I’ve Been Caught Correcting a Mistake

Wingnuts • Views: 5,726

I always love waking up and seeing another stupid fecal storm created by the right wing blogosphere over something I wrote.

This time they’ve caught me red-handed! editing an old post about Imam Feisal Rauf to remove the description “Islamic supremacist.” Apparently this proves I was trying to “hide” something, or that I’m a hypocrite, or that I’m being paid by secret forces, or something. (It must be nice to have so much free time that you can hunt through every word of years-old LGF posts, looking for a gotcha.)

Well, it’s true. Gasp. I did remove the words “Islamic supremacist” from this post.

And the reason I removed those words is simple — because I was mistaken. I jumped to conclusions, based on bad information from untrustworthy sources like Robert Spencer, and when I came across that post recently, I corrected it so that it wouldn’t be used as some kind of bogus ammunition in this controversy. As far as I’ve been able to tell, after reading quite a few articles he’s written, Imam Feisal Rauf is not an Islamic supremacist. I didn’t want anyone to get that impression from something I wrote, so I fixed my mistake.

And of course, they attack me for that. (These people are idiots.)

Jump to bottom

191 comments
1 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:03:35am

Flip flopper! Sandalista! Random footwear reference!

2 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:03:54am

I'm calling their next attack:

Since you have changed this, anything that remains in all of your old posts must be 100% what you now believe, or you would have edited them too.

3 jamesfirecat  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:04:55am

//Correcting mistakes requires you to admit you made a mistake and that's a sign of weakness Charles!

As Jon Stewart pointed out last Thursday (I think) in a situation like that you're not suppose to change what you said to bring it in line with reality, you're suppose to change reality to bring it in line with what you said!

4 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:05:30am

Critics: those who charge from the woods after a battle to shoot the wounded.

5 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:05:45am

re: #3 jamesfirecat

//Correcting mistakes requires you to admit you made a mistake and that's a sign of weakness Charles!

As Jon Stewart pointed out last Thursday (I think) in a situation like that you're not suppose to change what you said to bring it in line with reality, you're suppose to change reality to bring it in line with what you said!

Real men edit history. Pansies edit their own statements. /

6 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:08:24am

It's not like it's some sort of memory-hole thing; he's not re-writing history to correspond to current political requirements.

7 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:10:34am

re: #4 DaddyG

Critics: those who charge from the woods after a battle to shoot the wounded.

I thought they bayoneted them?

8 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:10:48am

re: #4 DaddyG

Critics: those who charge from the woods after a battle to shoot the wounded.

Invincible in peace, invisible in war.

9 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:10:48am

I would love it if all the people whining about this did exactly the same thing; edit your blogs to remove things that you sincerely believed at the time but now have come to realize are not only wrong, but potentially damaging to others.

That would be responsible.

10 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:11:22am

re: #9 Obdicut

I would love it if all the people whining about this did exactly the same thing; edit your blogs to remove things that you sincerely believed at the time but now have come to realize are not only wrong, but potentially damaging to others.

That would be responsible.

Err...
They'd have to delete their blogs.
;)

11 spikester  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:11:30am

times change
people change

12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:12:35am

Charles? Did you type the article in MS Word or on an IBM Selectric?

13 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:13:16am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Charles? Did you type the article in MS Word or on an IBM Selectric?

Even cooler.
A rotary phone.

14 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:13:40am

re: #13 Varek Raith

Even cooler.
A rotary phone.

Semaphore flags.

15 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:15:08am

re: #9 Obdicut

I would love it if all the people whining about this did exactly the same thing; edit your blogs to remove things that you sincerely believed at the time but now have come to realize are not only wrong, but potentially damaging to others.

That would be responsible.

I don't know how wise that would be; given that opinions change over time, and with new information, and all the rest of it, wouldn't retro-actively editing your previous works to conform to your current beliefs make it impossible to demonstrate any sort of growth or improvement at all in your thinking?

Intellectual archaeology would be impossible.

16 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:15:11am

I don't think it's good policy to edit what was actually posted, even if you changed you mind and regret the content. Better to explain that you've changed your mind over time and accept the criticism for so doing. You'll get more flack for a perceived cover up than from the acknowledgment that you changed your opinion.

17 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:15:31am

re: #13 Varek Raith

Even cooler.
A rotary phone.

Quill pen on parchment while wearing a tricorne hat and smelling of bandaids.

//

18 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:15:41am

Robert Spencer is having another hysterical freak-out about me too.

19 lawhawk  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:15:58am

re: #14 Guanxi88

Pony Express and smoke signals. Light the beacons!

20 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:16:34am

You are within your rights to edit your own entries and in this case it was a good call. You may want to announce edits based on new information to take the propaganda value out of the stalkers "outing you" on it.

You shouldn't have to explain changes but the reality is someone will always be willing to make hay out of it no matter how minor the edit or revision is.

21 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:16:47am

re: #18 Charles

Robert Spencer is having another hysterical freak-out about me too.

The Poison Dwarf © strikes again!

22 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:16:56am

re: #9 Obdicut

I would love it if all the people whining about this did exactly the same thing; edit your blogs to remove things that you sincerely believed at the time but now have come to realize are not only wrong, but potentially damaging to others.

That would be responsible.

If you're redaction's and corrections were documented or footnoted... otherwise... it's called the Ministry of Truth.

23 jamesfirecat  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:16:57am

re: #14 Guanxi88

Semaphore flags.

Morse code telegraph.

24 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:17:04am

re: #16 avanti

I don't think it's good policy to edit what was actually posted, even if you changed you mind and regret the content. Better to explain that you've changed your mind over time and accept the criticism for so doing. You'll get more flack for a perceived cover up than from the acknowledgment that you changed your opinion.

I disagree. If I find a mistake in a post, no matter how old it is, I reserve the right to correct that mistake -- just like I'd correct a mistake in something I posted 10 minutes ago.

It was a mistake to call Rauf an "Islamic supremacist," and I corrected it. I don't see anything wrong with this.

25 jamesfirecat  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:18:30am

re: #15 Guanxi88

I don't know how wise that would be; given that opinions change over time, and with new information, and all the rest of it, wouldn't retro-actively editing your previous works to conform to your current beliefs make it impossible to demonstrate any sort of growth or improvement at all in your thinking?

Intellectual archaeology would be impossible.

You may actually be onto something interesting there...

26 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:18:41am

re: #18 Charles

Robert Spencer is having another hysterical freak-out about me too.

He also throws in a conspiracy theory:

...I expect that whoever is paying Johnson is paying him well...

27 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:19:52am

re: #26 Gus 802

He also throws in a conspiracy theory:

"...I expect that whoever is paying Johnson is paying him well..."

Sounds like a call to hit the tip jar to me.

28 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:21:07am

re: #26 Gus 802

He also throws in a conspiracy theory:

Spencer's entire post in one large projection beam of stoopid.

29 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:21:11am

re: #26 Gus 802

..I expect that whoever is paying Johnson is paying him well...

BWAHAHAA!

30 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:22:12am

re: #28 Varek Raith

Spencer's entire post is one large projection beam of stoopid.


