar who rubbed against me as I bought her a beer as she saw me get aroused and said, "Is that a pistol on the counter or are you just glad to meet me?" I love America!
A feature on slate.com discussed porn in Pakistan, of all places. When I think of the country, I recall cheap knock off knives, imported dress shirts and dirty nukes aimed at India. Of course, the most popular American TV program there is " Baywatch"; but what porn magazines, etc. would be big there? I imagine blond women are very attractive to many men over there as they are in Mexico. I went to Tijuana with my very blond girlfriend in high school and we were followed around for blocks by men and boys; this was over 40 years ago. The subjugation of girls and women, especially in the Taliban culture is a good example of how threatening females are to men in many countries. Women set the agenda for relationships, including sex and whether or not children will be part of the man-woman setting. The "Mars, Venus" analogy is valid, I think, and I conclude with a joke from the Hefner roast by Gottfroid, "My Muslim name is Hasn't Been Laid, and after hearing about the 19 terrorist savages, esp Atta, these evil "men" are not of this planet.
Sexual Politic aside..George Harrison was the Man. Have you ever seen a hard days night... that probably why they want to kill us to much fun... Yeah right uh huh...
As a former U.S. expatriot of Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, and the largely Muslim city of Mombassa, Kenya it's my opinion that there is not a homogenous view of sex in the Muslim world, any more than there's a homogenous view of sex in the U.S. In my experience, sex in many places in the Islamic world can be expressed beautifully by a paraphrase of the old Victorian saying, "You can do anything you like as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."
The prophet Mohommed himself recieved his financial start in life by marrying a wealthy widow. One of his wives was a tanner, and another, after his death, was the figure head of an army, and a battle was fought around her and her camel. The perversions of Islam by groups like the Taliban in Afganistan and the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia owe a great deal to indigenous tribal traditions, rather than to the teachings of Islam.
However, it is fairly obvious that the U.S. government and more importantly U.S. companies should give real thought to the policies and products that they're marketing abroad and what those products say about America. A good friend who was living in India once found herself surrounded by a a group of Indian men who had just come from the movie, "Basic Instinct." You can imagine the effect that Sharon Stone's vagina might have had on men who belong to a culture where a man might not see a naked woman until his wedding night. As you may have guessed, my friend had a few uncomfortable moments. She might as well have had "Western Whore" stamped on her forehead.
It's fine to create a movie like "Basic Instinct," which is meant to be shocking and controversial, even in the U.S. But when we export our culture, do we really want American womanhood represented by a nymophomanic, psycho killer, with a penchant for flashing? Exporting our culture becomes problematic when these are the only visions people from other countries see of the United States and the West. To marketers this makes sense because sex sales, anywhere, and so does violence. So the films that get released often have both, without anything to balance the gun toting, bed hopping, version of fast times in America.
Much of the world contains more conservative cultures than we have in the United States and Western Europe. We should recognize that and respect it. Does it mean changing how we live and love at home? No. But it might mean expanding how we represent ourselves. We might want to think of giving people around the world a more accurate representation of American people. One that includes portrayals of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, loving committed relationships, in addition to Sharon Stone's pussy, or Britney Spears' midrift, or Mel Gibson's bare ass.
Lets not kid ourselves. 9/11 was a cruel and misguided reaction to a long history of similar cruel and misguided policies followed by Uncle Sam. A look at the history of the Middle East, and the US governments blatant disregard for the lives and welfare of the people who live there, shows the folly of focusing on sex. It really has nothign to do with it.
The questions raised in Body Politics are very important today. Several devout Muslims work in stores in my neighborhood who may know of terrorist sleepers in their own neighborhoods and who might risk their own lives to warn us. We greet each other warmly, talk as human beings. Without hesitation, they gave free supplies to anyone volunteering as rescuers at Ground Zero. They showed sympathy to me for my loss of about 300 colleagues I had worked with for a year. They seem to respect me as an equal, a human being, not a stereotype of a woman although they are practicing Muslims from Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Morroco, India, etc.
