I was impressed by the comments folks posted on my original Huh? post. A lot of very perceptive comments and well-delivered humor. My compliments, folks! I was touched!
I’m not going to drag this subject out, but wanted to put a few items on the record.
First, as many pointed out, I did not endorse the Iraq War in the posts that the original commenter cited. Neither did I dis-endorse it.
Second, I have no intention of commenting specifically on the war at this point. There is no official Catholic stance on the war, and I generally confine myself to matters of theory rather than matters of application when it comes to subjects like this.
Further, if I were to stake out a position in the way that the commenter wants, it would only "feed the troll" as the saying goes. I have no interest in being provoked into a debate with the commenter on this or any other subject. I’ve tried to be patient and charitable, but I’m not going to feed a fixation.
Lest there be any doubt as to the unreasonableness of what was being asked of me in this case (and others have already very ably pointed out the problems here), I would like to put on record an e-mail that was sent to me at 11:05 p.m. Pacific Time, just over an hour before my "Huh?" post even went up–at which point I had publicly said nothing in response to the commenter. In this e-mail, the commenter wrote:
Mr. Akin,
So, you have been a little bit too much influenced by Richard John
Neuhaus, so that you’re a neoconservative like he is now, right?
This is simply wild speculation on the part of the commenter.
In point of fact, I can’t recall ever reading anything Fr. Neuhaus has written on the Iraq War. I don’t know what Fr. Neuhaus’ opinion of it is. I don’t know if he’s a "neoconservative," and I certainly am not one myself.
The commenter is simply leaping wildly to conclusions for which he has no rational grounds.
Further, the commenter carboned his e-mail to eight different people besides myself, all of whom are notable Catholic bloggers. In deference to them, I will not re-post their e-mail addresses.
I will, however, compliment them on the fact that at this time of this writing not one of them has chosen to respond to the commenter’s e-mail–at least not with me included in the reply. It appears that they all have the blogger ethics and professionalism to recognize and resist such attempts to gin up a baseless controversy and start a blogpile on someone else.
For all I know, they themselves may have had encounters with individuals attempting to entrap them in this fashion.
In any event, my compliments to them and to the voices of reason that have weighed in on this subject.
We now return to the blog . . . already in progress.
Note: I also posted this as a comment on the “Huh?” blog.
Let’s clear up a few things.
I disagree with some of Jimmy’s statements about the Muslim faith. He seems to be opposed to it. What he doesn’t understand is that it’s very likely that the terrorist elements in Islam have very little to do with “Fundamentalist Islam” itself. I believe that Mr. Buchanan has stated this. In fact, the proportion of terrorist Muslims is no greater than the proportion of Christians who are Ku Klux Klan members. I think that Jimmy Akin is fueling hatred towards Islam. While I know that it is his duty to convert people to Catholicism, I think it is intellectually dishonest to fault the Islamic religion itself for militant Jihadist terrorist elements within that faith.
I have a correction to make, Mr. Akin. I sent the email also to ten other people besides yourself. The last two were on the second CC line.
Mr. Akin,
Just wanted to let Jimmy know that my Catholic uncle, who sponsored me in becoming Catholic, LOVES Jimmy Akin’s radio show on Ave Maria Radio. He says you, Jimmy Akin, know more about canon law than most canon lawyers, and my uncle encourages me and my mom to listen.
Mr. Akin,
Just wanted to let Jimmy know that my Catholic uncle, who sponsored me in becoming Catholic, LOVES Jimmy Akin’s radio show on Ave Maria Radio. He says you, Jimmy Akin, know more about canon law than most canon lawyers, and my uncle encourages me and my mom to listen.
Keep up the good work, Jimmy!
Wha? What does Islam have to do with Jimmy’s post?
>>Wha? What does Islam have to do with Jimmy’s post?>>
I’m mainly referring to some of Jimmy’s writings on Catholic Answers. It doesn’t have to do with this post, but the subject does come up in earlier posts.
Heeeaar we go again.
This comes from the Catholic Answers site. I don’t know whether or not Jimmy Akin authored it, but whoever did, it is misleading.
“The usual meaning of Islam in Arabic is not “peace” but “submission.” And if the terrorists were so far outside the mainstream, why did Muslims all over the world burst into joyful, spontaneous celebrations when the hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why are Islamic governments afraid to show “too much” public support for the war against terrorism? Further, why are all the governments that covertly support terrorism centered in the Muslim world?”
First of all, the “celebrations” in the Middle East on Sept. 11 that some media sources released were false because it was nighttime in the Middle East when these clips were shown on TV, so they couldn’t have been from September 11.
Second of all, correlation is not causation. Just because governments that “covertly support terrorism” are mostly in Muslim countries does not mean that Islam has caused these governments to support terrorism.
Err just a comment on the time zone thing: Much of the Middle East is on GMT+3 or GMT+4. It wasn’t nighttime there when the towers came down and the footage of some people celebrating was filmed. For example, 9:00 AM in New York (GMT-5) would be 17:00 (or 5:00 PM) in Israel (GMT+3).
It seems pretty likely to me that this guy is trying to draw attention to himself and his blog.
