Skip to comments.Op-Ed: Racism and intolerance: disappointing at a liberal university
Posted on 02/16/2008 12:48:31 PM PST by forkinsocket
Let me first address the racism remarks and the accusation of me being racist [Adult film stars remarks spark debate, Feb. 14]. I was disappointed (but not very surprised) by the reaction that I got from some of the students at Stanford (as Ive been wrongly accused of racism before).
Speaking of racism in relation to religion, not to a race, is a big disservice to language and to intelligence. I never in my life said or wrote a bad word about Arabs go read any of my articles. My criticism was always addressed towards the religion and ideology of Islam. So I would like to ask Stanford students not to exploit the word racism at their own convenience. Its shocking to me that some students do not know what that term means but handle it with such wanton impudence. Maybe such a hole in the education should be brought to the attention of the teaching faculty of your university.
In fact, some of my role models are Arabs for whom I have tremendous admiration. Im talking about the likes of Wafa Sultan, who has confronted and condemned Islam on many occasions and for whose lectures I will travel across the country, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose book Infidel also helped me to shape my opinions. Both of these women secularized, as Islam in their opinion is the ideology of backwardness and hate. They rightly point out that Islam hasnt changed, or evolved, for 1,400 years; it has always suppressed every progressive thought. Needless to say, these women were forced to live in exile in the United States and live with hired security 24 hours a day. As I hope you know, Islam does not forgive. It forbids any criticism. Think Salman Rushdie. Think Theo Van Gogh, for his portrayal of the misery of women in Muslim countries. Think of the Danish cartoonists who are hiding in safe houses. The list is long.
What fostered my distain for Islam? The contempt that Muslim men vomit on women, treating them with less respect than camels. That includes the infibulation female circumcision of young girls; the imposition of chadors and burqas; the decapitation of adulterous wives (but never adulterous husbands); the fact that, in most Muslim countries, women cannot go to school, see a doctor or even leave their own houses without a male escort; the approval of polygamy; the arranged marriages that involve girls as young as 9; the barring of women from taking part in public life or in any receptions, even those of their own weddings; the death penalty for drinkers of alcohol; the mutilation penalty for thieves; the public killings of homosexuals. Doesnt all of this originate from the Koran? Have you ever thought that, instead of protesting me, you should protest against those atrocities, maybe organizing some short demonstration in front of Muslim embassies? Why instead are you unleashing your hate against one who speaks against those crimes? Why are you denying my right to compare the Koran, the text in which these facts originate, to Hitlers Mein Kampf? The Koran, that for 1,400 years has tormented humanity more than the Bible, the Gospels and the Torah combined? Do not suppress or boycott someone who has a different opinion, even if you disagree with this opinion. Debate it. Argue it. In a civilized manner. Otherwise, what is the difference between you and Islam?
I do very well realize where this reaction is coming from. Stanford is a liberal university, and I very much hope that the good word liberalism is not degraded in your institution as it has been degraded by the likes of Michael Moore, Rosie ODonnell, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky and many others. I hope the word liberal in the mind of Stanford students still means progressive and broad-minded. The left symbolizes progress. At least, it has done so in the past. It has always stood for womens rights, for gay rights, for the rights of African-Americans. The reaction which I see today at Stanford demonstrates to me that there are changes in the left and that these changes are for the worst. What I read today in The Stanford Daily is nothing more than intellectual terrorism. A dogmatism that I can only compare to one of religion. (If-you-dont-think-what-I-think,-you-are-an-idiot-and-a-delinquent.) Its difficult for me to understand how the progressive left can defend the most backwards and reactionary ideology on earth, the ideology of Islam.
Gay pornographic actor and activist Michael Lucas is the CEO and founder of Lucas Entertainment, a New York-based gay adult film company.
This is just a preview of the coming clash of radical Islam with Western liberals.
They are heading towards each other at the speed of light.
Don’t worry, Barak will save us...
Sure he will.
He’s right though. The hilarious part about this will be that the Left will disown him and practice great intolerance toward his view.
Simply because his view does not fit in with the Left’s dogma.
There’s not going to be any “clash of radical Islam with Western liberals.”
99% of them are going to grow beards or don burkas and join the mob. The one percent who don’t will disappear in the night, their fates noted only in places like FreeRepublic.
Go to the article and read the comments; some of them are unintentionally hysterical!
DING DING DING!!
We have a winner! Hold all cards, please!
Godwin's Law in four paragraphs. Not bad for a Leftist.
Although he DOES win the kewpie Doll for moral clarity - even if it DOES come from a gay porn star.
Well, I don’t have much sympathy for a gay pornographic film star, but if anyone is qualified to present the liberal point of view, it’s someone like this guy.
I doubt whether the student paper would have given just anyone the chance to say something like this.
I wonder if he’s going to get sued for copyright infringement for calling his adult gay pornographic film company Lucas Entertainment. It’s not quite LucasFilms, but it’s close!
Thanks for the post.Good article from an unlikely source.Never heard of this guy-gay porno actor and activist,and he’s speaking out against Islam?”It’s difficult for me to understand how the progressive left can defend the most backwards and reactionary ideology on earth,the ideology of Islam.”Simple-the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I kid you not. When I went to the Stanford Daily page to read this article and the comments, what was the first ad I saw? “SingleMuslim.com, USA’s leading Muslim marriage service.”
The jokes, they just write themselves.
Pieces like this one put the issues into better focus. In the West we have essentially three different forces: Western traditionalists, Western progressives, and Islam. All three have very different interests, but the Islamists have had a lot of success in recent years in playing secularists off against traditionalists, often using the race card as with this example.
At any rate, the West has no chance of surviving the Islamist movement unless traditionalists and progressives join forces on this issue. As such, the article is welcome, gay porn star or not.
Any women that post pictures of themselves there are automatically disqualified...
“2. Sympathizes with Israel (again, see above);
3. Gay “
No, he is “3. Queer” as in a social deviant and deserves to be perjorified. And a queer pornoPusher at that. Porno is NOT a 1st Amendment right and needs to be banned as much as RoeVWade and for much the same reasons. It undermines the integrety and decentcy and solidity of a heteroGodly famly-based society.
Just because the Muslims attack Queers does negate the correctness of doing so. Queers are as much the enemy as are the Muslims. Recall that the Culture War is a 3-way fight and that the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy also.
“Just because the Muslims attack Queers does negate the correctness of doing so. Queers are as much the enemy as are the Muslims. Recall that the Culture War is a 3-way fight and that the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy also.”
Should read “Just because the Muslims attack Queers does not negate the correctness of doing so.”
For a more focused attack on the Muslim invasion go to BNP.org.uk as they are the only political force staged to give the Arabs/Muslims and their marxistLiberal / neoCommunist allies a good whacking in the upcoming elections. BNP also recognises that the Queers are a threat to the British society in the same way that they are here because they are allied with neoCommunists.
The “racism” bait is such nonsense and an old commie agitprop smoke screen. When racism is good for one then it is good for all but that is not the purpose of the commie use of the term.
In the marxistLiberal/neoCommunist assualt against the West it means “only whites” can not uphold the goodness of their race but ALL other races are to be “protected” from us evil white guys until the whites recant and approve of the neoComms punishment of us. Until whites fully embrace their “sins of being white” we are to be pilliored and spanked in public.
NUTS TO THAT BS !!!
Depends on what you mean by "attack", no? You up for stonings?
Actually, Godwin’s Law really isn’t appropriate as a critique because, well, he’s actually comparing apples to apples - institutionalized anti-Semitism to the ritualized institutional anti-Semitism. So I’d argue he earns a pass on this.