Tuesday, January 17, 2006
DOUBLE STANDARDS EXPOSED
Uh-oh! Gianna has detected my double standards:
Tim Blair’s mocking Islam for having rules, acting as if its different in that regard from any other religion ...
Which was exactly the point made by several Muslim converts in the Sunday Times piece I linked to; that Islam’s rules—their nature and their extent—do make it different to other religions. “In Islam, there’s a rule for absolutely everything,” said convert Jeremy Meredith. “How I eat my food, how I go to the toilet, how I get married, how I lend money.” Gianna believes that this is no different to “living in a Conservative run democratic society.”
I’m not sure about Gianna, but none of these activities have changed much for me since conservatives have been in power (apart from it being a little easier to repay loans, given reduced interest rates). She continues:
Rules just differ depending on your worldview of choice. For example, in John Howard and George Bush’s Christian worldview, there are rules on the specific kinds of genitals that are allowed to be in your underpants as you approach a marriage celebrant. Weird, huh?
Not particularly. Heterosexual marriage is a particularly non-weird feature of most societies. (I support gay marriage, incidentally; I just don’t see it as a crucial indicator of liberation.)
And this from the Government that Blair touts as being about the supreme rights of the individual. Doesn’t extend to freedom of sexuality eh.
Actually, it does. Freedom of sexuality is different to the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. Gianna is free to shack up with any women she cares to, in any number; on this, both Chris Sheil and I would agree, even to the point of encouragement. She might expect a little opposition from Rexhep Idrizi, though. Not to mention Sheik Khalid Yasin, whose rules on this are slightly different to those of other religions. Or even conservative-run democratic societies.
UPDATE. Gianna replies in comments:
Take another look at the sentence you have lifted from my post, in which: i note you are mocking Islam for ‘having rules’ and i say it is not different from other religions and systems in that regard.’--ie., in regard to the fact that it has rules, some of which seem ludicrous to outsiders."
I didn’t mock Islam for simply having rules; rules are present everywhere, including in Gianna’s house. I mocked Islam for having massive and invasive and irrational rules that apply to—as its followers happily confirm—everything. This indicates a certain difference to, say, rules outlined by Methodists, or conservative western democracies.
How does this get translated by your readers to me being in favor of clitorectomies?
Possibly because they perceive that Gianna would oppose clitorectomies with much greater vigour were they to be suggested (which they would never be) by Howard or Bush than when they are actually carried out in Islamic countries.
Sorry, but i don’t see how their rule about brushing teeth is more laughable or more sinister than our rule about the contents of your undies when you get married.
Gianna should compare apples with apples. To hell with our undies rules; what about Islamic underpant regulations? You want sinister, Gianna? Try arranging a gay wedding in a mosque. Go to Lakemba right now seeking signatures for a petition urging gay Muslim marriage. Add to the fun by wearing a bikini! Yet more from Gianna:
Oh, and how exactly am I giving comfort to the Islamofascist terrorists when y’all reckon Islamofascists are just as homophobic, anyway?
Not just as homophobic, Gianna; far more homophobic. Read the posts I linked to. Many Islamic clerics believe homosexuals should not only be prevented from marrying, but that they should be killed. I know; this seems “ludicrous to outsiders”. Imagine how it seems to homosexuals or adulterers or rape victims who are murdered in Islamic states. Imagine how it seems to people in Australia threatened by the same vicious message. Gianna continues at her own site:
I dislike Islam more than the other religions because of how it conceives of women. My point was that Blair was mocking rules, taking the opportunity to attack Islam on the basis of having banal rules, without acknowledging that other religions and the politics of the God-fearing leaders can have just as strange ideas.
Sure, we don’t treat our gays as badly as those living in fanatical Islamic states no doubt do. But shouldn’t we treat them the same as we treat everyone else? Why are they still a lesser class of people in our enlightened Western society?
Generally, in our enlightened Western society, they aren’t. But in a certain unenlightened sector of Western society—that which Gianna would excuse—they are. Gianna might consider exploring this.