Politicians and activists should stop ratifying the fiction that Omar Mateen was motivated by anti-LGBT hatred. It dishonors the victims and obscures the real motive.
Ain’t that the truth. A local station’s news motto is “The stories that unite us”. They are not shy at all about pushing the official narrative of the elite.
A similar dynamic happened last year with the Atlanta "massage parlor massacre." There was literally zero evidence for it being an anti-Asian crime (the killer made it quite clear it was all about his repressed sexuality, and religious-based guilt over having visited prostitutes). But intersectional zeal is unstoppable, and call-out culture warriors fell all over themselves trying to grab virtue tokens by claiming an anti-Asian narrative.
One strand of that effort that struck me as particularly bizarre was an implication by some activists that white people assume all Asian women are by default sex workers. The anti-Asian narrative also pretty much ignored as statistical noise the fact that 25% of the victims were actually white.
That horrific killing was not reported to have lead to any soul-searching on the part of evangelical churches and ministers, to consider their teachings, to tend their flock. But it was indeed seized upon by idpol activists to advance their personal and political agendas.
I don’t think Christian churches preach to kill massage workers. He was also an American. Should we therefore start questioning the constitution and wringing our hands over our American-ness.?
Yeah two of the women killed were white but it fits the racist America fable if they immediately assume it was about Asian hate instead of mental illness and sex addiction.
Not only does the media and politicians jump on a narrative which fits their agenda, public buildings must lower their flags to half mast to "honor" these victims. Just recently, the Atlanta and the San Jose victims. All these killings are tragic, but do we, as a nation, have to honor those who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
The idea that the Atlanta spa killing was *not* anti-Asian is one I considered at first. Still, you're wrong in saying that there's "literally zero evidence for it being an anti-Asian crime". Chosun Ilbo reported that a witness told them the killer said he was going to "kill all the Asians". That's just one report, but Chosun Ilbo is in some ways the most respected newspaper in South Korea, and it's possible that an Asian witness who heard that might feel more comfortable saying it to a Korean reporter than to anyone else. Overall, the jury's still out, but the evidence for anti-Asian sentiment being (part of) the motive is stronger than you acknowledge.
I remember reading that account at the time, and following up on it but finding no other mention. So it did feel a bit like hearsay. And note that if you go to Chosun Ilbo's *own web site* and locate their coverage of the event, you will find no mention of that alleged slur.
Furthermore, the conjecture that an Asian witness would be more likely to open up to a Korean reporter, while plausible, is still conjecture. The point of Glenn's article is to follow the evidence. And I still don't see any to support your point.
Still, I'm willing to amend my original, perhaps hyperbolic, Greenwald-esque statement to read "there was precious little evidence for it being an anti-Asian hate crime."
I checked a little more. Apparently the initial report that the killer mentioned killing Asians did *not* at first come from Chosun Ilbo, but rather from Korean-language news media in the Atlanta area. Three sources in English:
(the last source mentions that more info could be found at the time on "Asian American Twitter", which conceivably might include English translations of the Korean-language media reports)
I have to say that the case for anti-Asian animus as (part of) the motive is looking better than I initially thought, though I'm not saying it's conclusive.
Perhaps local Korean-language media got this part of the story right while mainstream English-language media got it wrong, at least initially. That is starting to look plausible, though I can't be sure. Some of us who are used to following the English-language media got surprised and suspicious when we saw interpretations in terms of anti-Asian bias that diverged from what the English-language media had been saying, but since the local Korean-language media was almost never given credit for their reporting, we didn't know enough. And maybe we should have left more room for the possibility that the mainstream English-language media was getting the story wrong.
I appreciate it. Sometimes old stories are hard to find or absent from a website, particularly in foreign-language news, but I haven't ever looked for the original Chosun Ilbo report myself.
The counter-factual mythology of the Pulse Nightclub shooting pales in comparison to the Matthew Shepherd Myth. To this day, he is sanctified as the quintessential gay hate crime martyr who was supposedly murdered by homophobic rednecks just for being gay. In fact, it's well documented that he was dealing meth and was killed by a man he had sex with who was trying to steal his drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard
In short, he was merely a victim of the same sordid criminal drug dealing lifestyle that gets thousands killed every year. Yet everyone has sort of collectively agreed to ignore the facts and keep pretending the gay hate-crime narrative is real. After the true facts were known, they still named anti-hate crime legislation after Shepherd and they buried him in the National Cathedral like some secular saint. Most bizarre of all, Wikipedia says: "In June 2019, Shepard was one of the inaugural fifty American 'pioneers, trailblazers, and heroes' inducted on the National LGBTQ Wall of Honor." Whatever.
It's very odd how little facts matter when they get in the way of a useful story.
What you ended with is the biggest problem with the modern day media., Facts are of NO consequence when a false narrative needs to be fed to the populace. Many, many individuals are catching on to this practice and the propaganda machine known as the corporate[orate media may not be long for this world.
Except of course governments will survive and they are the biggest and most pernicious purveyors of lies and false narratives. Most often the worst lies are those told by the media at the behest of gov't to start and justify wars where our children are slaughtered. The Spanish American conflict was engineered by the gov't and the press with their false story about the Maine battleship being blown up. Morons screaming "Remember the Maine" led the charge into a very unjust war. The Gulf of Tonkin hyped attack was probably false but it got LBJ exactly what he wanted. Then their was the Bush WMD's lie needed to attack Iraq. Pearl Harbor was a real attack but it was provoked by FDR's actions against Japan in the Pacific. He really got surprised because he only expected a small scale attack somewhere in the Pacific he could utilize to drag America into the war in Europe He got wish in spades that cost us over 2800 lives. When it comes to politicians getting what they want nothing will stand in their way even the lives of America's children. Even the passengers on the Lusitania, A passenger ship, utilized as a munitions ship, were sacrificed to create a fever for America to enter WW I. It seems to have been ever thus with the world as evidenced by Bible stories that mimic todays machinations and dangerous lies told for a "greater purpose."
Well the Bible is a recounting of many stories about Kings, warriors, political leaders of the time and just plain people's tales being utilized to make a bigger point about some moral idea or another. Not a real expert on The Bible but some of those stories reflect the flaws and foibles of powerful individuals and in some cases the hypocrisy of religious "leaders" of the time. Just trying to say that there is little under the sun that has not been seen before or newly "invented" immorality in our modern society. Probably got a bit obscure with that last observation sorry of I was unclear.
OK, no real issue with that except it deals not with “some moral idea or another” but Truth in all realty which is sometimes ugly. Relevant to the discussion here is the example of governments which are “thrones of iniquity” which “frame mischief by a law”. This is from the Psalms (94:20) which were sung during gatherings of worship. Churches today (thankfully, not all) don’t sing Psalms exclusively. They sing sanitized 19th century hymns or 20th century rock and roll (which is worse). They don’t want reality but escape from it.
Maybe so, but polls everywhere in the world show that a majority of Muslims are stridently against gay legal rights of any kind. They are also more prone than other groups, as Glenn documents here, to kill others who offend their sensibilities, even in the abstract. Is there proof that the murderer didn't thank Allah for his luck on stumbling across a club full of fags to kill? The real crime here is the protection of Islamic criminals and their enablers by the DNC and progressives in general.
This is a very weak, cherry-picked argument. Not only does it sample Americanized Muslims, who are not generally representative of MidEast-tied people like Mateen, and compare them to a selected minority of the many Christian subcategories (outliers!), but it also celebrates a difference that's mostly within the poll's margin of error.
Most of all, it conflates two very, VERY different attitudes. Being opposed to gay marriage may have overlap with being willing to do violence to gays, but it's hardly the work of a serious academic to suggest that the sort of people who voted no on Proposition 8 are the same as the people who execute gays in Iran.
Glenn knows as well as the rest of us that if that poll had asked whether homosexuality should be criminalized, let alone violently eradicated, he would not have found nearly the support among Christians that exists among Muslims (though they may not have admitted it for the poll).
Larry Elder for example also said he opposed the gay marriage legalization - not because he opposed gays marrying but because he wants the federal government out of the marriage and societal issues business all together. Both gay marriage and straight marriage should have nothing to do with the government all together. That’s doesn’t make him hating gays.
The poll also contradicts pew’s another poll where vast majority of Muslims support sharia law.
The shooter was an American Muslim, born in NY. The survey was of American Muslims, explain how you know the survey is not "representative of people like Mateen"?
Seems more likely that you are biased, not the survey, and you're just upset because the data doesn't confirm what you believe about Muslim immigrants.
When I was growing up with a gay brother in the 20th century, and who died of AIDS, no matter a person's religion he experienced bigotry and rejection from all sides, as a child, as a healthy man, as a patient. The country's response to AIDS patients was appalling, and it wasn't just my story. The story was always the same, fear and neglect. I always knew that no matter the fear within the medical community if they had not been gay, or drug users they, the medical profession, would have summoned the courage to be decent. They weren't. They put their lives on the line for people with Covid 19, but it was quite a different story with AIDS. To me the politicians who focus on the fact he singled out gays, was to divert attention away from their part in supporting our many illegal wars that killed, injured, and displaced millions of Muslims, as well as further vilifying them as homophobes.
