Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Islam vs "Islamism" panel discussion

I had the great honor of joining, late in the game, a panel discussion about Islam at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend. At the start of the conference, I was really looking forward to attend the debate panel between Robert Spencer & Andrew C. McCarthy on whether the problem we face is Islam or "Islamism". It would be a continuation of an online debate they've been having (here & here). Then a few hours before their debate, I was asked by the moderator if I'd like to take part in it, following the addition of another panelist, Baroness Caroline Cox. I happily agreed and then went and quickly prepared some notes to make sure I got the points I wanted to get across. This being only the second time I've spoken in front of an audience, along with the short time I had to prepare for it, I think I did as good as I could. Let me know what you think.


Here's the Q & A

9 comments:

Roz Chatt said...

What you said was very compelling because of your personal relationship to the subject. Excellent and forceful delivery.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thank you very much, Roz.

Dallas Bond said...

Excellent work imagining the use of the name radical nazism and its implications of the existence of moderate nazis. I enjoy and respect nothing more than a fantastic analogy to clarify an issue.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, Dallas, I really appreciated how the audience reacted to it.

revereridesagain said...

Bosch, thanks for keeping the focus on the fact that we are at war with Islam whether the government cares to recognize it or not. There is no chance of any "reform" of Islam until it is unconditionally defeated, at which point it won't matter whether it ever gets "reformed" or not.

This "reform" debate would not be going on if it were not for the taboo against an attack on a religion -- a sad indication of the incomprehensible level of fear many people have at the thought of challenging the choke hold supernaturalism has on their minds.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, and you're right, that this debate is necessary just reminds us of how far we are from where we need to be. The only thing to do is to keep telling the truth wherever and whenever one can.

Urban Infidel said...

That was excellent. You were great and so lucky to be in such esteemed company. I watched all three videos. Outstanding and highly recommended viewing.

PhilosoScience said...

Bosch,

I think the term "Theocratic Islam" makes the most sense. It can then be decided into two tactics of Jihad. First, Terrorist Jihad, Second Democratic Jihad. This has the added benefit of holding other religions to the same standard. In order to determine if a muslim is a theocratic muslim you only need to ask if they define Islam as a secular ideology or one merged with government. The problem is within Islam, and the majority of them are most likely theocratic muslims, not secular muslims as they have no gone through a reformation yet, as Christianity did, which has toned down christianity, but even christians and Greens have problems with being theocratic. This is all why I think talking about the separation of religion and government will have positive implications for other theocratic ideologies as a positive side effect of using the term "Theocratic Islam", also it gets to the heart of the one question you need to ask.

Bosch Fawstin said...

I reject any prefixed/suffixed/euphemized term for Islam, and will call Islam Islam until I die....but, there are two modifiers that are better than the others. Robert Spencer's use of the term Islamic Supremacist for true believing Muslims I have less a problem with and John David Lewis' "State Islam" is one of the better terms for what constitutes the enemy without suggesting that there's a better Islam, which the other terms do, terms such as 'Political Islam', which suggests that there's a non-political islam, which there isn't. "Militant Islam" is redundant, etc.