Sigh, preview hates me.

31 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:22:46am

re: #26 Gus 802

He also throws in a conspiracy theory:

Monday's can be a bitch.

32 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:23:06am

The amount of footnoting and documentation depends on the nature of the mistake and the length it has been in publication.

A grammatical correction from 10 minutes ago would be on the far end of the "don't bother to note it" scale, while something like a revised opinion based on new information would be worth making a public note about.

As Guanxi88 noted it will show a pattern of growth. It will also take the propaganda value out of "outing" your changes.

33 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:24:36am

I think it's highly ironic and almost pathological the way Robert Spencer uses the word "libelblogger." This from a man who alongside Pam Geller and David Horowitz (there are others) are the biggest smear merchants and libelous people on the internet and beyond. It's Pam Geller (Pamela Oshry) that is being sued for 10 million dollars alongside John Stemberger for defamation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Spencer.

34 Stanghazi  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:26:11am

Editing based on further knowledge, or fact checking is of course correct.

What I hate is the non-apology apology. See Marty Peretz today.

35 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:26:15am

re: #32 DaddyG

The amount of footnoting and documentation depends on the nature of the mistake and the length it has been in publication.

A grammatical correction from 10 minutes ago would be on the far end of the "don't bother to note it" scale, while something like a revised opinion based on new information would be worth making a public note about.

As Guanxi88 noted it will show a pattern of growth. It will also take the propaganda value out of "outing" your changes.

I removed two words from the post. The entire post is still there for anyone to read. The words were removed because they were wrong. It's kind of silly to say I should footnote and document insignificant changes like this.

If I had added or removed something of real substance I would have noted it in a dated update, as I always do.

36 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:27:19am

What a bunch of fucking idiots.

37 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:27:30am

re: #35 Charles

I'd say you more than documented the removal of the two words to the satisfaction of any and all but the most picky of nit-pickers. Transparency works.

38 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:27:48am

re: #28 Varek Raith

Spencer's entire post in one large projection beam of stoopid.

I'll say. "Drive-by fascism"? As opposed to the constant state of fascist rhetoric from the orbicular gnome of anti-Jihadist letters who had invited the far-right and fascistic Dutch politician Geert Wilders to speak to the anti-Park51 cultists on Saturday.

39 John Q  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:28:24am

Charles, as your mention of Rauf is in a post beginning with

The joint Newsweek-Washington Post venture “On Faith” has featured an all-star cast of radical Muslims.......

your deletion hasn't really changed the description of him much.

40 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:28:37am

Wow, that Spencer post is really out there.

41 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:29:50am

Nice to know I'm a dwindling sycophant.
Been meaning to lose that weight, anyhow.

42 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:30:37am

re: #41 reine.de.tout

Nice to know I'm a dwindling sycophant.
Been meaning to lose that weight, anyhow.

You on the Medi-Fast thing? I hear good things about it.
//

43 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:31:37am

re: #39 John Q

That part of what I wrote is accurate -- WaPo's "On Faith" has definitely given a platform to quite a few radical Muslims, including the spiritual leader of Hezbollah and Hamas spokesmen.

44 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:33:12am

re: #24 Charles

I disagree. If I find a mistake in a post, no matter how old it is, I reserve the right to correct that mistake -- just like I'd correct a mistake in something I posted 10 minutes ago.

It was a mistake to call Rauf an "Islamic supremacist," and I corrected it. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I respectfully disagree about the nothing wrong part, although not the fact that you have the means and the right to do as you please with your blog. We can't undo errors in judgment by editing the past IMHO, nor should we need to.
There must be 100's of old posts with "old" opinions that your enemies will try and use against you, it's history, it's real, and you can correct a old opinion, but it exists.
I love this blog, and I respect Charles, but on the one issue, I disagree. In the end, it is his blog and he can do as he likes.

45 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:33:44am

re: #41 reine.de.tout

Nice to know I'm a dwindling sycophant.
Been meaning to lose that weight, anyhow.

And a coterie no less. Right. Nothing says diversity of thought like Robert Spencer, Jihad-Watch, and his goon-like fans.

46 ErikJ76  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:34:21am

Considering that they don't generally believe in evolution, how surprising can it be that they think it's wrong to change one's view based on facts one was unaware of or was wrong about before?

47 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:34:44am

re: #35 Charles
The two words you removed changed the characterization of the person you were describing (and rightly so) from a radical Imam to a moderate Imam.

In no way am I criticizing that or your right to edit your own blog.

By being open about changes that impact the meaning of a phrase or post you will take away an underhanded weapon of your less honorable critics. It's not right that you have to do so but it is prudent in the political arena.

48 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:34:44am

re: #44 avanti

I respectfully disagree about the nothing wrong part, although not the fact that you have the means and the right to do as you please with your blog. We can't undo errors in judgment by editing the past IMHO, nor should we need to.
There must be 100's of old posts with "old" opinions that your enemies will try and use against you, it's history, it's real, and you can correct a old opinion, but it exists.
I love this blog, and I respect Charles, but on the one issue, I disagree. In the end, it is his blog and he can do as he likes.

But this thread is a footnote to his change. So, what's the problem?

49 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:35:05am

To correct one's mistakes is to exhibit professionalism. This demonstration of professionalism on Charles' part is one major reason why I subscribe to this blog.

50 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:35:49am

re: #9 Obdicut

I would love it if all the people whining about this did exactly the same thing; edit your blogs to remove things that you sincerely believed at the time but now have come to realize are not only wrong, but potentially damaging to others.

That would be responsible.

Over time some of us will be re visiting Pages. Re -editing or deleting.

51 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:36:21am

re: #44 avanti

Please note: I'm not trying to correct all errors in everything I've ever written. I removed those two words for specific reasons: 1) they were wrong, and 2) this is a hot issue; and people were looking for things to use against Imam Rauf, and I didn't want to be responsible for spreading misinformation.

The rest of the post is completely intact, including the link to the article by Rauf, that anyone can read and decide for themselves what they think.

52 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:36:43am

re: #47 DaddyG

The two words you removed changed the characterization of the person you were describing (and rightly so) from a radical Imam to a moderate Imam.

In no way am I criticizing that or your right to edit your own blog.

By being open about changes that impact the meaning of a phrase or post you will take away an underhanded weapon of your less honorable critics. It's not right that you have to do so but it is prudent in the political arena.

I thought that's what I was doing.

53 deranged cat  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:38:20am

re: #51 Charles

Please note: I'm not trying to correct all errors in everything I've ever written. I removed those two words for specific reasons: 1) they were wrong, and 2) this is a hot issue; and people were looking for things to use against Imam Rauf, and I didn't want to be responsible for spreading misinformation.

The rest of the post is completely intact, including the link to the article by Rauf, that anyone can read and decide for themselves what they think.

one final thing that can be done is adding an "update" or "edit" with an explanation and linking to this footnote (as re: #48 Walter L. Newton called it)

That's pretty standard, i'd say.. and clarifies any misconceptions.