While I agree with the premise of your article above, I was a bit curious about how this data vis a vis Christians vs. Muslims and their acceptance of Homosexuality evolved.
What's worse, is by trying to equate the opinions held, the ramifications for those opinions are VASTLY different. Plus, it's cherry picking stats. When this poll was taken, most politicians, including President Obama, had only started supporting gay marriage a few years before (which was the primary homosexual topic of the day).
Sure, if you look at simply religious views in the US, those of Evangelical Christians vs. Mormons or Muslims are not all that different. However, the actual numbers of those people involved are radically so.
In the US, Muslims are .9% of the population, Evangelicals are almost 25%. In the US, a Muslim is highly unlikely to be put into jail over their LGTBQ+ views. Of COURSE, they're going to be more accepting of Homosexual views. Evangelicals also know that to be homosexual in the US does not mean they disagree with those people and want them dead, or imprisoned, or anything else. For the most part, they consider it something of a political issue, and/or at the very least, one that is dealt with primarily in a social, non-criminal level.
I did a quick bit of math, and just those 11 countries (which, thankfully, do not include countries like India, Pakistan and Indonesia with over 200M Muslim in each - do add up to be more than the population of the U.S.
So, be homosexual in Islamic countries with roughly the population as the U.S., and, well, expect to be sentenced to DEATH.
I could go on for the actual penalties in these countries mentioned above (wear around 700M muslims live in just three countries) but I think you get my point. I will add one little tidbit further.
Over 90% of muslims worldwide consider homesexuality as immoral behavior
Doing an apples to apples comparison of Islamic and Christian beliefs about Homosexuality isn't exactly fair.
Again, I see Glenn's point above regarding the pushing of an anti-LGTBQ+ narrative on this particular attack is not apt - and certainly seems more likely to be blamed on this person's belief in the wrongness of U.S. air strikes.
But there is no moral equivalency between Islamic countries that have these types of homophobic policies and then what... saying Christians are bad because they don't support gay marriage?
Again, not disagreeing with Glenn on the big points here, but hope to increase the amount of information available for accurate reporting.
Anecdotal but my experience has been the exact opposite (I am an immigrant from a major Muslim country). I actually don’t think this religious extremism has to do with religion only. I think it has to do with the government (and they using religion as a way to create extremists for their own purposes). Combined with Middle East wars too.
Indonesia for example has the largest Muslim population in the world but you don’t hear them having this problem.
We don't disagree, I'm sure what you say is true. No doubt all governments use everything and anything to manipulate people's perspective on issues. Don't you think that it was an easy sell to lie us into all our Middle Eastern wars, because, well, they're Muslims, not Christians. not Jews. If they were then you would have seen a lot of backlash from the American people, or groups.
The movie and book ‘Kite Runner’ gives one a good look into Taliban and Muslim culture, including sexuality. It is written by a native of Afghanistan. FYI
Yeah, it’s been emotionally painful for those Christian and Jewish homos whose families have shunned and shamed them based on religious beliefs in America.
It should be mentioned that quorum sets evangelicals as a subset of US Christians at 36%. Not fair to consider that representative of US Christians.
Being a homo is deadly in most of the Muslim world, of which US Muslims are not representative.
Stop advancing stupidity. Persecuted homos need you to pull your head out of your ass and advocate for them honestly.
Some Christian and Jews have shunning and shaming stories against them. Damaging, without a doubt.
Muslim homos talk of honour killings with nutjob relatives that track them through foreign countries and never allow them to “leave” the judgements of their birth tribe behind.
This is beyond disappointing that western homos have “Russell Brand”ed their way to inaction and insane cultural relativism that abandons the persecuted to their fate.
US Muslims would presumably include the NOI Which is described as a religious and political movement loosely advancing Islam with significant variations. Not representative of World’s Muslims.
Of course, the NOI has never wielded political power in the US. Which is the tipping point of persecution.
That is interesting data. Although I suppose in the context of hate crimes the attitude of the average person isn't as important as the relatively small proportion of psychos who are both hateful and willing to take violent action based on that attitude.
For example, a hypothetical subpopulation might be overwhelmingly nice people, but 3% of them might be hard core psychos, compared to just .3% for the general population. In this scenario, it would be very difficult to talk about the problems of the subgroup without being accused (somewhat legitimately) of engaging in "overgeneralization" and "stereotyping."
One of my favorite parts of this site is how I can violently disagree with some posters on some subjects and yet be able to celebrate some of their other posts with a mixture of happiness that there are still critical thinkers out there.
Its far past time religion evolved and society as a whole set aside hate for anyone based on anything other than direct negative action. Identity based hate must go away for our society to move to the next level.
I unfortunately disagree with how the government in the US is attempting to make that happen, but I do celebrate that we appear to for once be moving towards promoting love instead of hate, at least in some areas.
None of the statistics excuse us from looking at individuals and judging them according to THEIR OWN choices and actions. If statistics say that 50% of X is blah blah blah, that meand that 50% of X are NOT blah blah blah. If statistics say 90%, then there are 1 in 10 who do not fit (assuming we even accept the statistics on face value) and would be wrongly persecuted under that standard. There are also various shades across, say "I am uncomfortable with something", "I think.something is wrong," "I am motivated to beat someone up for this", and e.g. "this makes me mad enough to cross the world and blow up a building full of civilians, killing myself in the process".
The first two are not crimes, the last two are. The latter response is also exceedingly rare across practically any issue. So rare that categorically rounding up either US Muslims or US Christians as a proxy for capturing terrorists would yield roughly the same success rate-- about indistinguishable from zero. In any case, the same thoughts must be applied to Muslims, Christians (various flavors), transexuals, communists, and traveling vacuum salespersons. People ought generally be judged by their own conduct.
I love this line "Just because a homophobe is not considering killing a gay person doesn't make their homophobia acceptable."
There are levels to how we on our own individual basis choose to fight for what we believe in just like there are levels to which someone can be tolerant.
Even the most tolerant among us has progress that can be made.
"Just because a homophobe is not considering killing a gay person doesn't make their homophobia acceptable."
It certainly is in no way a crime. But why "not acceptable"? And what does it mean for it to not be "acceptable" to you? There are various shades across, say "I am uncomfortable with a homophobe", "I think homophobia is wrong," "I am motivated to beat someone up for being homophobic", and e.g. "this makes me mad enough to cross the world and blow up a building full of civilians, killing myself in the process". Not everyone in the world is ever going to agree with everyone else. What matters, often enough, is figuring out how to live with each other.
To throw that right back at you: just because you haven't considered killing a homophobe doesn't make your intolerance of others' beliefs acceptable. Is that what we want, or ought we wait until you do actually plan or commit a crime before judging?
I had a brother who was gay in the 20th century, died of AIDS in that century too. Let me tell you things have changed for the better in a significant way. Someone said Muslims are very homophobic and so Glen named groups who were worse on that score. Yes, things have to get better, but that's true on many levels. Unfortunately you can't wave a wand, dictate a sentiment, and make it happen.
In the past five years no one, no one has proven that Mateen was motivated by homophobic hate in the killings at Pulse. No one Amy, yet dems use it as a political opportunity to push that lie in order to show their love of gays, and to use the dead in this opportunistic way is disgusting. I am not negating that homophobia is reality among many, and that certain religious groups may be very anti-gay in their religious teachings, but that is not the point of this article.
I don't think I am. Someone said Muslims are very homophobic, suggesting Mateen, because he was Muslim, may have been more motivated to target gays, and Glen's response was that other religious groups are even more homophobic, just being informative about other religious groups when it comes to gays. Mateen was someone who was a violent child, at home and in school, and brutal to his first wife, and I'm sure that was true in his second marriage as well. He was mentally ill, and I don't believe he went out of his way to target gays, anyone would do in order to vent his rage and no doubt in his sick mind he was retaliating for the the carnage we have committed in the Middle East. It would be nice if the world were perfect, but it's not and it never will be. It is disturbing to see politicians define this tragedy as an anti-gay assault and use it to show their support for the gay community rather then a tragedy inflicted by someone who was mentally ill and violent.
I didn't assume Mateen isn't homophobic. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in this article: "It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive."
And I quoted Melissa Jeltsen as saying this:
"Mateen may very well have been homophobic. He supported ISIS, after all, and his father, an FBI informant currently under criminal investigation, told NBC that his son once got angry after seeing two men kissing. But whatever his personal feelings, the overwhelming evidence suggests his attack was not motivated by it."
Isn't the point that the real reason is ignored by a marginal reason that time has gone by has proved false is being used politically for gain, Yes, there are terrible ideas and nothing excuses the insanity of violence and murder he committed. I do not think anything in the article justified Muslins hatred of gays, or LGBT but doesn't truth matter more than some illiberal illusion and drumbeat for the sake of a drumbeat.