I’ve heard that CNN reporters paid the muslim woman to scream out of joy on TV. She’s said afterwards that she didn’t even know what was going on, and that she’s very sorry.
Hey Erik! I’ve got a great idea for a name for your blog! How about “Wild Tangents”?
I heard that the moon is made of cheese–a nice parmigiano reggiano, if I remember correctly. The Italians made it, I guess. The claim is so outragous that it must be true.
That actually was not a woman at all — it was Erik dressed up as a woman and crying for joy. Why? To fuel controversy! What controversy? Erik wanted to show the world that a Muslim woman dancing in the street does not necessarily mean that Muslims support terrorism.
But unfortunately people completely misunderstood his gesture and instead started a war. Now Erik is feeling guilty because the Iraqi war is ALL HIS FAULT. And also some guilt about trying to mislead people into thinking he was a Muslim woman. But mostly because the Iraqi war is ALL HIS FAULT.
Since then, Erik has worked tirelessly to impress on people the need for peace. A CHAMPION OF JUSTICE! … with a daaark past…
Just like Batman. Who is also … Erik!
Only instead of a cave, Erik lives in an ivory tower — where ideas are placed on higher pedestal than reality for the very fact that they matter less.
C’mon people! Can’t you put two and two together? Don’t you remember seeing Batman running through the streets with a sign attached to his cape:
This is a cape and not some burka. I am not a Muslim woman but a superhero who wants to fight crime. In no way do I represent our precious Muslim brethren or sisteren. Not that I think they do not want to fight crime. You only think Muslims like crime because you have lost your mind.
How could you miss a sign that big? And how could you not know that Erik is Batman, the Dancing Muslim Woman, and my second grade teacher Mrs. Loen? Have you …
ah, forget it, that horse been beat…
Jimmy,
Please, please, please censor Erik…he’s hurting my head.
That’s it.
Erik, you’ve gone so far over the line from the mere youthful callowness with which I originally charitably credited you into indefensibly rude, abusive, intrusive, overbearing enfant terrible behavior that the time has come and gone to stop cutting you slack and cut you loose.
Sending a hostile email to one person and including / cc’ing other uninvolved persons of similar stature, as if to try to bring some sort of pressure to bear, is beyond passive-aggressive into overt and open aggression. What were you thinking? There’s just no excuse for that kind of behavior. This isn’t the result of not knowing better, this is the result of psychological issues that need more help than any of us can offer you in this forum — not least because you obviously have no interest in being helped and don’t take the slightest notice of anything anyone says except insofar as it relates directly to your issue fixations.
So that’s it. I’m done. If I were Jimmy and I hadn’t blocked you from the site by this time, I’d surely do it by now.
StubbleSpark is my hero. And he had made my day. Long live StubbleSpark.
“It doesn’t have to do with this post,”
You have finally hit on (or most likely accidently swerved into) the real issue with your posting in Jimmy’s comment box. As others have suggested, please go to other sites to continue your discussions. Maybe it’s just me, but I would think that issues you have with something on the Catholic Answers site would be more appropriately addressed on that site.
Sheesh, don’t they teach manners anymore?
Erik sounds like a troll to me.
What’s sad is that this guy is so far gone that he will not understand StubbleSpark’s scathing brilliance. That was beautiful, SS.
“dieux” means “gods”, unless you mean “deux” for “two”?
Steven, I don’t appreciate your manipulation either.
Wha? What does Islam have to do with Jimmy’s post?
It doesn’t. He’s a troll. As Steve wrote: It seems pretty likely to me that this guy is trying to draw attention to himself and his blog. Don’t feed the troll.
Erik, go to sleep or something. You’re posting at insanely late hours.
Erik,
I’m invoking my authority as a mother, and I say Go To Your Room. Look up the word ‘manipulate’ in the dictionary. Contemplate the difference between the DICTIONARY definition of manipulation and constructive criticism (as expressed, for example, by Steve).
Do not post again until you have spent at least an hour in this manner.
Crikey, man! My internet was on the fritz last night; I sure missed a whole darn lot here!
“Steven, I don’t appreciate your manipulation either.”
The pointing out of fact is “manipulation”, Erik? Wow.
As a brother in Christ, I feel I’ve got to inform you that you’re way over the top, here. As I pointed out in the previous “Huh?” post – perhaps a bit too subtly, what you’re displaying here is not Christian charity. Please re-read, with a prayerful heart, what others are saying about your posting style. You jump to conclusions, make wild assumptions, & generally see what you want to see that supports whatever opinion you’re currently putting forth. First it’s the Iraq war . . . now, it’s Muslims in general. Honestly, there’re just no facts to support your opinions about Jimmy. That, sir, is manipulation.
And, if we can all agree on a place that’s convenient for everyone to meet for drinks . . . I’m buyin’! This means you, too, Erik! I prefer authentic Irish pub type places but I’m open to suggestions.
“And, if we can all agree on a place that’s convenient for everyone to meet for drinks . . . I’m buyin’!”
ROAD TRIP!!!
Whack-A-Mole, anyone?
Erik- in the words of Zaphod Beeblebrox, “Put your analyst on danger money, baby. Now!”
