Sargent: Double Standards

Sargent: Double Standards
Sargent: Double Standards Photo by Amelia Sargent.

Sargent: Double Standards


  • Hieronymus

    So… does the desire for “tolerance” extend to such religio-cultural practices as, say, fundamentalist Mormon (or Islamic, I suppose) polygamy? Female genital mutilation (certain Islamic sects, mainly African)? Animal sacrifice (e.g., Santeria, the Jewish kaparot)? Is it okay when women are required by their, uh, “chosen” religion to wear the niqab (full facial veil, in addition to the hijab)?

    Was it wrong–or should it be “tolerated”–when a Hmong shaman (later convicted in CA) clubs a puppy sacrificed to cure his sick wife?

    Is it wrong–here on Yale’s campus–if a Sikh student carries his kirpan (a 10-inch knife, the carrying of which is a basic tenet of the Sikh religion? Should a Sikh be allowed to bear his kirpan (when others may not)?

    Do you “tolerate”–or ridicule–Catholic exorcisms? (C’mon, be honest…)

    In the name of religious “tolerance,” I suppose you support the World Church Of The Creator (or whatever it is called these days)? You know, the white separatist church? Surely you do not impose your self-described “double standard” yourself??

    These are very serious questions. While I have no doubt that you “tolerate,” say, use of psycho-hallucinogenics in religion, do you also “tolerate” those practices that you yourself might find objectionable, even abhorrent?

  • YaleMom

    Hieronymus, what you are forgetting about is *LOOOVE*!

  • Hieronymus

    Also: I note that the main ironical speaker bears a US flag on his shirt: do you think that, say, a Catholic cathedral or a Jewish schul would be welcomed in Jeddah (that’s in Saudi… you know, a US ally)? Indeed, where in the Muslim world is “diveristy” “tolerated,” pray tell? Turkey (in the old days, not so much anymore) perhaps and, ironically, Iraq.

    Here are some interesting reports (you can look them up yourself):
    “Historically, Christian countries tend to have the best scores in religious freedom, as they do in political rights and civil liberties.” (The only two “Christian” countries that rate “not free” are Cuba and Belarus; also, perhaps counter-intuitively–at least at Yale–Israel is rated “religiously free.”)

    Cf.: “The Muslim majority countries comprise the religious areas with the largest current restrictions on religious freedom.”

    Lastly: While US citizens are free to express their disapproval, I do not envision the State stepping in to block (on religious grounds) the Park51 project. So, is it the dissent that you despise? Freedom of thought? Freedom of expression? Exactly how are the protesters you mock breaking the law? (This is not to say that all protesters obey the law: cf., e.g., Murfreesboro. However, exceptions such as that, in my opinion, prove the rule that the US is committed to its Constitutional freedoms. You will note, of course, that the FBI is expending immense resources in the Murfreesboro case.)

    So, exactly, what are you making fun of? And how does your mocking comport with your own views? Are you indeed practicing what you preach? Or are their limits to your “tolerance.” If limits, where are they? FGM? The veil? Religious police? Shariah courts (as established in the UK)?

    Jus’ wonderin’.

  • Hieronymus

    **The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization.**

    A similar but more eloquent line of thought–from [Slate][1], no less!

    “‘Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,’ Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like.”


  • Arafat

    “”All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11!”

    In fact 9/11 simply acted as a wake-up call for some Americans, in that it acted as a catalyst for them to educate themselves about the violent cult known as Islam. What they discovered through their study was that 9/11 was a natural outgrowth of the hatred that is fundamental to Islam.

    Let’s quit kidding ourselves. Islam’s prophet, Mohamed, and Islam’s holy books –the Koran and Hadiths—are littered with violence and encouragement of violence. Mohammed, himself, devoted the latter half of his life leading battles against non-Muslims and encouraging his followers to kill, rape, torture, and enslave and steal.

    Within 400 years of Mohammed’s birth, Muslim hordes had conquered all of the Middle East, huge sections of Asia, all of North Africa and large sections of Europe. In doing so Muslims killed millions and destroyed non-Muslim’s culture, artifacts and way of life. The Zoroastrians of the Arabia Peninsula all but disappeared, the Buddhists of Afghanistan all but disappeared.