Glenn made it clear that journalism must be based on facts. You are insisting on could've, should've reasoning. You don't know if he hated gays or not but you for sure know that Omar hated American bombing in Syria and he made it well known. Why would you insist on inventing a reason that investigators found no evidence for instead of focusing on what the actual evidence has shown us?
That's not the point Amy. If there is no substantiating evidence to accuse Mateen of being homophobic, then you can't claim or assume that he is, or claim it's the reason he targeted that nightclub. However the politicians by doing so gain perks. First off they discredit his anger toward our middle eastern wars, and it provides them the opportunity to express their pro-gay rights position. Democrats love to do that, tell you how pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-immigrant, pro this and that, so you are fooled into thinking they really care which makes you forget who they really care about, and the people they care about are those that fund their campaigns.
Amy, I think what Mr. Greenwald said in terms of US Muslim's attitudes towards gays was that they were less prejudicial towards them then groups like Mormons, evangelical Christians, etc and that I think was in response to people saying that Muslims are anti-gay, making it more likely that Marteen purposely targeted gays. Marteen's former wife said he was extremely abusive to her and it makes it much more likely he was mentally ill, and it made no difference who his targets of rage would be. He was born in America, but his ancestral roots are in Afghanistan, and perhaps that played a significant role as well. Greenwald said, "On the fifth anniversary of the PULSE nightclub massacre in Orlando, numerous senators, politicians and activist groups commemorated that tragic event by propagating an absolute falsehood: namely, that the shooter, Omar Mateen, was motivated by anti-LGBT animus." I think what Greenwald is saying is there is no evidence to state he did it because he was anti-gay as the politicians claimed, and I think they made that claim using it as a political opportunity in their support for the gay community at a time they were bashing Trump on his prejudicial stance on just about everything, and no doubt detract from any issues of war in the middle east. If you remember Trump was bashing our wars there. It's one of the big reasons a lot of people voted for him.
If anything is clear. It is that political polls can not be trusted unless you can see the questions asked, the size of those questions, and available answers. Some are multiple choices with the common answer not on the lists. I was happy when the poll came out that agreed with my preconceived idea, but I am long past that now, and now know that are no bounds on how far media will go to set the narrative. So now I am not so sure.
He didn't say he wasn't homophobic. He said that the FACTS about the shooters MOTIVES do not support the narrative that it was a LGBTQ hate crime. And, ignoring
those facts and continuing to propogate the LGBTQ narrative was dishonest BASED ON THE FACTS.
I think many who associate with "the right" have also been influenced to assume the extremists like the Taliban or Sharia represent the entirety of Islam. That is also a false narrative.
The same extremists exist within every religion on earth. The NOI has their black supremacists, the Christians have their anti-abortion killers, the list goes on and on. Fortunately, in America, we have not allowed the extremists to gain as much traction as they have in other places like they have in Iran.
As much as I stand against almost everything Iran represents, it is hard to ignore the reasons for their hatred for the US and many Western countries. For hundreds of years the greater powers of the world used these middle eastern countries and their oil with 0 responsibility, 0 real payments, and almost 0 repercussions. I don't AGREE or CONDONE the hatred many in the middle east hold in their hearts but I DO UNDERSTAND.
You have nailed the groups that are the extremists within Islam, but please remember despite all of that hatred, intolerance, and bigotry, there are good people who are true believers who are not represented by these extremists.
While you are right about that, it’s also hard to ignore that criticism of Islam is treated as much different than criticism of say Christianity in the western world. Obama refused to call actual radical Islam terrorist attacks what they really were. The San Bernardino terrorist attack was a perfect example.
I don’t have a horse in his race as I am neither Christian nor Muslim nor religious. But it’s hard for me to not see how it’s become cool to criticize one while not the other. But it’s also ironic that the criticizes of Christianity and saviours of Islam from Obama to the mainstream media also all supported Middle East wars. Which to me indicates the real political hypocrisy. Many of My Middle East friends were big fan of trump because he tried not to start new wars there which was interesting.
Can’t ignore though that Sharia is much popular as compared to Christian extremists. Look at the “Sharia as the Official Law of the Land” stats here. Depending upon the country, vast majority favor sharia law:
And yet, interestingly, the only one of those countries never actually be a colony of any western country - Iran - is the one with the most extremist government. I'm not sure how much the rise of political Islam has to do with 17th and 18th century western imperialism.
I suggest reading about the period between 1900 and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran to educate yourself, you will see immediately how they are related.
Not hard to think of other religions besides Islam that originally opposed women's rights and LGBT rights. The LGBT rights movement was secular in its origin and although certain religious people have adopted it, none of the Abrahamic religions were LGBT-friendly at the beginning. The traditional approach to patriarchy in Christianity and Judaism was, at best, "complementarian" and not egalitarian, although you can find people in history like Wollstonecraft who supported women's rights on religious grounds.
I agree but why are you whitewashing the sordid history of the other religions with this speech?
I dont recall the Christians empowering females (or even the men until we figured out how to read and oh shit suddenly think for ourselves) and I don't ever recall the false popes in the Roman Catholic church not slaughtering their enemies either.
True believers of any religion are in no way shape or form the same as those who would use religion to raise themselves above others.
This is why religion has no place in government and why Trump saying stupid shit like "we are saying Christmas again" is a terrible precedent.
No you are missing the point. Christians in western world have mostly become liberal now. As Ben Shapiro said (not a fan of his but he’s correct here) that most Christian’s haven’t cared about things like gay marriage for over 20 years. Women have more rights and freedoms in western world than anywhere else now. There are more women than men in universities now in western world.
The same is not true about Islam mostly because any criticism is not allowed and gets called Islamaphobic. Religion can only evolve if it’s criticized and the flaws be corrected. That’s hard to do with Islam when there are all these “saviours” who don’t allow any criticism. This is why Sharia is heavily favoured:
I understand you may have decent reasons from your own experience for being critical about Islam as a religion. That doesn't mean Greenwald has to be.
There have been researchers who publish statistics such as "A lower percentage of black people go to college", and this research has been hastily grabbed onto as if it shows some inherent flaw in black people. I am sympathetic to the researchers and the journalists who aren't all that eager to make a big deal about statistics like that, if publishing the statistics in the wrong context is likely to do little besides fueling prejudice. Similarly, you can play up statistics about the views of Muslims in traditionally-minded countries, in a way that's not going to do much besides stoking prejudice against Islam -- but researchers and journalists are right not to play up those statistics in this misleading way. Prejudice has its own emotional logic, and prejudice will try to use these facts to conclude that Islam is somehow more inherently flawed than, say, Christianity. Researchers and journalists should be truthful in what they say, but they shouldn't play up statistics in ways that are likely to be used to fuel prejudice.
One reason I like the statistics that Greenwald cited about US Muslims is that this group of facts makes it harder to feel prejudice against Muslims. When you want him to play up statistics that point in the opposite direction, isn't it going to make people feel better about disliking Islam? And won't that lead to prejudice and illogical conclusions? I'm not saying that your points aren't factual, just that many of the reasons that will lead various people to popularize them aren't good motives. And again, I see that you yourself may have good reasons in your life to be critical of Islam, which you're welcome to publicize as widely as you like since it's your experience.
You are missing Amy’s point. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world but they are very different from some other country like Somalia. Amy’s point is spot on and it matches with my anecdotal experience too as I am from a large Muslim country (I am not religious). My country is secular and therefore doesn’t have the major fundamentalist problem.
Within Muslims itself, they fight each other. Sunnis vs Shias. Pakistan not giving a shit about the Uighur Muslims in China is another example.
The government of the country plays a big role in how and what their people react. Not criticizing them is doing a disservice to the many good people in other countries which stay peaceful.
So what you're saying is that you approve of the political activists who pretend to be journalists manipulating statistics to support a narrative rather than depicting reality?
What about crime statistics that show black men commit violent crime at rates far above non black men? Do you approve of the way pretend journalists refuse to report on those? The results? Police target black men, which is of course a total lie that's causing the rioting on the streets and destruction of the US free society by mob rule
All because the media is painting a totally false picture of US reality.
He ignores the evidence regarding Muslims when it suits his narrative. He also doesn't have show any evidence of the murderer's sexual history or actual thoughts and emotions at the time of his decisions.
That strain of narrative requires believing (1) in collective guilt, (2) that an individual's motives are largely unconscious and not within their control and (3) that mind reading by others who believe in collective guilt reveals truth. In this regard, the "he was a Muslim terrorist" is no different from the "he hated LGBTQs" speculation.
BTW, Glenn's argument is that he is a Muslim terrorist who killed innocent civilians because he was angry about US bombing in Syria. Did you read the article?
LOL. I'm simply pointing out that this take isn't the whole story, and was written to serve all of Glenn's favorite narratives. More investigation would be required to support it fully.
