Perhaps so, Kevin. At the moment I was focusing on the limits of trying to apply the "No true Scotsman" to a religion, these being that religions usually have fairly definite rules for behaving. And therefore saying "No true Whatever would behave like that", is not the No True Scotsman fallacy as "not behaving like that" is part of a given religion's definition.

At the same time Christians do overuse that, by saying such and such a wicked person was "Not a true Christian". How do we know that? Being a Christian is defined by accepting Christ. We can say,such and such a person is "Not behaving in a Christian manner", but that is different.

I am about to tear my hair out by the roots listening to politically correct Christians straining to stay within the "politically correct" spectrum on all things related to Islam.

There are so large a number of Islamic controlled nations on this planet, and every single one adheres to militant/radicalism.

Our country is merely following in the footsteps of our European brethren who have politically corretivized themselves into an extremely deep quagmire where Islam is concerned. Now that it is to late for them, some governments have sought to control the militant nature of their own populations. Too late. Most of the militant activities in Europe aren't even reported by their own newspapers let alone ours.

The anti-semitism in Europe is so rampant that Jews are now leaving that continent in droves. It is due mostly to the activity of Muslims there.

The lack of any realistic education anymore on Islam and its atrocious behavior throughout, has lead even our own Christian population grasping at for politically correct straws.

The news media is so stringently controlled by the Liberal factions (read George Soros) that reality is highly filtered in the U.S. Nothing is ever stated about Muslims rioting, burning, and chasing local police forces in Europe. In some countries, the fire departments and ambulance services refuse to respond to the many Muslim controlled neighborhoods.

Robert Benchley had a humorous story about a man on trial for murder, but whose trials had the curious coincidence that in each case, the judge was found dead, poisoned, with a tiny pin-prick mark just behind his right ear. The final judge would call the trial to order every few months and then immediately grant a recess, all the while holding his right hand behind his ear, guarding it.

This strikes me as analogous to how the jihadism has intimidated the more-civilized world. So few have the nerve to stand up to the murderers, because these people set off bombs in public places. (I believe we have just passed the 23rd anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing?-- as just one instance.)

If they truly wish to have this accepted as a religion of peace, then they should band together and denounce those responsible for the cowardly killings, and refuse to grant them the freedom to dwell among the peace-loving and peace-craving.

Yes, it is guilt by association, and yet they have the ability (and I would say, the responsibility) to sunder the association.

It truly grieves me to have such harsh feelings reinforced; but then again, my fiancée is in Mindanao, and Abu Sayyaf there kidnaps foreigners and beheads them, and sets of bombs in public places. This has become slightly more than academic for me; they have had four bombings in her city in the past five weeks.

And, re Ray Bradbury, over-rated compared to what I perceive to be his reputation. :-)

Kevin, regarding Bradbury I should probably respond to you with the deadpan delivery Jason does so incredibly well, asking "Over-rated compared to whom?" ;-)

Kelvin (and in spite of the season, I'll forego any "no l" jokes), if you saw a TV listing for "All-American Christian" on TLC, would you think the show might have an agenda? If so, what might that agenda be? Further, how would the recently departed Christopher Hitchens assess the fairness of "All-American Muslim"? For some ideas, see http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/point-blog/entry/37/18422

The pity is, as Kevin points out, that this TV show could be an excellent platform from which American Muslims could condemn terrorism. However, we know that won't happen, because condemning it makes you a target - assuming, as Gina pointed out via the YouTube clip, that you really *do* condemn it.

It's difficult to see this entire affair as other than Lowe's being punished for adhering to official propaganda, then being punished for not adhering to it. And the propaganda is "official" because politicians and the media fear the consequences of speaking out. Hmmm - Christopher Hitchens was actually beaten while in a Muslim country, wasn't he. We should all hold hands in a circle and chant "Islam is a religion of peace" - except that by massing in a circle, we become a better target.

And shoot (yes, a bad pun), even if terrorism stopped tomorrow, the purpose of the grand jihad (in Andrew McCarthy's phrase) is to transform America into a sharia-compliant state. That means homosexuals and females should enjoy their freedom while they still have it (and homosexuals, their lives), and we all should give our dogs a bone while we can.

Oh, and sing those Christmas carols; I think Sufism is the only Islamic branch favorably disposed toward music. (Hmmm - no muzak in any warehouse stores, is there...)

I completely agree with you, Gina. We can definitely use more honesty and understanding, especially in a culture of spin and truth-twisting as we find ourselves.

Jason, I agree with you that the question is how to define a true Scotsman, or in this case, a true Muslim. But as I understand it, Muslims themselves have a five-point definition of what it means to be a Muslim (including confessing Muhammad as prophet of the one true god Allah, praying to Mecca, and giving alms). That definition doesn't include celebrating terrorism and wanting to kill all Jews, even if there are some Muslims who think that way.

So what right do we as outsiders have to tell the people on the TV show that they're not really "good" Muslims, and therefore the show is dishonest to present them as examples of Muslims in America? I think we're focusing on the kilt, and not on ancestors living north of Hadrian's Wall.

Kevin, the "No true Scotsman" fallacy can only apply if the statement "no true Scotsman" has no necessary relation to the accepted definition. It is perfectly true that "No true Scotsman is completely bereft of territorial, ancestral, cultural, and/or symbolic ties to the area of the United Kingdom between Hadrian's Wall and the North Atlantic."