54 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:39:44am

There are people who cannot grasp the concept of possibly being wrong in the first place, and therefore see any attempt at changing one's statements as subterfuge.

55 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:40:20am

Why is correcting and/or admitting one's mistakes verboten among the right wing?

56 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:40:55am

re: #52 Charles

I thought that's what I was doing.

I am in agreement on what you did. My advice (worth every penny you paid for it BTW) was about documenting the reasons for change as you make them or prior to any criticism of them.

Again, its a pretty minor point but one that can eliminate a dishonorable weapon of your critics.

57 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:41:05am

re: #54 ralphieboy

There are people who cannot grasp the concept of possibly being wrong in the first place, and therefore see any attempt at changing one's statements as subterfuge.

I like to see changes explained.
Which is what this thread is for.

58 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:41:11am

re: #55 Varek Raith

Why is correcting and/or admitting one's mistakes verboten among the right wing?

The Right Wing never makes mistakes, they're just taken out of context.

59 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:41:41am

So basically, this is a quibble over editorial policy. In other words, tempest, teapot, mountain, molehill.

60 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:42:17am

So Charles...
How's that "secret forces" gig working out for you?
Is your check auto deposited or delievered by double secret
in cognito carrier to the under ground bunker below LAX??
....Is the pay GOOD?///
///

61 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:42:38am

Let's not forget who showed up at the Geller/Spencer anti-Park51 Volksprotest:

[Link: www.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

The EDL and psychotics.

62 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:43:18am

So much hay being made over two words. Pathetic, the way the obsessed carry on.

63 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:44:06am

re: #61 Gus 802

Let's not forget who showed up at the Geller/Spencer anti-Park51 Volksprotest:

[Link: www.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

The EDL and psychotics.

Heh.
EDUPSIDEDOWNL.
XD

64 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:44:18am

The best worst part about that Spencer post are the comments from banned posters whining about being banned

65 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:44:35am

re: #53 deranged cat

Lets remember no matter how you handle something like this, the critics will hammer you for not doing the other way, as in whatever they dream up. No win situation on the 'nets sometimes.

66 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:45:20am

re: #56 DaddyG

I am in agreement on what you did. My advice (worth every penny you paid for it BTW) was about documenting the reasons for change as you make them or prior to any criticism of them.

Again, its a pretty minor point but one that can eliminate a dishonorable weapon of your critics.

They're not really critics

If a homeless guy starts swearing at me and throws a milkshake at my head as I'm walking down the street, I'm not really going to call that guy a "critic" :D

67 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:46:13am

re: #56 DaddyG

I am in agreement on what you did. My advice (worth every penny you paid for it BTW) was about documenting the reasons for change as you make them or prior to any criticism of them.

Again, its a pretty minor point but one that can eliminate a dishonorable weapon of your critics.

Exactly, I guess it's the fact that the footnote comes after the discovery of the edit which may give Charles's enemies more ammo. In my perfect world, Charles would have noticed that his opinion had changed over the years on this hot button issue, mentioned the old post and the reason for the edit and taken the flack for that.

68 garhighway  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:47:01am

Wildly OT:

The notes people leave when their neighbors steal their newspaper:

[Link: www.passiveaggressivenotes.com...]

69 wrenchwench  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:47:47am

It's sweet of them to be watching so closely. They care!

70 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:48:22am

re: #55 Varek Raith

Why is correcting and/or admitting one's mistakes verboten among the right wing?

Here's my pop psych take on it:

#1 Pride
#2 Conspiracy theory + psychologial projection
#3 A really deep seated fear of change = admission that they were wrong in the first place.

I've been on the other side of this issue as an amateur apologist (defender of the faith) for the LDS Church. Critics point to 1000s of changes in the Book of Mormon. Never mind the fact that these changes are formatting, layout, grammar, proofing errors, punctuation, footnotes, chapter headings, etc. All but a few were non-doctrinal. On top of that our beliefs contain the ability to receive new revelation and information and correct past mistakes. (We do not believe in prophetic inerrancy). So what a fundamentalist considers damning evidence (changes) we consider the natural progression of growth and new knowledge.

Nevertheless critics will go after any perceived weakness from their own framework. While there is no moral obligation to footnote every change politically it makes sense to disarm critics before they launch an attack.

71 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:49:34am

re: #68 garhighway

Winner;
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

72 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:49:55am

re: #69 wrenchwench

It's sweet of them to be watching so closely. They care!

Fan clubs are great, aren't they? I wonder if they have a clubhouse...secret handshake...

73 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:50:09am

An interesting take on the Evangelical-GOP merger;

These efforts to win political entities (states, nations) rest on what I believe to be a faulty understanding of God's OT covenant with the nation of Israel. In short, the NAR folks take the covenant God made with Israel to apply to the Church. One of the key verses identified in the TalkToAction post is Deuteronomy 28:13:

The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom.

Even though the ministry of Jesus was to usher in a new covenant, the adherents of NAR want the old one to apply prescriptively to the present day. They seem to believe Christians can take these promises to the cosmic bank if they take over the nation (state, city, etc.). Likewise, listening to Lou Engle, it becomes clear, he believes that the problems America faces derives from failure to follow the law of Moses. For those paying attention, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin have in recent years spoken favorably of this movement.

However, none of these promises or threats of curse apply to anyone but Israel as is clear from the first verse of the next chapter (Deut. 29:1):

These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.

I do not think the United States of America as a nation is referenced in the Bible. In my view, viewing these promises and curses directed toward Israel as applying to the US or any other nation is egocentric thinking.

74 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:51:11am

re: #70 DaddyG

Here's my pop psych take on it:

#1 Pride
#2 Conspiracy theory + psychologial projection
#3 A really deep seated fear of change = admission that they were wrong in the first place.

I've been on the other side of this issue as an amateur apologist (defender of the faith) for the LDS Church. Critics point to 1000s of changes in the Book of Mormon. Never mind the fact that these changes are formatting, layout, grammar, proofing errors, punctuation, footnotes, chapter headings, etc. All but a few were non-doctrinal. On top of that our beliefs contain the ability to receive new revelation and information and correct past mistakes. (We do not believe in prophetic inerrancy). So what a fundamentalist considers damning evidence (changes) we consider the natural progression of growth and new knowledge.

Nevertheless critics will go after any perceived weakness from their own framework. While there is no moral obligation to footnote every change politically it makes sense to disarm critics before they launch an attack.

When you are dealing with real history, as your Book of Mormon claims, then it is scholarly to document redactions, changes and corrections.

75 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:51:24am

re: #73 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I do not think the United States of America as a nation is referenced in the Bible.

Yeah but that's all just paperwork :D

76 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:51:26am

re: #67 avanti

Exactly, I guess it's the fact that the footnote comes after the discovery of the edit which may give Charles's enemies more ammo. In my perfect world, Charles would have noticed that his opinion had changed over the years on this hot button issue, mentioned the old post and the reason for the edit and taken the flack for that.

Again, I don't agree at all. First, there's no way to do this so that it would avoid giving ammunition to the enemies -- they don't need ammunition. If they can't find something real, they'll just make something up, or twist my words to find some way to attack. It's absolutely pointless for me to start changing how I do things because of what the enemies will say.