We are no longer in an eral of psychological interpretation. We are in a time of sociopathic thinking from our enemies. It is cultural. It is the machine of the system.
Pew. Polls. Self reported. Js. Even reported in The Guardian that over 50% of British Muslims wanted homosexuality criminalized and that 25% want Sharia. (Some years ago).
If it were Mike Huckabee’s evangelicals the Twitter warriors would be all over it. There would be no talk about using false evidence to evaluate them as a threat and a risk to homos.
But while Mike Huckabee’s evangelicals are similarly united in their beliefs about homos derived from their religious affiliation as the Muslims are, they will reliably legislate against us but won’t lynch us. No one fears them decapitating their critics on the street.
We come out with rhetorical guns blazing when a baker won’t bake a cake but go ahead you super evolved religion of peacers, YOUR homos are probably perverts and deserve to die.
Oh! And don’t forget, according to Sarsour the rest of you get zero percent interest on your charge card. Scawy Sharia. Let’s put it on Sesame Street and ‘splain it all to Big Bird.
Sure it’s polite not to insult others religious beliefs, but we have no such hang ups about criticizing all other religions.
Let’s not pretend a threat doesn’t exist. A teacher was beheaded for teaching about Charlie Hebdo. What 6 months ago? Don’t imagine the line of brave souls wanting to borrow his curriculum is wrapped around Notre Dam and down the Siene.
We aren’t talking about being polite. We are talking about ignoring that homosexuality is actively criminalized by: please peruse
You are now caught in the trap of "interpretation" that endless game of ping-pong lying inside the Binary Dominating Discourse that will divert you, distract you, and keep you occupied in pros and cons forever and ever and ever. The STATE wishes us to be there and stay there in our thinking. They have us where they want us. THE CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. BTW they are grooming AOC to replace Bernie now that he is old and tired.
This is a complete and utter falsehood. Evidence of sexual history was presented as were quotes on social media as he decided to commit the acts, as well as his descriptions of his reasons verbally to his captives and to police.
Yes but that matters not. When you oppose the opposition tyou just make it streonger. That is what FDR did with capitalism and his New Deal. He did not betray his class as accused, he strengthened cajpitalism by setting up federal agencies to oppose it. And then his strategy of Pearl Harbor got s into war and out of the depression. I am not faulting him for this, just reporting it. If you understandhis Electricity for the country program and think genalogically you will see very early capitalism supported by the federal govt thru taxes by building damns, buying out farming land to put young men and families into mass work projects doing this electrification program. Damning up our waterways, driving our fish to extinction and wreaking ecology ruination, all consequences he and no one else saw as they would be in the future and therefore INVISIBLE. Thinking as Foucault as taught us we can reread history in a different way as genealogically opens the light to shine on consequences. No wonder Foucault is poorly taught or not at all in American Universities as FOUCAULT IS DANGEROUS!
Well, this really created a rabbit hole. I'll add my shovel to it. This is like accusing someone of pre-crime. Whether he was or was not homophobic has nothing to do with this blindly picking Pulse Nightclub out of a Google search. He wanted Disney. He wanted a mall. Both had actual security. The nightclub was a random next target. He could have had thoughts about screwing Prince Harry for all I care. The reality is that he wanted to kill Americans as a Muslim for Islam. That is all. The rest is you people trying to fit this actual event into your narrative. Drop your narratives and look around you at reality. For once.
You almost got my up-vote; presuming it was for "Islam" is virtually certainly wrong; the forever wars violate international law, are immoral, even evil, and must end. They do not serve the USA's interests whatsoever, and in fact HARM the USA's position in the world on many fronts. ...The evidence is that this guy acted out of a deep desire to end the forever wars, and so far as I am aware there's none for any other motive. Do you have some that says it was for Islam?
YES. We need toawaken him to up his game and his own narrative instead of disproving theirs. That forces him to continue tocement himself in the Binary of their Narrative. It keeps him in the Dominating Discourse which is exactly where the opposition wants him to be. And tostay there.
That's a bit like arguing that if I confess to murdering a man for sleeping with my wife, but I also listen to opera and opera lovers statistically don't like rockers, I secretly murdered him for playing electric guitar.
Not an argument that he did or he didn't. Just that no one knows. Glenn is all on board with the DNC in ignoring massive amounts of evidence that a large plurality of and if you look worldwide a majority of Muslims hate and are willing to discriminate severely against gay people.
Dude calling Glenn a DNC sympathizer is plain idiotic.
One can be critical of few religious fanatics while also look at the deeper point which Glenn is trying to make in this article. This doesn’t even have to be about lgbt or Islam. This can apply to everything- we need to stop creating fake narratives for political purposes because that hurts the actual victims more.
I said he was on board with the DNC position of ignoring mountains of evidence regarding Muslim non-integration and violence toward western values and person. That doesn't mean he's a DNC sympathizer. Deliberate smears aren't an argument.
Both can be true. Muslim's don't like gay people, and Mateen killed them because he was upset with the killing of innocent people in these countries, of which many were Muslim's.
Muslims more prone to kill others. Wait a minute. You must be kidding. What country invaded Iraq under the fiction that they had weapons of mass destruction? How many deaths were caused by these invasions? And the invasions of Afganistan, and Libya. And what country supports without reservations the Israeli apartheid state and the recurring massacres of Palestinians Oh, and then there are drones that kill innocent civilians as collateral damage. In fact, those drones even are used to kill American citizens. Then again there is this place called Guantanamo.
It's really hard to prove a negative, and Glenn did say that it is possible that the guy could have harbored some deep resentment towards gay people. BTW, your use of the term "fags" gives away your ugly motives. Not cool. BTW, Glenn is anything but an enabler of the DNC and progressives.
They've bought in to the pervasive propaganda that seeks to crush progressivism. One way to accomplish that is to confuse people about what Progressivism even is, and better yet if you can tie it to something vile, like the DNC. ...Of course, this version of the propaganda is targeted at right-wingers - there's a somewhat different version that goes out to liberals / neo-liberals.
So a majority of Muslims are against gay legal rights. What are the numbers for Christians and Jews? I doubt it is all that different and probably even higher among the conservative and Orthodox groups.
Maybe but Christian and Jewish majority societies choose political structures that protect individual rights and allow redress for grievances.
In point of fact, which for some inexplicable reason so called liberals have trouble acknowledging, Christian and Jewish majority societies are the only ones with diversity issues because they are the only ones that allow for diverse populations with the goal of equal rights under the law.
Similarly, for some inexplicable reason so called liberals have trouble acknowledging that Christian and Jewish majority societies are the most tolerant and inclusive societies that we currently have to choose from.
Evidently these truths are problematic for theorists seeking to wedge their way into power centers of said societies with the help of oppressor\oppressed narratives.
Take it from a homo with no such aspirations such as myself that citizen Q on the ground knows that the theorists are full of shit. There is no comparison to cake baking battles and the formal state sponsored persecution and the informal tribal honor based persecution which the worlds Citizen Muslim Q lives with, or frequently dies w
Keeping the time honored tradition where the only deaths that matter are those where loss of life can be redeemed for political advantage.
We are entering an age where the "story" is more important than the truth since the progressive point of view is that there is no truth, just stories.
Ain’t that the truth. A local station’s news motto is “The stories that unite us”. They are not shy at all about pushing the official narrative of the elite.
Truth has to sit in the back of the bus in the media today.
That’s on a good day. Usually it’s just thrown to the side of the road and left to die.
I think it's being thrown in front of the bus to make sure it's dead.
You’re probably right.
A similar dynamic happened last year with the Atlanta "massage parlor massacre." There was literally zero evidence for it being an anti-Asian crime (the killer made it quite clear it was all about his repressed sexuality, and religious-based guilt over having visited prostitutes). But intersectional zeal is unstoppable, and call-out culture warriors fell all over themselves trying to grab virtue tokens by claiming an anti-Asian narrative.
One strand of that effort that struck me as particularly bizarre was an implication by some activists that white people assume all Asian women are by default sex workers. The anti-Asian narrative also pretty much ignored as statistical noise the fact that 25% of the victims were actually white.
That horrific killing was not reported to have lead to any soul-searching on the part of evangelical churches and ministers, to consider their teachings, to tend their flock. But it was indeed seized upon by idpol activists to advance their personal and political agendas.
I don’t think Christian churches preach to kill massage workers. He was also an American. Should we therefore start questioning the constitution and wringing our hands over our American-ness.?
Yeah two of the women killed were white but it fits the racist America fable if they immediately assume it was about Asian hate instead of mental illness and sex addiction.
Precisely!
People have been murdering prostitutes for, like, ever. It's the base of the stranger-murder pyramid.