I look forward to visiting your blog when you grow up.
+J.M.J+
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: What ever happened to Netiquette?
In Jesu et Maria,
It seems that you guys have an interesting, though unintellegent and certainly immature, way of dealing with anyone that disagrees your politics. Sorry I stumbled in on your fight – most uncharitable.
What was uncharitable from the beginning was Erik’s strident, accusatory and demanding rhetoric. When you comment on someone’s blog you are their guest, and it is inappropriate (and unproductive) to begin a dialogue with the words “Are you out of your mind?”.
While Erik may not have intentionally acted as a troll, the effect was certainly the same. He came into the comment box kicking over tables, demanding answers to wild accusations and continually introduced completely unrelated topics. When he was called on his behavior he would offer a half-hearted apology and continue doing the same things. While he didn’t (maybe) deserve to be made sport of, he certainly ought to expect a drubbing for his pushy on-line demeanor.
So, sure, enough making fun of Erik, but enough hand wringing over the whole thing, too.
And, Dan- it isn’t Erik’s politics that anyone disagreed with, it was his attitude. If you noticed, almost no one was sucked into actually discussing politics with him. Your comment makes me believe that you have not spent a great deal of time on Jimmy’s blog and that you have unfairly judged him and his readers.
Most uncharitable.
Man I enjoy a good fight!
How come I missed this one?
I guess I’m really a man of peace….but I still like a good fight; maybe its that bit of Irish in me.
Which makes me agree with Gene, about a beer at an Irish pub.
Tim,
Please allow me to respond:
1. Regarding your statement “it isn’t Erik’s politics that anyone disagreed with, it was his attitude”, Erik’s posts have an implicitly political tone. Topics such as war and religion are the stuff that politics is made of. I doubt that anyone could get so riled up over some minor infraction of unwritten blog posting rules. I believe that the episode was politically charged, otherwise the fellow would have been ignored from the onset. Everyone was “sucked into” discussing politics with him, like it or not.
Whether or not the guy had a bad attitude or bad manners is a subjective judgement. What is sure is that he expressed unpopular opinions. If you want to look at bad manners and immaturity, the use of the word “troll” is a giveaway. Get after those folks and be sure that you are not guilty of bad attitude, manners, etc., before you accuse others.
The comments and responses remind me of what I’ve seen in places such as MSN’s religion chat, where those with differing opinions are frequently banned. Sorry, but I don’t have a high opinion of that kind of behavior.
2. You are correct, I have not spent a great deal of time on Jimmy’s blog. It’s irrelevant since I’m not commenting on any aspect of the blog site other than the posts concerning Erik. However, first impressions count!
3. I did not mention Jimmy, nor make any statement in his regard, in my original comment. THerefore you are incorrect in saying that I judged him. My reference was only to those whose comments resorted to belittling behavior, such as name calling. It’s the kind of thing you’d see in an elementary school.
4. Again, it wasn’t Jimmy’s readers (all) of whom I made a judgement, but those whose comments seemed unfair and immature (some). So please don’t make the leap in logic to assume that I judge Jimmy’s readership.
I’m very aware of Jimmy’s work in apologetics and the value of his radio program, as are many Catholics throughout the country. Unfortunately, I believe that it reflects negatively overall that Jimmy would give attention in a major posting to one individual who hasn’t quite worked out his style of communicating with others.
Whether or not the guy had a bad attitude or bad manners is a subjective judgement. What is sure is that he expressed unpopular opinions.
How do you know that his opinions were unpopular? Have all of us made statements about our views on the war? Or do you have the charism of reading minds that Erik claimed for himself?
For my own part, the irony is that my position probably isn’t that far from Erik’s. It certainly wasn’t Erik’s position I was objecting to.
If you want to look at bad manners and immaturity, the use of the word “troll” is a giveaway.
Troll is a common word in Internet parlance. Regardless of whether he actually was a troll or not, he was acting like one (i.e., his constant stream of non-sensical accusations, nonsequiturs, and fake apologies were sure to garner a heated response).
Well, Publius, would you classify Erik’s statement “I think that Jimmy Akin is fueling hatred towards Islam” as a popular opinion?
I note your correction regarding the use of “troll” as a special internet term. Still, the term carries a negative connotation and seems to me to be an easy way to discount someone you don’t care to deal with.
My brain a splode.
Honestly, the only one that brought politics to the table was Erik and Erik alone. He came off as irrational and unreasonable and the seemingly calm and collected people here have responded to that and only that. Of course their responses INCLUDED politically-oriented things Erik talked about. That’s why it’s a “response.” But they themselves did not initiate such discussion nor did they dissolve into debate, which certainly would have happened had they seriously brought their own views into it. Need I remind Dan that people don’t really like harrassment.
I daresay someone’s being a little judgemental and unfair. Those are the right words, aren’t they?
(I probably could have thrown “community” and “diversity” in there somewhere, but then I’d really be asking for it. Now I just have to wait for someone to ask if I have a problem with either one. ::sigh::)
Kate,
It’s really a dead issue as far as I’m concerned. Sorry you felt harrassed – this is the first time I’ve ever addressed you personally.
Take a deep breath.