I corrected an error. And if I see similar errors, I'll do it again.

77 wrenchwench  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:52:26am

re: #64 WindUpBird

The best worst part about that Spencer post are the comments from banned posters whining about being banned

A slice:

He's not willing to tollerate ant dissent or free will from his minions.

It could rotate.

78 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:53:10am

re: #77 wrenchwench

A slice:


It could rotate.

One dissenting ant and the hive is thrown into chaos.

79 Mark Pennington  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:54:11am

Admitting and correcting a mistake is a sign of strong character. Duh.

80 Stanghazi  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:54:16am

re: #77 wrenchwench

A slice:

It could rotate.

I get a kick out of being called a minion.

81 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:54:37am

OT:

How is Steve healing/coping/recovering? Is there any recent news?

82 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:54:37am

This is good.


EDL leader (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson) refused entry into US

I’ve picked up a rumour this morning that EDL leader 'Tommy Robinson' has been refused entry into the United States where he was due to attend an anti-Islam rally at Ground Zero in New York. Robinson was travelling with a number of other EDL leaders when he was turned away at the Immigration desk for apparent entry form irregularities. He was taken into custody and almost immediately put on a plane back to London. His fellow EDL members were allowed to go through.

I guess the only silver lining for Robinson is that he should be back in the UK in time to attend the EDL protest outside the US Embassy tomorrow.

The wingnut mouth breathers were up in arms about this.

83 garhighway  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:54:44am

re: #77 wrenchwench

A slice:

He's not willing to tollerate ant dissent or free will from his minions.

I would have to disagree with that guy. I think ant dissent is encouraged here.

But for some reason, the ants have not gotten on board.

Weird.

84 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:55:15am

re: #74 Walter L. Newton

When you are dealing with real history, as your Book of Mormon claims, then it is scholarly to document redactions, changes and corrections.

Yes. And we do so.

85 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:56:23am

re: #80 Stanley Sea

I get a kick out of being called a minion.

I get a kick outta kicking my minions...

86 wrenchwench  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:57:02am

re: #78 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

One dissenting ant and the hive is thrown into chaos.

He might be confusing his minions with his Myrmidons.

She was seduced by him in the form of an ant.

That can't be easy.

87 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:57:41am

re: #45 Gus 802

And a coterie no less. Right. Nothing says diversity of thought like Robert Spencer, Jihad-Watch, and his goon-like fans.

Ha... someone is watching us... guess what I just received in my email box?

"Feel free to pass it on to your master, also:" (from good old Robert)

With a link to to the his article.

Charles... master... tell Robert to stop it... stop him...

88 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:58:12am

re: #81 Fozzie Bear

OT:

How is Steve healing/coping/recovering? Is there any recent news?

The most recent news - he's having a bit of a difficult time, lots of pain, etc., but hanging in there. That was of last week sometime, I believe.

89 prairiefire  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:58:56am

re: #82 Gus 802

That is very, very good.

90 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:59:06am

re: #59 Fozzie Bear

So basically, this is a quibble over editorial policy. In other words, tempest, teapot, mountain, molehill.

But pour the contents of a hot teapot down a molehill and the moles get quite upset...

;)

91 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:59:11am

re: #64 WindUpBird

The best worst part about that Spencer post are the comments from banned posters whining about being banned

But, you just get banned for simply disagreeing with Charles, wait, I'm still here, WTF ?

92 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:59:20am

re: #86 wrenchwench

He might be confusing his minions with his Myrmidons.

That can't be easy.

Personality counts; that's the take-away.

93 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:59:29am

re: #87 Walter L. Newton

Ha... someone is watching us... guess what I just received in my email box?

"Feel free to pass it on to your master, also:" (from good old Robert)

With a link to to the his article.

Charles... master... tell Robert to stop it... stop him...

Of course. I expect he's just sitting around reading this.

Tell him to say hello to EDL leader Tommy Robinson who was once sentenced to 12 months in prison for kicking a police officer in the head.

94 Varek Raith  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:59:52am

Damn, Charles!
You live in a lot different people's heads.
You should rent 'em out to boat shows or something.
You'd make off like a bandit.

95 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:00:11am

re: #82 Gus 802

"he was turned away at the Immigration desk for apparent entry form irregularities"

On the form it asked for his race and he put "master". /

96 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:00:35am

re: #93 Gus 802

Of course. I expect he's just sitting around reading this.

Tell him to say hello to EDL leader Tommy Robinson who was once sentenced to 12 months in prison for kicking a police officer in the head.

Here is what I told him...

"My... my... Robert. After such a busy weekend of stirring up Islamphobia, I sort of feel honored that you could find the time to email me. I feel special."

97 wrenchwench  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:00:53am

re: #87 Walter L. Newton

Ha... someone is watching us... guess what I just received in my email box?

"Feel free to pass it on to your master, also:" (from good old Robert)

With a link to to the his article.

Charles... master... tell Robert to stop it... stop him...

Whoa. He can't email Charles (IP block, I imagine) so he goes through a Minion. He's taken a hit and can't strike back. He must be a bit frustrated.

98 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:01:07am

re: #95 DaddyG

"he was turned away at the Immigration desk for apparent entry form irregularities"

On the form it asked for his race and he put "master". /

Under "sex", I put twice a week.

99 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:01:32am

re: #97 wrenchwench

Whoa. He can't email Charles (IP block, I imagine) so he goes through a Minion. He's taken a hit and can't strike back. He must be a bit frustrated.

No, he can email me any time he wants. I'm not blocking him. He's just a sleazy coward.

100 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:01:46am

re: #95 DaddyG

"he was turned away at the Immigration desk for apparent entry form irregularities"

On the form it asked for his race and he put "master". /

Hey, thanks, you're a great audience, and don't forget to tip your servers!

101 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:01:53am

re: #98 avanti

Under "sex", I put twice a week.

It only counts with someone else. /

ducks and runs...

102 Claire  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:02:11am

re: #76 Charles

Again, I don't agree at all. First, there's no way to do this so that it would avoid giving ammunition to the enemies -- they don't need ammunition. If they can't find something real, they'll just make something up, or twist my words to find some way to attack. It's absolutely pointless for me to start changing how I do things because of what the enemies will say.

I corrected an error. And if I see similar errors, I'll do it again.

I think you should note changes on the post itself, as they are made. If that was your opinion 2 years ago, so be it. Changing it now to make it look like you held a different opinion 2 years ago is like re-writing history in a way. That probably wasn't your intent, I know.

103 lgffan  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:04:16am

Utmost respect for CJ and LGF, just curious: Why not update posting like you might do on occasion as opposed to actually changing something to give anyone any ammunition??

104 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:04:20am

re: #102 Claire

I think you should note changes on the post itself, as they are made. If that was your opinion 2 years ago, so be it. Changing it now to make it look like you held a different opinion 2 years ago is like re-writing history in a way. That probably wasn't your intent, I know.