Not only does the media and politicians jump on a narrative which fits their agenda, public buildings must lower their flags to half mast to "honor" these victims. Just recently, the Atlanta and the San Jose victims. All these killings are tragic, but do we, as a nation, have to honor those who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
The idea that the Atlanta spa killing was *not* anti-Asian is one I considered at first. Still, you're wrong in saying that there's "literally zero evidence for it being an anti-Asian crime". Chosun Ilbo reported that a witness told them the killer said he was going to "kill all the Asians". That's just one report, but Chosun Ilbo is in some ways the most respected newspaper in South Korea, and it's possible that an Asian witness who heard that might feel more comfortable saying it to a Korean reporter than to anyone else. Overall, the jury's still out, but the evidence for anti-Asian sentiment being (part of) the motive is stronger than you acknowledge.
I remember reading that account at the time, and following up on it but finding no other mention. So it did feel a bit like hearsay. And note that if you go to Chosun Ilbo's *own web site* and locate their coverage of the event, you will find no mention of that alleged slur.
Furthermore, the conjecture that an Asian witness would be more likely to open up to a Korean reporter, while plausible, is still conjecture. The point of Glenn's article is to follow the evidence. And I still don't see any to support your point.
Still, I'm willing to amend my original, perhaps hyperbolic, Greenwald-esque statement to read "there was precious little evidence for it being an anti-Asian hate crime."
I checked a little more. Apparently the initial report that the killer mentioned killing Asians did *not* at first come from Chosun Ilbo, but rather from Korean-language news media in the Atlanta area. Three sources in English:
https://www.cjr.org/local_news/atlanta-shooting-local-korean-news.php
http://asianmediafrontlines.journalism.cuny.edu/
https://bowdoinreview.com/2021/04/13/whose-story-the-tilted-reporting-of-the-atlanta-shooting/
(the last source mentions that more info could be found at the time on "Asian American Twitter", which conceivably might include English translations of the Korean-language media reports)
I have to say that the case for anti-Asian animus as (part of) the motive is looking better than I initially thought, though I'm not saying it's conclusive.
Perhaps local Korean-language media got this part of the story right while mainstream English-language media got it wrong, at least initially. That is starting to look plausible, though I can't be sure. Some of us who are used to following the English-language media got surprised and suspicious when we saw interpretations in terms of anti-Asian bias that diverged from what the English-language media had been saying, but since the local Korean-language media was almost never given credit for their reporting, we didn't know enough. And maybe we should have left more room for the possibility that the mainstream English-language media was getting the story wrong.
I appreciate it. Sometimes old stories are hard to find or absent from a website, particularly in foreign-language news, but I haven't ever looked for the original Chosun Ilbo report myself.
*led dammit
Uh, so should evangelical churches and ministers start teaching that paid sex is morally OK?
Thanks for your work Glenn! One of the few remaining journalists out there speaking truth to power on both sides of the aisle.
The counter-factual mythology of the Pulse Nightclub shooting pales in comparison to the Matthew Shepherd Myth. To this day, he is sanctified as the quintessential gay hate crime martyr who was supposedly murdered by homophobic rednecks just for being gay. In fact, it's well documented that he was dealing meth and was killed by a man he had sex with who was trying to steal his drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard
In short, he was merely a victim of the same sordid criminal drug dealing lifestyle that gets thousands killed every year. Yet everyone has sort of collectively agreed to ignore the facts and keep pretending the gay hate-crime narrative is real. After the true facts were known, they still named anti-hate crime legislation after Shepherd and they buried him in the National Cathedral like some secular saint. Most bizarre of all, Wikipedia says: "In June 2019, Shepard was one of the inaugural fifty American 'pioneers, trailblazers, and heroes' inducted on the National LGBTQ Wall of Honor." Whatever.
It's very odd how little facts matter when they get in the way of a useful story.
What you ended with is the biggest problem with the modern day media., Facts are of NO consequence when a false narrative needs to be fed to the populace. Many, many individuals are catching on to this practice and the propaganda machine known as the corporate[orate media may not be long for this world.
Except of course governments will survive and they are the biggest and most pernicious purveyors of lies and false narratives. Most often the worst lies are those told by the media at the behest of gov't to start and justify wars where our children are slaughtered. The Spanish American conflict was engineered by the gov't and the press with their false story about the Maine battleship being blown up. Morons screaming "Remember the Maine" led the charge into a very unjust war. The Gulf of Tonkin hyped attack was probably false but it got LBJ exactly what he wanted. Then their was the Bush WMD's lie needed to attack Iraq. Pearl Harbor was a real attack but it was provoked by FDR's actions against Japan in the Pacific. He really got surprised because he only expected a small scale attack somewhere in the Pacific he could utilize to drag America into the war in Europe He got wish in spades that cost us over 2800 lives. When it comes to politicians getting what they want nothing will stand in their way even the lives of America's children. Even the passengers on the Lusitania, A passenger ship, utilized as a munitions ship, were sacrificed to create a fever for America to enter WW I. It seems to have been ever thus with the world as evidenced by Bible stories that mimic todays machinations and dangerous lies told for a "greater purpose."
A good post that I agreed with until you lost me with that last sentence. Care to elaborate?
Well the Bible is a recounting of many stories about Kings, warriors, political leaders of the time and just plain people's tales being utilized to make a bigger point about some moral idea or another. Not a real expert on The Bible but some of those stories reflect the flaws and foibles of powerful individuals and in some cases the hypocrisy of religious "leaders" of the time. Just trying to say that there is little under the sun that has not been seen before or newly "invented" immorality in our modern society. Probably got a bit obscure with that last observation sorry of I was unclear.
OK, no real issue with that except it deals not with “some moral idea or another” but Truth in all realty which is sometimes ugly. Relevant to the discussion here is the example of governments which are “thrones of iniquity” which “frame mischief by a law”. This is from the Psalms (94:20) which were sung during gatherings of worship. Churches today (thankfully, not all) don’t sing Psalms exclusively. They sing sanitized 19th century hymns or 20th century rock and roll (which is worse). They don’t want reality but escape from it.
That's insane, I never knew the back story on that one. Thanks for sharing.
I'm from Colorado and I remember the news coverage from when I was a kid. I was pissed when I found out the whole story as an adult.
Maybe so, but polls everywhere in the world show that a majority of Muslims are stridently against gay legal rights of any kind. They are also more prone than other groups, as Glenn documents here, to kill others who offend their sensibilities, even in the abstract. Is there proof that the murderer didn't thank Allah for his luck on stumbling across a club full of fags to kill? The real crime here is the protection of Islamic criminals and their enablers by the DNC and progressives in general.
"A 2015 Pew poll found that U.S. Muslims were more accepting of homosexuality than evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses:""
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/
More similar data here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/
This is a very weak, cherry-picked argument. Not only does it sample Americanized Muslims, who are not generally representative of MidEast-tied people like Mateen, and compare them to a selected minority of the many Christian subcategories (outliers!), but it also celebrates a difference that's mostly within the poll's margin of error.
Most of all, it conflates two very, VERY different attitudes. Being opposed to gay marriage may have overlap with being willing to do violence to gays, but it's hardly the work of a serious academic to suggest that the sort of people who voted no on Proposition 8 are the same as the people who execute gays in Iran.
Glenn knows as well as the rest of us that if that poll had asked whether homosexuality should be criminalized, let alone violently eradicated, he would not have found nearly the support among Christians that exists among Muslims (though they may not have admitted it for the poll).
This. 100% this.
Larry Elder for example also said he opposed the gay marriage legalization - not because he opposed gays marrying but because he wants the federal government out of the marriage and societal issues business all together. Both gay marriage and straight marriage should have nothing to do with the government all together. That’s doesn’t make him hating gays.
The poll also contradicts pew’s another poll where vast majority of Muslims support sharia law.
And then there’s this…
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
The shooter was an American Muslim, born in NY. The survey was of American Muslims, explain how you know the survey is not "representative of people like Mateen"?
Seems more likely that you are biased, not the survey, and you're just upset because the data doesn't confirm what you believe about Muslim immigrants.
When I was growing up with a gay brother in the 20th century, and who died of AIDS, no matter a person's religion he experienced bigotry and rejection from all sides, as a child, as a healthy man, as a patient. The country's response to AIDS patients was appalling, and it wasn't just my story. The story was always the same, fear and neglect. I always knew that no matter the fear within the medical community if they had not been gay, or drug users they, the medical profession, would have summoned the courage to be decent. They weren't. They put their lives on the line for people with Covid 19, but it was quite a different story with AIDS. To me the politicians who focus on the fact he singled out gays, was to divert attention away from their part in supporting our many illegal wars that killed, injured, and displaced millions of Muslims, as well as further vilifying them as homophobes.
While I agree with the premise of your article above, I was a bit curious about how this data vis a vis Christians vs. Muslims and their acceptance of Homosexuality evolved.
What's worse, is by trying to equate the opinions held, the ramifications for those opinions are VASTLY different. Plus, it's cherry picking stats. When this poll was taken, most politicians, including President Obama, had only started supporting gay marriage a few years before (which was the primary homosexual topic of the day).
Sure, if you look at simply religious views in the US, those of Evangelical Christians vs. Mormons or Muslims are not all that different. However, the actual numbers of those people involved are radically so.
