Aisha Eteraz writes about Muslims’ yearning for a rule of scholars. Just as Americans prefer a leader they feel they could have a beer with, so do Muslims prefer a leader who has solid intellectual and theological credentials. She applies this to the proposal by MPAC to appoint a Muslim advisor to the President about Islam and Muslims, an intermediary between Muslim Americans and the US government.
While the debate on Eteraz is largely about what sort of rule Muslims prefer, I oppose the idea for a different reason: Britain tried it, and it didn’t work. The government has to tolerate a high level of identity politics to succeed in promoting racial integration, but it can’t actively promote it. Otherwise, it would just impose an identity on minorities, who would then get the message that they’re different and act like it. The phenomenon of Western-born Muslim girls wearing hijabs even though their immigrant mothers didn’t is a direct result of that.
Minorities tend to find it easier to assimilate when the majority group doesn’t keep reminding them that they’re different, either via discriminating against them or via giving them an official religious representative.
Piny writes about bisexuality, and how there are many more bisexual women than self-identified bisexual or lesbian women. He complains about an article that notes this trend but expresses such misgivings as, “Those doubts aside, I think freelance lesbianism is a positive development, as long as the girls are enjoying themselves and not doing it purely for male entertainment.”
“You! Yes, you over there, the girl wrapped around the other girl! Are you doing this for my benefit? Is this a shameless display designed to titillate? Do you want to make out with me? Hello? Hello? Take your hand out of her blouse and look at me when I’m talking to you!”
Why doesn’t anyone ever seem to wonder that kind of thing about public displays of heterosexuality?
Apostrophe at Unfogged links to a forum (login required) whose proclamations about Obama should make Fundies Say the Darndest Things. I have no patience for him – he reminds me too much of a fundamentalist Democratic Presidential contender in my novel, except that my character is an overt homophobe and a more abrasive Dominionist – but calling him the anti-Christ is a textbook example of an exaggeration.
Hey, I have given prophesy before and I truly beleive that Obama will be the Beast who makes everyone else worship that other funky creature. He will give His power up to this other creature( S) This other creature could be all those Seven or Eight really wealthy people who like own the World and not want everyone’s heart and souls and now they are going to use Obama -his kindess and meekness his sincerity-to gain everyone’s trust. Beleive me Obama is prolly sincere about his intentions to some extant but He may come to power and realize how good that is to such an extant that he will sell US out-to the more powerful beast. Obama will be the bridge between the average Jo Schmo who just wants the world a better place to the Anti-Christ who will take these souls away. Scripture will be fulfilled. I promise you and if they ever trace me back to this URL I am doomed. Also because BArack comes from such a multi-cultural liberal background he may turn into a Muslim or something…and we will die by the sword as SCripture mandates, now these final thoughts are my own…
On the other hand, I can’t feel anything but schadenfreude here. It’s good that Dominionists are spending time on attacking another Dominionist rather than on attacking secularists and moderate theists.
Via Echidne, it appears that Bush wants to try privatizing Social Security again.
[Link] President George W. Bush said Republicans can hold their congressional majority by focusing on national security and the economy, and that he will return to overhauling Social Security as a top domestic priority for his last two years in office.
Judging by the level of intelligence needed to think it’d help the administration, I’d wager that Bush came up with that strategy himself. Americans don’t want Social Security privatized, and Republican political commercials have failed to change their minds about it. Most Americans agree with the Democrats on the issues or are to their left; in face of a Democratic Party that fails to bring up even a single issue, the worst strategy the Republicans could come up with is to emphasize such an unpopular platform plank.