It obviously wasn't his intent. He removed the two words "Islamic supremacist" or something like that, from his description of Imam Rauf; this minor correction to an article from so very long ago hardly warranted a front-page flashing siren and mass-email.

105 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:04:33am

re: #101 DaddyG

It only counts with someone else. /

ducks and runs...

Really?

/puts a decimal in front of the 5 times a week.

106 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:04:40am
107 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:04:41am

re: #82 Gus 802

This is good.


EDL leader (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson) refused entry into US

I’ve picked up a rumour this morning that EDL leader 'Tommy Robinson' has been refused entry into the United States where he was due to attend an anti-Islam rally at Ground Zero in New York. Robinson was travelling with a number of other EDL leaders when he was turned away at the Immigration desk for apparent entry form irregularities. He was taken into custody and almost immediately put on a plane back to London. His fellow EDL members were allowed to go through.

I guess the only silver lining for Robinson is that he should be back in the UK in time to attend the EDL protest outside the US Embassy tomorrow.

The wingnut mouth breathers were up in arms about this.

He's also a BNP member: Searchlight Names EDL Leader “Tommy Robinson” as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon


Searchlight can exclusively reveal that the leader of the English Defence League is a former British National Party member… Self-proclaimed EDL leader Tommy Robinson is really Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, from Bedford.

…The revelation that Robinson had been a member of the BNP explains why so many of the initial EDL activists also attended BNP meetings in the Luton/Bedford area.

…It also explains the real reason why Robinson felt the need to hide his face.

108 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:07:09am

Just saw the greatest Motivational Poster ever.

Religion.
Treat it like your penis.
Don't take it out in public and don't shove it down anyone's throat.

109 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:07:51am

Convictions point to rise of far right extremism
By Simon Israel
Updated on 24 June 2010

Today's convictions of a 42-year-old food packer and a 59-year-old builder on inciting racial hatred brings to 16 the number of convictions connected to far right extremism in the past two years, as Home Affairs

Trevor Hannington, from South Wales, and Michael Heaton, from Lancashire, ran their own far right organisation which promised street action to help rid the country of minority communities.

Their Aryan Strike Force boasted 350 members. Its website had tens of thousands of postings, all messages of hate like urging the destruction of Jews, describing them as treacherous scum.

There were references to "chopping n****** legs off" and "kill the jew, burn down a synagogue today". Heaton was found guilty on four charges charges, while Hannington admitted to four terrorism charges including distributing instructions on how to turn a water pistol into a flamethrower. Both were both found not guilty of soliciting to murder.

Dr Matthew Feldman, who runs the UK's only research unit on new media and domestic extremism at Northampton University, was the prosecution's key witness in this case.

He says "These are neo-Nazis, pure and simple, and consider themselves really the most extreme versions of this ideological neo-Nazism that is new.

"We have had some evidence, I believe, of activists from the ASF appearing on videos at the English Defence League marches and so forth."

Rise in extremism

Dr Feldman believes this recent string of convictions of "lone wolf" cases and the creation of the English Defence League point to a resurgence of far right extremism.

Continues.

Watch the video there.

110 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:08:47am

re: #107 Killgore Trout

He's also a BNP member: Searchlight Names EDL Leader “Tommy Robinson” as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

And he's usually wearing a balaclava.

Nice allies you have there Robert!

111 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:10:00am

re: #99 Charles

No, he can email me any time he wants. I'm not blocking him. He's just a sleazy coward.

Then I wish he would if he has something to say about you or this blog. Emailing me doesn't rub me one way or the other. He sealed my opinion of him when he admitted that he has no qualms in dealing with the extremely questionable European nationalist groups. And his constant reminding me of his positions only continues to confirm my opinion of him.

Maybe that's his point.

112 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:11:03am

re: #107 Killgore Trout

He also has a history of violence...
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon/Tommy Robinson

"On 18th April 2005, in the Luton Crown Court, this appellant was convicted by a majority of 11.1 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Count One) and by a majority of 10-2 of assault with intent to resist arrest (Count Two). He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on Count One and 3 months imprisonment concurrent on Count Two."

With a link to court documents. Looks like there's some sexual assault stuff there too.

113 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:12:48am

re: #104 Guanxi88

It obviously wasn't his intent. He removed the two words "Islamic supremacist" or something like that, from his description of Imam Rauf; this minor correction to an article from so very long ago hardly warranted a front-page flashing siren and mass-email.

IMHO, that was not a minor correction, no matter the good intent. Charles knew in hindsight that he was wrong about the Islamic supremacist tag, and knew it would be used against him and acted. The only discussion is about the way it was done.
Upon reflection, I do agree with Charles that no matter how he handled a correction, he's get attacked.

114 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:14:10am

re: #112 Killgore Trout

This dude has serious problems....
EXCLUSIVE: EDL ‘Tommy’ In Revelation Panic Overdrive Ahead Of Bradford

Exposed as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon in June of this year, 1MU did some investigating into his criminality recently, following on from an admission by Yaxley-Lennon himself – AKA Tommy Robinson – that he was facing charges of money laundering and mortgage fraud; a confession he seems to have conveniently forgotten he ever made publicly.
...
Yaxley-Lennon is believed to have been arrested and his house searched several weeks ago by Bedfordshire police in connection with the money laundering and mortgage fraud charged he spoke of himself. His business is registered in his name, at the address that also matches with HNH’s information.

115 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:19:12am

Rebuild a Jeep under 4 minutes


116 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:19:19am

re: #80 Stanley Sea

I get a kick out of being called a minion.


It's great that the groundlings are watching us so intently

OH OH WHAT'S LGF GOT TO SAY I HATE THEM SO MUCH AND YET I MUST READ EVERY WORD OF EVERY POST AND COMMENT

117 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:20:53am

re: #113 avanti

IMHO, that was not a minor correction, no matter the good intent. Charles knew in hindsight that he was wrong about the Islamic supremacist tag, and knew it would be used against him and acted. The only discussion is about the way it was done.
Upon reflection, I do agree with Charles that no matter how he handled a correction, he's get attacked.

Correction: I didn't take out those two words because I "knew they'd be used against me." I removed the description because it was wrong, and I didn't want it to be cited by people trying to smear Rauf. (You may have noticed that there are a few of those people out there.)

Nothing I do at LGF is in reaction to what the enemies will do or say. I consciously decided not to play that game long ago.

118 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:26:26am

Just for the record, I've now added an update to that post, linking to this one, so there's no confusion about what happened.

And I do appreciate the feedback on this from LGF readers, by the way.

119 Coracle  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:29:52am

My suggestion, for all it's worth is that if an edit like this is done - hell, any edit after an article has 'officially' posted, should have a date/time stamp and description of the edit added at the same time the edit is made. It makes everything the most transparent - and hands out the least ammo.

120 Logician  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:31:10am

Charles - do you consider Christopher Hitchens to be mistaken in his opinion of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf too? He doesn't quite accuse him of being an Islamic supremacist, but he comes close, and does use several terms that are equally, if not more, pejorative than that.

121 avanti  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:31:25am

re: #118 Charles

Just for the record, I've now added an update to that post, linking to this one, so there's no confusion about what happened.