In the US, Muslims are .9% of the population, Evangelicals are almost 25%. In the US, a Muslim is highly unlikely to be put into jail over their LGTBQ+ views. Of COURSE, they're going to be more accepting of Homosexual views. Evangelicals also know that to be homosexual in the US does not mean they disagree with those people and want them dead, or imprisoned, or anything else. For the most part, they consider it something of a political issue, and/or at the very least, one that is dealt with primarily in a social, non-criminal level.
(Data above was taken from here: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
Now, let's contrast that with Islamic countries.
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/here-are-the-11-countries-where-being-gay-is-punishable-by-death/
I did a quick bit of math, and just those 11 countries (which, thankfully, do not include countries like India, Pakistan and Indonesia with over 200M Muslim in each - do add up to be more than the population of the U.S.
So, be homosexual in Islamic countries with roughly the population as the U.S., and, well, expect to be sentenced to DEATH.
I could go on for the actual penalties in these countries mentioned above (wear around 700M muslims live in just three countries) but I think you get my point. I will add one little tidbit further.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/
Over 90% of muslims worldwide consider homesexuality as immoral behavior
Doing an apples to apples comparison of Islamic and Christian beliefs about Homosexuality isn't exactly fair.
Again, I see Glenn's point above regarding the pushing of an anti-LGTBQ+ narrative on this particular attack is not apt - and certainly seems more likely to be blamed on this person's belief in the wrongness of U.S. air strikes.
But there is no moral equivalency between Islamic countries that have these types of homophobic policies and then what... saying Christians are bad because they don't support gay marriage?
Again, not disagreeing with Glenn on the big points here, but hope to increase the amount of information available for accurate reporting.
Anecdotal but my experience has been the exact opposite (I am an immigrant from a major Muslim country). I actually don’t think this religious extremism has to do with religion only. I think it has to do with the government (and they using religion as a way to create extremists for their own purposes). Combined with Middle East wars too.
Indonesia for example has the largest Muslim population in the world but you don’t hear them having this problem.
We don't disagree, I'm sure what you say is true. No doubt all governments use everything and anything to manipulate people's perspective on issues. Don't you think that it was an easy sell to lie us into all our Middle Eastern wars, because, well, they're Muslims, not Christians. not Jews. If they were then you would have seen a lot of backlash from the American people, or groups.
The movie and book ‘Kite Runner’ gives one a good look into Taliban and Muslim culture, including sexuality. It is written by a native of Afghanistan. FYI
there are a lot of perspectives, it is tough to digest them all
Yeah, it’s been emotionally painful for those Christian and Jewish homos whose families have shunned and shamed them based on religious beliefs in America.
It should be mentioned that quorum sets evangelicals as a subset of US Christians at 36%. Not fair to consider that representative of US Christians.
Being a homo is deadly in most of the Muslim world, of which US Muslims are not representative.
Stop advancing stupidity. Persecuted homos need you to pull your head out of your ass and advocate for them honestly.
Some Christian and Jews have shunning and shaming stories against them. Damaging, without a doubt.
Muslim homos talk of honour killings with nutjob relatives that track them through foreign countries and never allow them to “leave” the judgements of their birth tribe behind.
This is beyond disappointing that western homos have “Russell Brand”ed their way to inaction and insane cultural relativism that abandons the persecuted to their fate.
US Muslims would presumably include the NOI Which is described as a religious and political movement loosely advancing Islam with significant variations. Not representative of World’s Muslims.
Of course, the NOI has never wielded political power in the US. Which is the tipping point of persecution.
That is interesting data. Although I suppose in the context of hate crimes the attitude of the average person isn't as important as the relatively small proportion of psychos who are both hateful and willing to take violent action based on that attitude.
For example, a hypothetical subpopulation might be overwhelmingly nice people, but 3% of them might be hard core psychos, compared to just .3% for the general population. In this scenario, it would be very difficult to talk about the problems of the subgroup without being accused (somewhat legitimately) of engaging in "overgeneralization" and "stereotyping."
Thank you for citing data.
For those that dont want to dig into the data and the actual study, the cited data uses the same pew research study in both links, I quote:
"The 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study is based on telephone interviews with more than 35,000 Americans from all 50 states."
Of particular note is how your article from 2016 touches on today's same subject:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/
One of my favorite parts of this site is how I can violently disagree with some posters on some subjects and yet be able to celebrate some of their other posts with a mixture of happiness that there are still critical thinkers out there.
Its far past time religion evolved and society as a whole set aside hate for anyone based on anything other than direct negative action. Identity based hate must go away for our society to move to the next level.
I unfortunately disagree with how the government in the US is attempting to make that happen, but I do celebrate that we appear to for once be moving towards promoting love instead of hate, at least in some areas.
None of the statistics excuse us from looking at individuals and judging them according to THEIR OWN choices and actions. If statistics say that 50% of X is blah blah blah, that meand that 50% of X are NOT blah blah blah. If statistics say 90%, then there are 1 in 10 who do not fit (assuming we even accept the statistics on face value) and would be wrongly persecuted under that standard. There are also various shades across, say "I am uncomfortable with something", "I think.something is wrong," "I am motivated to beat someone up for this", and e.g. "this makes me mad enough to cross the world and blow up a building full of civilians, killing myself in the process".
The first two are not crimes, the last two are. The latter response is also exceedingly rare across practically any issue. So rare that categorically rounding up either US Muslims or US Christians as a proxy for capturing terrorists would yield roughly the same success rate-- about indistinguishable from zero. In any case, the same thoughts must be applied to Muslims, Christians (various flavors), transexuals, communists, and traveling vacuum salespersons. People ought generally be judged by their own conduct.
Right on!!!!!!!!!!!
I love this line "Just because a homophobe is not considering killing a gay person doesn't make their homophobia acceptable."
There are levels to how we on our own individual basis choose to fight for what we believe in just like there are levels to which someone can be tolerant.
Even the most tolerant among us has progress that can be made.
"Just because a homophobe is not considering killing a gay person doesn't make their homophobia acceptable."
It certainly is in no way a crime. But why "not acceptable"? And what does it mean for it to not be "acceptable" to you? There are various shades across, say "I am uncomfortable with a homophobe", "I think homophobia is wrong," "I am motivated to beat someone up for being homophobic", and e.g. "this makes me mad enough to cross the world and blow up a building full of civilians, killing myself in the process". Not everyone in the world is ever going to agree with everyone else. What matters, often enough, is figuring out how to live with each other.
To throw that right back at you: just because you haven't considered killing a homophobe doesn't make your intolerance of others' beliefs acceptable. Is that what we want, or ought we wait until you do actually plan or commit a crime before judging?
I had a brother who was gay in the 20th century, died of AIDS in that century too. Let me tell you things have changed for the better in a significant way. Someone said Muslims are very homophobic and so Glen named groups who were worse on that score. Yes, things have to get better, but that's true on many levels. Unfortunately you can't wave a wand, dictate a sentiment, and make it happen.
In the past five years no one, no one has proven that Mateen was motivated by homophobic hate in the killings at Pulse. No one Amy, yet dems use it as a political opportunity to push that lie in order to show their love of gays, and to use the dead in this opportunistic way is disgusting. I am not negating that homophobia is reality among many, and that certain religious groups may be very anti-gay in their religious teachings, but that is not the point of this article.
I don't think I am. Someone said Muslims are very homophobic, suggesting Mateen, because he was Muslim, may have been more motivated to target gays, and Glen's response was that other religious groups are even more homophobic, just being informative about other religious groups when it comes to gays. Mateen was someone who was a violent child, at home and in school, and brutal to his first wife, and I'm sure that was true in his second marriage as well. He was mentally ill, and I don't believe he went out of his way to target gays, anyone would do in order to vent his rage and no doubt in his sick mind he was retaliating for the the carnage we have committed in the Middle East. It would be nice if the world were perfect, but it's not and it never will be. It is disturbing to see politicians define this tragedy as an anti-gay assault and use it to show their support for the gay community rather then a tragedy inflicted by someone who was mentally ill and violent.
I didn't assume Mateen isn't homophobic. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in this article: "It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive."
And I quoted Melissa Jeltsen as saying this:
"Mateen may very well have been homophobic. He supported ISIS, after all, and his father, an FBI informant currently under criminal investigation, told NBC that his son once got angry after seeing two men kissing. But whatever his personal feelings, the overwhelming evidence suggests his attack was not motivated by it."
Isn't the point that the real reason is ignored by a marginal reason that time has gone by has proved false is being used politically for gain, Yes, there are terrible ideas and nothing excuses the insanity of violence and murder he committed. I do not think anything in the article justified Muslins hatred of gays, or LGBT but doesn't truth matter more than some illiberal illusion and drumbeat for the sake of a drumbeat.
Glenn made it clear that journalism must be based on facts. You are insisting on could've, should've reasoning. You don't know if he hated gays or not but you for sure know that Omar hated American bombing in Syria and he made it well known. Why would you insist on inventing a reason that investigators found no evidence for instead of focusing on what the actual evidence has shown us?