...is the almost total silence, world-wide, about the almost-daily attrocities committed by Muslims, in so many different locales, incl. North America (not just Fort Hood, but also "honor-killings").
Why are they not uniform in denouncing such violence and attrocities? Can they not see that this reflects DIRECTLY on the treatment they receive, both in the media and in person?

And in an aside to LeeQuod, personally I think that Ray Bradbury is over-rated. :-)

That said, MERRY CHRISTMAS to each and all of the readers of these blogs! And to conflate two holidays-- I think that Chuck Colson gave his implicit approval the other day for this-- "HE IS RISEN INDEED!!"

The discussion about what a Muslim must or must not believe in relation to the American way of life tends to remind me of the classic logic example:

All good Scotsmen wear kilts.
Ian doesn't wear a kilt.
Therefore, Ian isn't a good Scotsman.

I'm extremely reluctant to tell a self-identified Muslim that he's not truly a Muslim because he, for instance, accepts the American consititutional system. In first place, just like Christianity has various strands with substantially different outlooks on life (beyond religious practice), so does Islam; not just the Sunni/Shia division, but variations within that. Wahhabi Islam is very different from what's practiced in, for instance, Indonesia, though both are within the Sunni camp.

In the second place, haven't we all had experiences of people tarring us with the example of self-proclaimed Christians standing up for what they think the Bible mandates? (Fred Phelps of "God hates [homosexuals]" immediately comes to mind.) Is it fair for us to do the same thing to Muslims who may have no sympathy for the bin Ladens of the world?

Does "All American Muslim" give only a partial view of Muslim life in the U.S.? Of course. How can any single show provide a complete view? But it presents a slice of reality; it is not dishonest in what it presents. This isn't a show trying to make out Osama bin Laden as a fun-loving, devoted husband and father without mention of his day job. And if we wonder whether all Muslims in the U.S. think the same way, we can simply check out the news reports...

It may be theoretically true that no one can be a good Moslem and a good American at the same time. However the fact is India's Moslems took the British side in World War I, and the end result was that there were more Moslems fighting for the officially Christian British then for the officially Moslem Ottomans.

You have a point about tactics, Philip. There's plenty of room for debate about whether boycotts do more harm than good. I think Starbuck was trying to say much the same thing in her article. I just wanted to make a point that I think she had overlooked, about the need for total honesty and understanding of what's at issue.

LeeQuod, I quit using Home Depot when they became "Homo-Depo", which is what everybody in my neck of the woods calls them. Lowe's was only a block further away, and always had what I needed at a comparable price. The first I heard that Lowe's was backing All-American Muslim was when they backed out. I was relieved: I don't know where else I'd go!

As for Ms. Starbuck and the others who see from her perspective--and, as the article mentioned--one cannot read the Qu'ran and other Islamic material without realizing that the whole point of Islam is to take over the whole bloomin' world! Granted, as with any religion, some are more "into it" than others. Nevertheless, their rhetoric is SO toxic that everyone I know has laid in arms and ammunition.

One last thought: if you read the Muslim literature and the Constition side-by-side, it is irrefutably obvious that no one can be a "good" Muslim and a "good" American simultaneously. It simply isn't possible. I feel sorrier for the ones who reject that fact than I do for the poor deluded Muslims!

I have concerns about this approach. Even though the coverage can (and may be) slanted, to engage in what I call "economic censorship" is to invite it back upon yourself, as witnessed by the recent boycott threats against Target by the gay lobby which helped lead to the Salvation Army not being able to have bell ringers onsite. Besides, ALL reality shows should be taken cum grano salis; after all, when the participants know that they are on camera, how "real" can the reality truly be?

Hmmm - Fairfax, VA is about 30 minutes away from the Library of Congress, by car. I wonder if any of those All-American Muslims would care to comment on the importance of preserving documents written by Christians and other infidels. See http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286391/torch-has-been-passed-new-generation-mark-steyn

If I personally knew a historian - Hey, I **DO** know one, and he's awesome!! - I'd ask him about the civilizational significance of the loss of the Library of Alexandria. I'd wonder about that loss versus the preservation of ancient books by monks who were in the spiritual lineage of St. Patrick. I'd ponder how a religious foundation can affect which books are kept, which are banned, and which are burned.

And yes, "Fahrenheit 451" is on my winter vacation reading list.

I'm really surprised Lowe's pulled their ads, since they should have known what the show was about from the beginning. It was obvious that it was intended to paint Muslims in a good light. I don't have a problem with that. There are radical Muslims, and non-radical Muslims. I've known some of both categories. I am convinced that the base philosophy is extremist, but Christians have different ideas about how we should live. Why should it be any different for Muslims?

It's easy to understand, and to do, the "harmless as doves" half.

But it's only *half*.

Two books, one by Bonhoeffer and one about him (by Eric Metaxas) are on my vacation reading list.




Hmmm - what are Muslims called on to show?

(Yeah, I know - that was a Lowe blow. Well, I've been a loyal Home Depot customer for a long time, but I'm thinking about switching.)


And FYI, immediately following that decision to pull the ads, the USA Today newspapers featured several "news articles" written by Muslim women reporters which were (ahem) unveiled attacks on Lowe's. "Journalistic integrity" apparently now means consistently reporting with the same bias.