And I do appreciate the feedback on this from LGF readers, by the way.

Damn, I love this blog, thanks again for your hard work. Sadly, for your enemies, no Lizards were harmed in the feedback exchange.

122 Kronocide  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:33:12am

Oh my gawd. You have quite the fan club Charles. I just blog hopped for 15 minutes: I just found out that you're a librul! Oh noes!

You handled it fine. Linking to this post was a good way to explain.

123 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:34:44am

re: #120 Logician

Charles - do you consider Christopher Hitchens to be mistaken in his opinion of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf too?

Yes, I do. Hitchens repeats some of the talking points of the anti-mosque crowd, unfortunately -- talking points that are debunked. He should do a little more research before taking the nonsense that's been circulated about Rauf as accurate.

124 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:39:09am

re: #120 Logician

As a "Logician," by the way, I'm sure you're familiar with the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority."

125 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:40:21am

re: #120 Logician

Charles - do you consider Christopher Hitchens to be mistaken in his opinion of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf too? He doesn't quite accuse him of being an Islamic supremacist, but he comes close, and does use several terms that are equally, if not more, pejorative than that.

Hitchens is a drunken raconteur

He's funny, and sometimes he makes good points now and then, but his judgement has been clouded by his anti-religion schtick for DECADES, that's what he trades on

When you're an anti-religion hammer, everything is a muslim nail

Not a reliable source. A fun read, but not a reliable source

126 Kronocide  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:42:08am

Spencer's post about the Jeebus Truck is called ".... drive by fascism."

Does he even know what the term means? He's supposed to be a studied man.

127 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:42:53am

re: #125 WindUpBird

Hitchens is a drunken raconteur

He's funny, and sometimes he makes good points now and then, but his judgement has been clouded by his anti-religion schtick for DECADES, that's what he trades on

When you're an anti-religion hammer, everything is a muslim nail

Not a reliable source. A fun read, but not a reliable source

Give us more credit than that... to us anti-religion hammers, every believer is a nail.

128 JeffM70  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:42:58am

The thing is you were honest about it, Charles. Rather than change the post secretly, you posted an update saying the article has been edited and linked to an explanation as to why. Boy, they caught you red-handed admitting a change. How sneaky of you.

129 Ben G. Hazi  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:45:32am

re: #85 Varek Raith

I get a kick outta kicking my minions...

I get no kick from champagne.
Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all.
So tell me why should it be true
That I get a kick out of you?

/apologies to Cole Porter and Frank Sinatra ;-P

130 deranged cat  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:45:51am

re: #65 Rightwingconspirator

Lets remember no matter how you handle something like this, the critics will hammer you for not doing the other way, as in whatever they dream up. No win situation on the 'nets sometimes.

clarifies any misconceptions for any...non-wingnuts. like, real, normal, non-troll people :)

131 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:46:00am

re: #124 Charles

As a "Logician," by the way, I'm sure you're familiar with the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority."

"There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."

I don't think "Logician" went quite as far as calling Hitchen's opinion "infallible" or "exempted from criticism"

132 Kronocide  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:51:32am

I love Hitchens but he's a zealous atheist who fervently proselytizes against religion.

133 wrenchwench  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:53:46am

re: #126 BigPapa

Spencer's post about the Jeebus Truck is called "... drive by fascism."

Does he even know what the term means? He's supposed to be a studied man.

Yeah, you could say he's a studied man.

134 John Vreeland  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:18:02am

re: #132 BigPapa

He writes books and gives talks. The Jehova's Witnesses think he's evil just for that, but I can't ever recall being visited by a pair of "fervent atheists" knocking unexpectedly upon my door when I was in the middle of a meal.

135 John Vreeland  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:22:08am

re: #120 Logician

Hitchens does not call the imam an Islamic supremacist as much as he calls him a theocrat. Faisal Abdul Rauf is literally that, in that he believes in the sort of Islamic Republic that Iran has created. We have laws against that here.

136 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:26:18am

re: #135 Vreejack

Hitchens does not call the imam an Islamic supremacist as much as he calls him a theocrat. Faisal Abdul Rauf is literally that, in that he believes in the sort of Islamic Republic that Iran has created. We have laws against that here.

I have not seen any evidence that backs up your claim that Rauf is a "theocrat."

137 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:28:58am

[Tears freely flowing]
But Charles I thought you were perfect and incapable of mistakes or missatatements! Now I am just so disappointed and depressed that I will have to commit some form of ritual suicide (once I manage to find one suitable to my sensibilities on the internet).
[/Tears freely flowing]

/There you go stalkers, my blood will be on your hands.

(bwahahahahahaha, snort, snicker, teeheeheeheeheehee)

138 lostlakehiker  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:29:42am

Internet news articles from the most reliable sources, when they have to make a correction, usually post their corrected version, and then, in a note at the bottom, they mention "this corrects an error about X in version A." That way, everything's out in the open and there can be no talk of hiding tracks.

139 Kronocide  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:31:11am

re: #134 Vreejack

He writes books and gives talks. The Jehova's Witnesses think he's evil just for that, but I can't ever recall being visited by a pair of "fervent atheists" knocking unexpectedly upon my door when I was in the middle of a meal.

He just hasn't made it to your house yet. At least he (used to) drink and smoke with you!

I would have loved to have a late night scotch or two with him waxing philosophical.

140 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:34:00am

re: #22 Walter L. Newton

If you're redaction's and corrections were documented or footnoted... otherwise... it's called the Ministry of Truth.

No, Walter, the Ministry Of Truth edited things to conform with what the government wanted people to believe had occurred. They didn't update things with the truth.

If you actually claim you never edit anything, and then do, then obviously that's wrong. But no, most academic books, encyclopedias, and the like that change information do not note that it is different between versions.

Where did you get the idea that they did?

141 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:46:53am
142 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:49:18am

re: #141 moonsbreath

Well, I used to think Draw Mohammad day was a good thing and now I'm embarrassed that I ever supported such a piece of bigoted idiocy. I also thought the ACORN tapes were real.

143 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:55:47am

Class of 2004, waking up again.

144 Kronocide  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:00:36pm

re: #143 Charles

Class of 2004, waking up again.

I had a feeling. Didn't seem like a good point, just antagonism, the hallmark of the Class of '04.

145 Buck  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:01:59pm

#0 Charles

It doesn't seem that you are defending the Iman's view that Sharia law should be added “the law of the land.

He is certainly entitled to that view, and (I will speak for myself) I am entitled to disagree with him.

I don't think that it is stretching Sharia law to say that "the witness of a woman is equal half that of a man", or that under Sharia a female's portion of an inheritance is generally half the amount a male would receive under the same circumstances.

I don't agree that Sharia law compliments British law. I don't agree with the Iman that it is time to integrate aspects of Islamic law (Sharia) into the legal framework of British, or for that matter any legal system.

Does thinking that adding of Sharia law to “the law of the land” in Britain make anyone an Islamic Supremacist? That conclusion is properly left for the reader.