I'm also aware that if I got to know their wives, I might be appalled by the men I'm so friendly with now... and that if the men in the stores knew about my beliefs that repressed sexuality is more responsible than any priest's devil for evil in this world, they wouldn't let me meet their wives. Before I could help them understand my values, I think I would have to learn to accept without judgment the ways in which they value group obediance, family dominance, women's submission and unquestioning acceptance of traditional rules in their lives without judgment. Maybe, as an American, I'm already there because I certainly would warn them if any of my people were planning to hurt them. By coming to America, even if only to make money not to join our society, many many Muslims here have in some unspoken way accepted the right of people to live according to very different values... something that's still difficult for many of our own conservatives who long for a return to pre-sixties repressed sexuality (have you heard people saying with delight "So many flags... it's like the 50s on college campuses"? Maybe between AIDs and terrorism, they'll get their longed for regression.)
But the question still remains, how do we explain that what often looks like decadence is proof of our society's attempts, even if often flawed, to show deep respect for diversity, compassion for full range of human possibility, and commitment to letting both hedonists and fundamentalists live their lives as they wish, as long as they do not physically harm anyone else? Particularly when fundamentalists and other puritans feel our openness is emotionally harming them and endangering their survival?
This was circulating the Net soon after 9-11:
A Memo to American Muslims
> M. A. Muqtedar Khan
>
> In the name of Allah, the most Benevolent and the Most Merciful. May this memo find you in the shade of Islam enjoying the mercy, the protection and the grace of Allah.
>
> I am writing this memo to you all with the explicit purpose of inviting you to lead the American Muslim community in soul searching, reflection and reassessment.
>
> What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values. The fact that even now several Muslim
scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad. Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal
against
>
Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act? While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and
>
> Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109. 3:159, 5:85). Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale. They protest against the discriminatory practices of Israel but are silent against the discriminatory practices in Muslim
states. In the Gulf one can see how laws and even salaries are based on ethnic origin. This is racism, but we never hear of Muslims protesting against them at International fora.
>
> The Israeli occupation of Palestine is perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West. While acknowledging that, I must remind you that Israel treats its one million Arab citizens with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens. Today Palestinian refugees can settle and become citizens of the United States but in spite of all the tall rhetoric of the Arab world and Quranic injunctions (24:22) no Muslim country except Jordan extends this support to them. While we loudly and consistently
condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)? Remember Pakistani army's excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shiis? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don't. We condemn Israel because we hate "them".
>
> Muslims love to live in the US but also love to hate it. Many openly claim that the US is a terrorist state but they continue to live in it.
>
Their decision to live here is testimony that they would rather live here than anywhere else. As an Indian Muslim, I know for sure that nowhere on earth, including India, will I get the same sense of dignity and respect that I have received in the US. No Muslim country will treat me as well as the US has. If what happened on september 11th had happened in India, the biggest democracy, thousands of Muslims would have been slaughterred in riots on mere
suspicion and there would be another slaughter after confirmation. But in the US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders. In many places hundreds of Americans have gathered around Islamic centers in symbolic gestures of protection and embrace of American Muslims. In many cities Christian congregations have started wearing hijab to identify with fellow Muslim women. In patience and in tolerance ordinary Americans have demonstrated their extraordinary virtues.
>
> It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World.
>
> If you disagree than prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. If you do not leave and do not acknowledge that you would rather live here than anywhere else, know that you are being hypocritical.
>
> It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot. For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam? The biggest victims of hate filled politics as embodied in the actions of several Muslim militias all over the world are Muslims themselves.
>
> Hate is the extreme form of intolerance and when individuals and groups succumb to it they can do nothing constructive. Militias like the Taliban have allowed their hate for the West to override their obligation to pursue the welfare of their people and as a result of their actions not only have thousands of innocent people died in America, but thousands of people will die in the Muslim World.
>
> Already, half a million Afghans have had to leave their homes and their country. The war has not yet begun. It will only get worst. Hamas and Islamic Jihad may kill a few Jews, women and children included, with their suicide bombs and temporarily satisfy their lust for Jewish blood, but thousands of Palestinians then pay the price for their actions. The culture of hate and killing is tearing away at the moral fabric of the Muslim society. We are more focused on "the other" and have completely forgotten our duty to Allah. In pursuit of the inferior jihad we have sacrificed the superior jihad.