That's not the point Amy. If there is no substantiating evidence to accuse Mateen of being homophobic, then you can't claim or assume that he is, or claim it's the reason he targeted that nightclub. However the politicians by doing so gain perks. First off they discredit his anger toward our middle eastern wars, and it provides them the opportunity to express their pro-gay rights position. Democrats love to do that, tell you how pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-immigrant, pro this and that, so you are fooled into thinking they really care which makes you forget who they really care about, and the people they care about are those that fund their campaigns.
Yup.
Amy, I think what Mr. Greenwald said in terms of US Muslim's attitudes towards gays was that they were less prejudicial towards them then groups like Mormons, evangelical Christians, etc and that I think was in response to people saying that Muslims are anti-gay, making it more likely that Marteen purposely targeted gays. Marteen's former wife said he was extremely abusive to her and it makes it much more likely he was mentally ill, and it made no difference who his targets of rage would be. He was born in America, but his ancestral roots are in Afghanistan, and perhaps that played a significant role as well. Greenwald said, "On the fifth anniversary of the PULSE nightclub massacre in Orlando, numerous senators, politicians and activist groups commemorated that tragic event by propagating an absolute falsehood: namely, that the shooter, Omar Mateen, was motivated by anti-LGBT animus." I think what Greenwald is saying is there is no evidence to state he did it because he was anti-gay as the politicians claimed, and I think they made that claim using it as a political opportunity in their support for the gay community at a time they were bashing Trump on his prejudicial stance on just about everything, and no doubt detract from any issues of war in the middle east. If you remember Trump was bashing our wars there. It's one of the big reasons a lot of people voted for him.
If anything is clear. It is that political polls can not be trusted unless you can see the questions asked, the size of those questions, and available answers. Some are multiple choices with the common answer not on the lists. I was happy when the poll came out that agreed with my preconceived idea, but I am long past that now, and now know that are no bounds on how far media will go to set the narrative. So now I am not so sure.
He didn't say he wasn't homophobic. He said that the FACTS about the shooters MOTIVES do not support the narrative that it was a LGBTQ hate crime. And, ignoring
those facts and continuing to propogate the LGBTQ narrative was dishonest BASED ON THE FACTS.
I think many who associate with "the right" have also been influenced to assume the extremists like the Taliban or Sharia represent the entirety of Islam. That is also a false narrative.
The same extremists exist within every religion on earth. The NOI has their black supremacists, the Christians have their anti-abortion killers, the list goes on and on. Fortunately, in America, we have not allowed the extremists to gain as much traction as they have in other places like they have in Iran.
As much as I stand against almost everything Iran represents, it is hard to ignore the reasons for their hatred for the US and many Western countries. For hundreds of years the greater powers of the world used these middle eastern countries and their oil with 0 responsibility, 0 real payments, and almost 0 repercussions. I don't AGREE or CONDONE the hatred many in the middle east hold in their hearts but I DO UNDERSTAND.
You have nailed the groups that are the extremists within Islam, but please remember despite all of that hatred, intolerance, and bigotry, there are good people who are true believers who are not represented by these extremists.
While you are right about that, it’s also hard to ignore that criticism of Islam is treated as much different than criticism of say Christianity in the western world. Obama refused to call actual radical Islam terrorist attacks what they really were. The San Bernardino terrorist attack was a perfect example.
I don’t have a horse in his race as I am neither Christian nor Muslim nor religious. But it’s hard for me to not see how it’s become cool to criticize one while not the other. But it’s also ironic that the criticizes of Christianity and saviours of Islam from Obama to the mainstream media also all supported Middle East wars. Which to me indicates the real political hypocrisy. Many of My Middle East friends were big fan of trump because he tried not to start new wars there which was interesting.
Can’t ignore though that Sharia is much popular as compared to Christian extremists. Look at the “Sharia as the Official Law of the Land” stats here. Depending upon the country, vast majority favor sharia law:
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
This is currently because the US media has been co-opted by Muslims.
For example, Glenns former boss was Parviz Morad Omidyar a former Iranian.
*Middle East Muslim friends
How long has it been since an abortion doctor has been murdered in the US? I'm thinking it was back in the 20th century, but I could be wrong,
George Tiller 2009 is a recent one.
And yet, interestingly, the only one of those countries never actually be a colony of any western country - Iran - is the one with the most extremist government. I'm not sure how much the rise of political Islam has to do with 17th and 18th century western imperialism.
I suggest reading about the period between 1900 and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran to educate yourself, you will see immediately how they are related.
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
We don’t have time to care. France. 2021. Talk of civil war.
Not hard to think of other religions besides Islam that originally opposed women's rights and LGBT rights. The LGBT rights movement was secular in its origin and although certain religious people have adopted it, none of the Abrahamic religions were LGBT-friendly at the beginning. The traditional approach to patriarchy in Christianity and Judaism was, at best, "complementarian" and not egalitarian, although you can find people in history like Wollstonecraft who supported women's rights on religious grounds.
I agree but why are you whitewashing the sordid history of the other religions with this speech?
I dont recall the Christians empowering females (or even the men until we figured out how to read and oh shit suddenly think for ourselves) and I don't ever recall the false popes in the Roman Catholic church not slaughtering their enemies either.
True believers of any religion are in no way shape or form the same as those who would use religion to raise themselves above others.
This is why religion has no place in government and why Trump saying stupid shit like "we are saying Christmas again" is a terrible precedent.
No you are missing the point. Christians in western world have mostly become liberal now. As Ben Shapiro said (not a fan of his but he’s correct here) that most Christian’s haven’t cared about things like gay marriage for over 20 years. Women have more rights and freedoms in western world than anywhere else now. There are more women than men in universities now in western world.
The same is not true about Islam mostly because any criticism is not allowed and gets called Islamaphobic. Religion can only evolve if it’s criticized and the flaws be corrected. That’s hard to do with Islam when there are all these “saviours” who don’t allow any criticism. This is why Sharia is heavily favoured:
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Netflix can make jesus gay. Do you think you can draw a cartoon of the other religion and stay alive in Pakistan?
Dude. Trump?
I understand you may have decent reasons from your own experience for being critical about Islam as a religion. That doesn't mean Greenwald has to be.
There have been researchers who publish statistics such as "A lower percentage of black people go to college", and this research has been hastily grabbed onto as if it shows some inherent flaw in black people. I am sympathetic to the researchers and the journalists who aren't all that eager to make a big deal about statistics like that, if publishing the statistics in the wrong context is likely to do little besides fueling prejudice. Similarly, you can play up statistics about the views of Muslims in traditionally-minded countries, in a way that's not going to do much besides stoking prejudice against Islam -- but researchers and journalists are right not to play up those statistics in this misleading way. Prejudice has its own emotional logic, and prejudice will try to use these facts to conclude that Islam is somehow more inherently flawed than, say, Christianity. Researchers and journalists should be truthful in what they say, but they shouldn't play up statistics in ways that are likely to be used to fuel prejudice.
One reason I like the statistics that Greenwald cited about US Muslims is that this group of facts makes it harder to feel prejudice against Muslims. When you want him to play up statistics that point in the opposite direction, isn't it going to make people feel better about disliking Islam? And won't that lead to prejudice and illogical conclusions? I'm not saying that your points aren't factual, just that many of the reasons that will lead various people to popularize them aren't good motives. And again, I see that you yourself may have good reasons in your life to be critical of Islam, which you're welcome to publicize as widely as you like since it's your experience.
You are missing Amy’s point. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world but they are very different from some other country like Somalia. Amy’s point is spot on and it matches with my anecdotal experience too as I am from a large Muslim country (I am not religious). My country is secular and therefore doesn’t have the major fundamentalist problem.
Within Muslims itself, they fight each other. Sunnis vs Shias. Pakistan not giving a shit about the Uighur Muslims in China is another example.
The government of the country plays a big role in how and what their people react. Not criticizing them is doing a disservice to the many good people in other countries which stay peaceful.
So what you're saying is that you approve of the political activists who pretend to be journalists manipulating statistics to support a narrative rather than depicting reality?
What about crime statistics that show black men commit violent crime at rates far above non black men? Do you approve of the way pretend journalists refuse to report on those? The results? Police target black men, which is of course a total lie that's causing the rioting on the streets and destruction of the US free society by mob rule
All because the media is painting a totally false picture of US reality.
Do you approve of that?
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
Is there evidence that he did thank Allah?
The point is that Glenn is only telling the part of the story that serves his narrative.
His narrative is supported by evidence; others are insisted upon with a lot of hand waving.
He ignores the evidence regarding Muslims when it suits his narrative. He also doesn't have show any evidence of the murderer's sexual history or actual thoughts and emotions at the time of his decisions.
That strain of narrative requires believing (1) in collective guilt, (2) that an individual's motives are largely unconscious and not within their control and (3) that mind reading by others who believe in collective guilt reveals truth. In this regard, the "he was a Muslim terrorist" is no different from the "he hated LGBTQs" speculation.