Does my disagreeing with the Iman make me a racist, or Islamophobic? I don't think so, but I suppose it is the reader of this posts right to disagree with me.

The addition of Sharia law to “the law of the land”, in this case British law, complements, rather than undermines, existing legal frameworks. The Archbishop was right. It is time for Britain to integrate aspects of Islamic law.

146 jill e  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:07:21pm

I can't remember what year I registered, but I find it fascinating that Hitchens was adamantly used as the final authority on Mother Teresa, but now his research is questionable.

147 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:08:45pm

re: #146 jill e

I can't remember what year I registered, but I find it fascinating that Hitchens was adamantly used as the final authority on Mother Teresa, but now his research is questionable.

And I find it fascinating that you seem unable to imagine how someone might be right about one thing, but wrong about another.

148 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:10:12pm

re: #146 jill e

Never mind -- I see that this is a sock puppet account for someone previously banned. So instead I will just bid you adieu.

149 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:15:25pm

Pffft. Tempest in a teapot, anyone could have made the mistake not knowing how much bad information about Rauf was out there due to certain groups.

As far as people critiquing Charles on this: the ones external disappear whole posts and never say a word, and the ones critiquing here in comments should know that...

150 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:15:27pm

As an admirer of Christopher Hitchen I will say that while I disagree with him regarding Imam Rauf I still remain a solid supporter of his views on religion and many of his observations of the Middle East. Many on the left still have an axe to grind with Mr. Hitchens due to his solid support of the Bush administration and support of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. You can't be all things to all people.

151 John Q  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:18:05pm

Charles:

That part of what I wrote is accurate -- WaPo's "On Faith" has definitely given a platform to quite a few radical Muslims, including the spiritual leader of Hezbollah and Hamas spokesmen.

Agreed. But you were clearly putting Rauf in their company in your post.

152 Reginald Perrin  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:18:18pm

A big man admits his error and moves on with an open mind. Petty little men become stalkers who mock those who change.

153 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:20:56pm

re: #151 John Q

Charles:

Agreed. But you were clearly putting Rauf in their company in your post.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I have no intention of rewriting the whole post; that would be kind of silly. I simply wanted to correct a specific mistaken description.

154 JRCMYP  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:28:40pm

Charles I would have corrected it too. However (and I haven't looked at what you changed) I would have added text that described what was edited and why. I belong to a debate board and we are required to do that if we even make minor spelling changes to our debates.

155 elizmr  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:50:03pm

Honestly, I think it is better to always explicitly make a note when changing a blog post given that it is published with a time/date stamp and changing something, especially such a judgmental characterization, could be misinterpreted. BTW, I went back and read the orig post. I thought his comments about sharia were concerning, given the ramifications for women's rights.

156 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 12:54:28pm

re: #155 elizmr

I do not agree that Britain should incorporate sharia into their existing legal framework, but it's important to actually read what Imam Rauf wrote here, because he's not saying he wants to impose sharia, and in fact he's only talking about "aspects" of sharia that do not conflict with existing British law:

Sharia law is unequivocally clear that Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim majority communities are required to abide by the law of the land. That doesn't prevent British Muslims from practicing aspects of Sharia that don't conflict with British law, or from seeking changes in British law.

You can argue with his opinion, but this is not some kind of extremist call for imposing sharia law on the UK.

157 dwells38  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:18:33pm

Got to be kidding me.

And you were just taunting me the other day for unsuccessfully convincing a fellow commenter that my mere criticism of the good Imam did not constitute bigotry.

I never called him anything other than what he is. An Islamic cleric.

I think the argument the other commenter was trying to make is that I used the old term formerly common here on LGF (RoP - now evidently verboten) and that my use of that evil hate-speak word automatically makes me an anti-Muslim bigot and thereby any criticism of Rauf is merely veiled bigotry. When we agreed to no longer speak to one another (since he doesn't talk to bigots) you taunted me for having gotten my ass kicked (the only real reason I no longer want to speak with him). And the minions gratuituously downpinged I'm sure.

Now your defending limited sharia law?

So this blog is liberal. So what. I can hang with liberals. I'm a social liberal myself.

But I'm not going to be frequenting (much less paying to turn the gratuitous ads off) of a blog that is essentially now pro-Islam. I wouldn't frequent a pro-Christian website either.

Plus the last couple times here haven't been fun with the host taunting me and/or making it clear I'm not welcome anyway.

To those i had some fun, friendly interactions maybe I'll talk to you somewhere else someday. Bye. For some others have fun with the usual door-hit-you-on-the-way-out digs. LOL! I may come back and read them for kicks if Charles doesn't merely delete this immediately.

158 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:20:02pm

re: #157 dwells38

See, this is the kind of stupid knee-jerk, no-thinking BS that really gets on my nerves.

What part of this:

I do not agree that Britain should incorporate sharia into their existing legal framework...

... is unclear to you?

159 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:22:06pm

And I'm going to make it easier for you not to post here any more after your idiotic "goodbye cruel world" comment by blocking your account.

160 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:25:00pm

re: #157 dwells38

Apparently you failed reading comprehension at an early age and it's been with you ever since.

161 elizmr  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:51:20pm

re: #156 Charles

I believe there was a controversy at the time the orig post was written about Muslims being able to settle some family law types of disputes using Sharia in England. I may be misinformed. To me, it sounds like he was saying that Muslims cannot expect to follow Sharia when it conflicts with GB law, but that they could certainly advocate to change GB law to bring it into line with Sharia.

I feel Rauf does see Sharia law as a gold standard to judge other law against (Sharia compliance index, etc). I feel like a true moderate would have to be honest about the incompatibility of sharia law with a liberal modern society in terms of women's rights and gay rights.

162 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:52:45pm

re: #161 elizmr

There is no one monolithic form of Sharia law.


Why do you believe there is? Do you think all Jews agree on Halakha?

163 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:53:30pm

re: #161 elizmr

A quote from Imam Rauf on the subject of women's rights:

In surveying the women who have been prominent in the history of the Islamic world, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a strong prototype for Muslim women and that women's rights are alive in the very theology of Islam. But, as in most countries the world over, the reality for women does not match the ideals we all know are right and just. As American women are fighting for equal pay for equal work, for reproductive rights and affordable childcare, Muslim women are fighting for compulsory education (in Afghanistan), the right to drive (in Saudi Arabia), and the right to cover their hair (in France and in Turkey). As American women are knocking through glass ceilings to acquire the rights due to them in the Constitution, Muslim women are doing the same to gain full access to their rights as laid out in the Quran and sunnah.

Many of the limits placed on women in Muslim (and non-Muslim) societies are the result of custom, and these limits continue because people have a hard time changing their customs. In terms of realizing social rights, the Muslim world is following a similar trajectory as in the West, and changing a society's notions of what is acceptable in gender roles takes generational change. Just as in America roles have changed dramatically, especially in the last hundered years as America has implemented the Abrahamic ethic to a greater degree, it is reasonable to expect that Muslim societies implementing the justice called for in Islamic theology will undergo parallel transformations.