>
> Islamic resurgence, the cherished ideals of which pursued the ultimate goal of a universally just and moral society has been hijacked by hate and call for murder and mayhem. If Binladen were an individual then we would have no problem. But unfortunately Binladen has become a phenomenon -a cancer eating away at the morality of our youth, and undermining the spiritual health of our future. Today the century old Islamic revival is in jeopardy because we have allowed insanity to prevail over our better judgment. Yes, the US has played a hand in the creation of Binladen and the Taliban, but it is we who have allowed them to grow and gain such a foothold. It is our duty to police our world. It is our responsibility to prevent people from abusing Islam. It is our job to ensure that Islam is not misrepresented. We should have made sure that what happened on Sept.11th should never have happened. It is time the leaders of the American Muslim community woke up and realized that there is more to life than competing with the American Jewish lobby for power over US foreign policy.
>
> Islam is not about defeating Jews or conquering Jerusalem. It is about mercy, about virtue, about sacrifice and about duty. Above all it is the pursuit of moral perfection. Nothing can be further away from moral perfection than the wanton slaughter of thousands of unsuspecting innocent people.
>
> I hope that we will now rededicate our lives and our institutions to the search for harmony, peace and tolerance. Let us be prepared to suffer injustice rather than commit injustices. After all it is we who carry the divine burden of Islam and not others. We have to be morally better, more forgiving, more sacrificing than others, if we wish to convince the world about the truth of our message. We cannot even be equal to others in virtue, we must excel. It is time for soul searching. How can the message of Muhammad (pbuh) who was sent as mercy to mankind become a source of horror and fear? How can Islam inspire thousands of youth to dedicate their lives to killing others? We are supposed to invite people to Islam not murder them.
>
> The worst exhibition of Islam happened on our turf. We must take first responsibility to undo the evil it has manifest. This is our mandate,our brden and also our opportunity.
>
>
> Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
> Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI
> Association of Muslim Social Scientists
An outstanding synopsis of the trends that should be sending all of us outside, screaming in the streets about the death of civil liberties or, "coup--coup".
You know the etymology of fundamentalist , it at the other end of the intellectualist unless one can contextualise both in humanist. Blame is the view from one side or the other. The middle is in motion. Your call for awareness of where we are going is keen. Sexual physics may mimic the universe.
Anywhere women are repressed is a place where men are afraid of women, and they feel threatened by women's intellect, afraid of falling into a woman's "trap" of emotional and sexual power. Women identify with nature, and all that goes with it. Men identify with "territory", ownership, and control of all that's theirs. That includes their women, their children. One of the reasons women are so controlled in so many sub-cultures is so that the man knows the babies that are produced come from them and not some other man, for if that were to happen, the child is an attack on their manhood, a betrail so blatent that other men will look at them as weak, and regard them with contempt. So, women are kept covered, and covered, their feminine charms will not tempt any other men. This is the root of all conservative, all rigid religeous standards of sexual control. All diseases that have evolved started somewhere, at some point in ancient time, with men messing with animals. Most std's today are given by men to women, all originating from men's sexual adventures. It's evolved into a world where sex is sold in most countries via media, all the while knowing how dangerous unprotected, casual sex is today with not only one person, but especially multiple partners. Religion has always been a useful tool for making dangerous or disagreable practices a "sin". All this fighting and warring in the middle east is based on territorial rights. All wars are based on man's ego trips, and of course money and politics, also based on men's ego trips. Women run societies are peaceful, where territory is something to share and blend in with other territories and traditions. Religion is in tune with mother earth and nature, and love and nurturing of all of nature, including each other and children, no matter who is the father. Men become bored with such societies. Too much testosterone to be peaceful and loving. Providorship isn't enough. Love isn't enough. Peace isn't enough. It's impossible in this world for any gains to be made simply to benifit mankind. For men as a whole, profit must be made, at all costs. Now women, having been taught by men, are becoming more and more like men. Instead of influencing men into a more gentle world, we are becoming more "territorial", more concerned with power, money, more blatent with our sexual powers. Possibly when the earth spits most of us out, cleanses itself, we can start over and evolve into what we were meant to be, whatever that is.
Now you say something