BTW, Glenn's argument is that he is a Muslim terrorist who killed innocent civilians because he was angry about US bombing in Syria. Did you read the article?
LOL. I'm simply pointing out that this take isn't the whole story, and was written to serve all of Glenn's favorite narratives. More investigation would be required to support it fully.
This is 100% true.
We are no longer in an eral of psychological interpretation. We are in a time of sociopathic thinking from our enemies. It is cultural. It is the machine of the system.
This sentence reveals you believe in either "collective guilt" or "guilt by association" (likely in addition to badly done statistical analysis):
"He ignores the evidence regarding Muslims when it suits his narrative."
No, he refuses to use the false evidence of statistical probability of presumed beliefs of a population.
Pew. Polls. Self reported. Js. Even reported in The Guardian that over 50% of British Muslims wanted homosexuality criminalized and that 25% want Sharia. (Some years ago).
If it were Mike Huckabee’s evangelicals the Twitter warriors would be all over it. There would be no talk about using false evidence to evaluate them as a threat and a risk to homos.
But while Mike Huckabee’s evangelicals are similarly united in their beliefs about homos derived from their religious affiliation as the Muslims are, they will reliably legislate against us but won’t lynch us. No one fears them decapitating their critics on the street.
We come out with rhetorical guns blazing when a baker won’t bake a cake but go ahead you super evolved religion of peacers, YOUR homos are probably perverts and deserve to die.
Oh! And don’t forget, according to Sarsour the rest of you get zero percent interest on your charge card. Scawy Sharia. Let’s put it on Sesame Street and ‘splain it all to Big Bird.
Sure it’s polite not to insult others religious beliefs, but we have no such hang ups about criticizing all other religions.
Let’s not pretend a threat doesn’t exist. A teacher was beheaded for teaching about Charlie Hebdo. What 6 months ago? Don’t imagine the line of brave souls wanting to borrow his curriculum is wrapped around Notre Dam and down the Siene.
We aren’t talking about being polite. We are talking about ignoring that homosexuality is actively criminalized by: please peruse
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
Copywrite 2021
Glenn can still be correct about the random choosing of Pulse.
You are now caught in the trap of "interpretation" that endless game of ping-pong lying inside the Binary Dominating Discourse that will divert you, distract you, and keep you occupied in pros and cons forever and ever and ever. The STATE wishes us to be there and stay there in our thinking. They have us where they want us. THE CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. BTW they are grooming AOC to replace Bernie now that he is old and tired.
This is a complete and utter falsehood. Evidence of sexual history was presented as were quotes on social media as he decided to commit the acts, as well as his descriptions of his reasons verbally to his captives and to police.
Boy, aren't you just a titan of intellect.
tell us about your narrative
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
Glenn can still be correct about the random choosing of Pulse.
Yes but that matters not. When you oppose the opposition tyou just make it streonger. That is what FDR did with capitalism and his New Deal. He did not betray his class as accused, he strengthened cajpitalism by setting up federal agencies to oppose it. And then his strategy of Pearl Harbor got s into war and out of the depression. I am not faulting him for this, just reporting it. If you understandhis Electricity for the country program and think genalogically you will see very early capitalism supported by the federal govt thru taxes by building damns, buying out farming land to put young men and families into mass work projects doing this electrification program. Damning up our waterways, driving our fish to extinction and wreaking ecology ruination, all consequences he and no one else saw as they would be in the future and therefore INVISIBLE. Thinking as Foucault as taught us we can reread history in a different way as genealogically opens the light to shine on consequences. No wonder Foucault is poorly taught or not at all in American Universities as FOUCAULT IS DANGEROUS!
Well, this really created a rabbit hole. I'll add my shovel to it. This is like accusing someone of pre-crime. Whether he was or was not homophobic has nothing to do with this blindly picking Pulse Nightclub out of a Google search. He wanted Disney. He wanted a mall. Both had actual security. The nightclub was a random next target. He could have had thoughts about screwing Prince Harry for all I care. The reality is that he wanted to kill Americans as a Muslim for Islam. That is all. The rest is you people trying to fit this actual event into your narrative. Drop your narratives and look around you at reality. For once.
You almost got my up-vote; presuming it was for "Islam" is virtually certainly wrong; the forever wars violate international law, are immoral, even evil, and must end. They do not serve the USA's interests whatsoever, and in fact HARM the USA's position in the world on many fronts. ...The evidence is that this guy acted out of a deep desire to end the forever wars, and so far as I am aware there's none for any other motive. Do you have some that says it was for Islam?
I doubt it.
Otherwise, your post was on the mark.
So..... Omar Mateem was a "peacenik"? He was protesting wars by murdering strangers? That's an odd sort of fatwa.
Hahahahahaha. Pretty soon we will have an Omar Mateen statue in Orlando.
He spoke truth to power man….
You don't get to hijack an event because it fits some other narrative. Sheesh.
No. Glenn wrote the story he intended to write. You wanted him to write a different story while claiming it is 'part of the [same] story'.
in your opinion
YES. We need toawaken him to up his game and his own narrative instead of disproving theirs. That forces him to continue tocement himself in the Binary of their Narrative. It keeps him in the Dominating Discourse which is exactly where the opposition wants him to be. And tostay there.
That's a bit like arguing that if I confess to murdering a man for sleeping with my wife, but I also listen to opera and opera lovers statistically don't like rockers, I secretly murdered him for playing electric guitar.
Not an argument that he did or he didn't. Just that no one knows. Glenn is all on board with the DNC in ignoring massive amounts of evidence that a large plurality of and if you look worldwide a majority of Muslims hate and are willing to discriminate severely against gay people.
It's funny to see some saying Glenn is a DNC supporter, while others believing he is a secret Trumpista. Quite amusing, really.
There is a school of thought that says if people are complaining equally on either side of the issue, you got your response right.
I think it goes like this: if both parties leave a negotiation dissatisfied, a good deal was reached :)
Dude calling Glenn a DNC sympathizer is plain idiotic.
One can be critical of few religious fanatics while also look at the deeper point which Glenn is trying to make in this article. This doesn’t even have to be about lgbt or Islam. This can apply to everything- we need to stop creating fake narratives for political purposes because that hurts the actual victims more.
Basically stop creating Jussie smolletts.
I said he was on board with the DNC position of ignoring mountains of evidence regarding Muslim non-integration and violence toward western values and person. That doesn't mean he's a DNC sympathizer. Deliberate smears aren't an argument.
Both can be true. Muslim's don't like gay people, and Mateen killed them because he was upset with the killing of innocent people in these countries, of which many were Muslim's.
Ah, another “yes…but…” argument.
Muslims more prone to kill others. Wait a minute. You must be kidding. What country invaded Iraq under the fiction that they had weapons of mass destruction? How many deaths were caused by these invasions? And the invasions of Afganistan, and Libya. And what country supports without reservations the Israeli apartheid state and the recurring massacres of Palestinians Oh, and then there are drones that kill innocent civilians as collateral damage. In fact, those drones even are used to kill American citizens. Then again there is this place called Guantanamo.
Perhaps a further crime is the USA bombing other countries when there is no threat to America.
irrelevant
Really?? That is why this terrorist killed 49 people. Are you cogent??
Much more so than most.
It's really hard to prove a negative, and Glenn did say that it is possible that the guy could have harbored some deep resentment towards gay people. BTW, your use of the term "fags" gives away your ugly motives. Not cool. BTW, Glenn is anything but an enabler of the DNC and progressives.
I don't get how people can conflate DNC and progressives....
They've bought in to the pervasive propaganda that seeks to crush progressivism. One way to accomplish that is to confuse people about what Progressivism even is, and better yet if you can tie it to something vile, like the DNC. ...Of course, this version of the propaganda is targeted at right-wingers - there's a somewhat different version that goes out to liberals / neo-liberals.
So a majority of Muslims are against gay legal rights. What are the numbers for Christians and Jews? I doubt it is all that different and probably even higher among the conservative and Orthodox groups.
Maybe but Christian and Jewish majority societies choose political structures that protect individual rights and allow redress for grievances.
In point of fact, which for some inexplicable reason so called liberals have trouble acknowledging, Christian and Jewish majority societies are the only ones with diversity issues because they are the only ones that allow for diverse populations with the goal of equal rights under the law.
Similarly, for some inexplicable reason so called liberals have trouble acknowledging that Christian and Jewish majority societies are the most tolerant and inclusive societies that we currently have to choose from.
Evidently these truths are problematic for theorists seeking to wedge their way into power centers of said societies with the help of oppressor\oppressed narratives.
Take it from a homo with no such aspirations such as myself that citizen Q on the ground knows that the theorists are full of shit. There is no comparison to cake baking battles and the formal state sponsored persecution and the informal tribal honor based persecution which the worlds Citizen Muslim Q lives with, or frequently dies w