    And now, according to the message from this cartoon, we are the ones who are at fault for speaking out against Islam. Talk about madness coming home to roost.

  • FailBoat

    I’ve missed you, Hieronymus

  • theantiyale

    When Quentin Crisp, playwright, actor, journalist and transvestite, spoke to a Yale Divinity School auditorium of divines and psychologists on “transvestitism” in 1977, he began his talk with these words: **”So are we all agreed: Psychology was a mistake?”**

    After reading the devastating exchange on this posting board about Ms. Sargent’s cartoon, I wonder if we shouldn’t re-write Crisp to read: **”So are we all agreed: Religion was a mistake?”**

    The First Amendment is at an impasse: Freedom of Expression vs. Freedom of Religion.

    No go.


  • HelloWorld

    Hieronymus, reading your multiposted rant feels like getting bit by a rabid dog. Your assumption here is that building a Mosque by Ground Zero is similar to or worse than questionable religious practices like polygamy, female genital mutilation, force covering of women, and clubbing a sacrificial puppy. Is a religious group building a community center at an sensitive location akin to any of those things? If it were a synagogue or church would it also elicit such vehement public opposition?

    Yell double standards if the fringe Mormon fundamentalists weren’t allowed to practice polygamy, but Islamic extremists are allow to carry out terrorist attacks. Foam at your mouth if clubbing a puppy is looked down upon but blowing up civilians is an understandable religious expression.

    Your assumption is invalid therefore your entire argument is hopelessly pointless. Save the emotional hyperbole for another day. On that note, you couldn’t remain calm enough to write one cohesive comment? Do practice self-control, I mean I know it’s easy to attack someone when they’re limited to one picture and two sentences and all, but reading into the American flag t-shirt? Seriously?

  • Hieronymus

    @ HelloWorld:

    “Your assumption…” It is not *I* that made an assumption here: nowhere did I state an opinion with regard to the Park51 project (you will note, for example, that *you* call it a “Mosque” [sic], whereas others call correctly a “community center,” and others refer to it by its name, i.e., Park51). Indeed, the closest inference one could draw would be that I support free *speech* (even when some deem it objectionable) but detest illegal *action*. Indeed, I do *not* equate the building of Park51 with, e.g., FGM. As for the former, I couldn’t care less; as for the latter, I find the practice barbaric and support its banning (MGM too, for that matter). Similarly, I couldn’t care less if a protester burns a flag (or a Quran): go ahead, we’ll make more.

    Indeed, I hold the same opinion of the Park51 project as I do the Dove World Outreach Church–provocative, but legal (insofar as either is legal: some are looking into possibly shady activity with regard to Park51, and I am *sure* that our President will direct investigators toward Florida).

    Forgive me: your second paragraph makes no sense, at least to me. Neither does your third, for that matter.

    Here is a summary: I find the cartoon hypocritical at best, skewed (or deluded) at worst (i.e.,. the cartoonist is a sheep, easily led by Yale’s whacked-out milieu without any actual research into the topic–and likely no sense of irony).

    Let us take just the word bubble: put it in the cartoon mouth of Mohammed (if you dare) and see if it remains equally “funny.”

  • HelloWorld

    Oh my dear Hieronymus, becoming defensive, changing tactics, softening your stance, and even trying to score points with petty “politically correctness” jabs. Well played sir, I can’t have a logical debate with you even if I tried.

  • theantiyale

    Well played?
    There’s a driven(too-much-caffein–quality to H’s posts this year. What happened ?
    No summer rest?

    [link text][1]

    [1]: “craigskisst”

  • Pingback: הובלות()

  • Pingback: κατασκευη eshop τιμες()

  • Pingback: cheap car insurance in las vegas()

  • Pingback: payday advance loans()

  • Pingback: ocean harbor auto insurance()

  • Pingback: instant auto insurance quote()

  • Pingback: cheap auto insurance in az()