This is why granting political rights is the most effective way to redress legitimate women's grievances. For as a nation becomes increasingly democratized, the ballot box becomes the means by which each constituent group in society attains its objectives.

164 elizmr  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:14:18pm

re: #162 Obdicut

As a non Mulsim, I am not an expert on Sharia Law, but, look, it is a matter of record that countries where Sharia law IS the law of the land like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc they stone adulterers, give homosexual men the death penalty, and women's rights are extremely limited.

Sure, there are Muslim reformers (such as Irshad Manji who I admire) and liberal Muslim scholars, but there are (yet) no large reform "movements" of Islam yet like Conservative, Reconstructionist or Reform Judiasm which have institutionalized an egalitarian point of view for women and in some cases gays.

Personally, I advocate the separation of religion and state and I get concerned about anyone who advocates against this or says that it would be preferable to have religious law replace civil law. It doesn't matter what religion they happen to be.

165 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:21:45pm

It's good to see, in this day and age, someone say they are wrong.

A very pleasant change from the usual.

Well done, Charles.

166 elizmr  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:22:02pm

re: #163 Charles

I agree that there has been progress in the US in the last hundred years, but I unlike Rauf (see below), I don't think that religion is generally part of the solution. I think it is more often part of the problem.

"Just as in America roles have changed dramatically, especially in the last hundered years as America has implemented the Abrahamic ethic to a greater degree, it is reasonable to expect that Muslim societies implementing the justice called for in Islamic theology will undergo parallel transformations."

167 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:34:39pm

re: #164 elizmr

Way to take a swipe at orthodox Jews.

You want a Muslim reformer?

Rauf is one.

But you don't actually want one.

So you attack him.

168 elizmr  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:46:57pm

re: #167 Obdicut

Obdicut, your remark is a totally uncivil overreaction to anything I said.

I have a lot of respect for Orthodox Judiasm, but it is not an egalitarian movement for women or for gays. It is just not. Fact.

I am not sure why you are saying that I don't want a Muslim reformer. I mentioned Irshad Manjii in my post who I consider more of a reformer than Rauf. She is a pretty interesting person and if you are not familiar with her writing I would suggest googling her and looking at her Web page.

I think to be a true reformer you have to be willing to be critical of aspects of your religion that aren't compatible with modern society/mores. I see Manjii doing that more than Rauf.

169 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:06:53pm

re: #168 elizmr

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. It's very obvious. You're denying the very words that he's written that were posted in this thread. He is making the claim that women's rights are enshrined in the Koran-- that's about as 'reformer' as you get.

And:

This is why granting political rights is the most effective way to redress legitimate women's grievances. For as a nation becomes increasingly democratized, the ballot box becomes the means by which each constituent group in society attains its objectives.

He's entirely right. There is no greater way to increase female rights in the Muslim world than increasing female political participation.

And you object to him on the grounds that he is religious, basically.

170 aagcobb  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 5:45:18pm

Admit it, you've become a seekrit mooslem!!11!!

171 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:44:08pm

re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What a bunch of fucking idiots.

Perhaps if they did more f***ing, they'd be less inclined to be idiots.

172 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:49:29pm

re: #68 garhighway

Wildly OT:

The notes people leave when their neighbors steal their newspaper:

[Link: www.passiveaggressivenotes.com...]

One of the comments is relevant to Pamz--

"i before e except after vodka"

173 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:03:54pm

re: #162 Obdicut

There is no one monolithic form of Sharia law.

Why do you believe there is? Do you think all Jews agree on Halakha?

Hell, we can't even agree on how to spell it in English.

Old Jewish joke--

"What do you get when you have ten Jews?
Seventeen opinions."

174 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:20:50am
175 tnguitarist  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:32:22am

re: #174 fluffyabsolutist

And what is this whole post?

176 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:35:19am
177 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:35:50am
178 nakhmish  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 4:33:58am

First of all I must say that I completely agree with the correction itself. I didn't see any proof that Imam Rauf is an Islamic supremacist.
Obdicut - about

He is making the claim that women's rights are enshrined in the Koran-- that's about as 'reformer' as you get

.
Not true. someone who finds justifications in his religious texts for doing good is not a reformist. A good person,yes , even a good community leader maybe, but not a reformist. You can be a good man and an orthodox if you manage to explain to yourself how some of the atrocities in every holy text that I came across are not what they seem.
A reformist is someone who thinks religious laws should be updated and changed. Imam Rauf claims that it's all there already and no reform is necessary.

179 elizmr  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 6:11:28am

re: #169 Obdicut

Actually, no, I don't object to him on the grounds that he is religious. I have mentioned another person who I consider a reformer who is also religious. She is not an Imam like Rauf, but then again women can't be Imams in Islam and the way to change that is NOT through the ballot box, it is from within the religion. What is needed for reform of any stream of Sharia is for some brave Imams to challenge the status quo.

Nakmish has the point exactly above.

BTW, I don't see why we have to be "for" the Imam or "against" him. Isn't it possible to take a more nuanced pov of the man?

180 mishuga  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 7:34:42am

re: #118 Charles

Kudos. I hope that you notate future non-grammatical corrections as well. Credibility is very important. I would go as far as implementing a revision system whereby viewers are given a direct link to previous editions of a post.

181 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 8:37:56am

And another member of the class of 2004 wakes up and melts down.

Whenever I post an article defending myself against an attack from these idiots, this happens.

182 mishuga  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:06:24am

re: #181 Charles

And another member of the class of 2004 wakes up and melts down.

Whenever I post an article defending myself against an attack from these idiots, this happens.

Huh? Melting down? I'm just talking about intellectual transparency. I think it's commendable that you corrected the original, inflammatory post, but clearly marking it as revised and showing the revision history is essential to maintaining your credibility. To be clear, I mean your credibility not as a conservative or a liberal or a centrist, but as an intellectual. If you revise your previous writings without properly notating your revisions, you run the risk of eclipsing whatever discourse you are trying to facilitate by appearing as though you are hiding something.

183 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:12:15am

re: #182 mishuga

Why would you think "class of 2004" applies to you? You just registered last month.

184 mishuga  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:25:47am

re: #183 Charles

I'd left a comment or two years ago before having an account was mandatory for posting. I'm a longtime reader of lgf, though not avid enough to catch one of the registration periods.

185 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 2:55:47pm
186 wrenchwench  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 3:02:52pm

re: #185 ilevinelaw

You have a lot of catching up to do. Up at the top, just under the post, there are some "tags". One of them says, "Robert Spencer". Click on that and further your education.

187 b_Snark  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 3:03:17pm

Charles, I think you've been accused of trying to 'hide the decline'.

188 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 5:00:59pm
189 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 8:04:11pm

Dead thread assholes again. What a surprise.

190 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 8:15:07pm

Blog vandalism, gotta love it


You wonder how many of these people have jobs

191 Mark Pennington  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:40:20pm

re: #189 Charles

Dead thread assholes again. What a surprise.

You're the most lied about and stalked blogger on the web. Although it has to get tiresome...it means you're still relevant. ;) (despite their claims that you aren't.)


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh