President Obama on Coptic Christians and Rohingya Muslims: Is There a Double Standard?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged the president of Myanmar on Monday to halt violence against a Muslim minority but praised economic and political reforms in the formerly pariah nation that is emerging as a U.S. ally in China's backyard.

During the first visit to the White House in 47 years by a leader of the Southeast Asian nation, Obama called for an end to the killings of Rohingya Muslims in western Myanmar's Rakhine state.

Reformist Myanmar President Thein Sein vowed to resolve ethnic conflicts and bring perpetrators to justice.

"I also shared with President Sein our deep concern about communal violence that has been directed at Muslim communities inside Myanmar. The displacement of people, the violence directed towards them needs to stop," Obama said.

At least 192 people died last year in violence between Buddhists in Rakhine and Rohingya Muslims, who are denied citizenship by Myanmar. Most of the victims, and the 140,000 people made homeless in the attacks, were Muslims. (Read more)

Many people have been accusing President Obama of having a double standard with Christian and Muslim victims of violence after his recent statements about the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar, usually alleging that he does not respond the same way to anti-Coptic violence in Egypt.  Both Copts and Rohingyas are often subject to violence that results in injuries, deaths, damage to property, and displacement, and the violence against them is also mostly one-sided, so one should expect the President to respond in a similar manner to the plights of both Coptic Christians and Rohingya Muslims.


It's more eloquent and less brain-melting when I say it.

I hate to agree with the English-challenged people above, but there is a double standard, whether President Obama, whom I respect, is consciously aware of it.  Compare what he says about the Rohingya Muslims to the statement the White House released during the anti-Coptic Maspero massacre of 2011:

Statement by the Press Secretary on Violence in Egypt

The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces.  The United States expresses our condolences to the families and loved ones of all who were killed or injured, and stands with the Egyptian people in this painful and difficult time.  Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.  As the Egyptian people shape their future, the United States continues to believe that the rights of minorities - including Copts - must be respected, and that all people have the universal rights of peaceful protest and religious freedom.  We also note Prime Minister Sharaf's call for an investigation and appeal to all parties to refrain from violence.  These tragic events should not stand in the way of timely elections and a continued transition to democracy that is peaceful, just and inclusive.

 

Those are pretty words, but the statement mostly avoids the facts and fails to explicitly condemn the Egyptian anti-Christian violence.

The notion that the events in Maspero were some sort of mutual conflict in which the Copts had just as much fault as the military and the Muslim attackers is actually based entirely on anti-Christian propaganda disseminated by the Egyptian state media and repeated by the Western media.  All the accusations against the Copts were proven to be false shortly afterwards--for example, it turns out that the Copts were not responsible for any deaths, even though it was initially reported that they killed three soldiers.  Even the Western media corrected the reports it released.  Coptic-American scholar and activist Raymond Ibrahim gives a concise summary of what really happened: the peaceful Coptic demonstrators were initially attacked by Muslims, then the military attacked them, then they fought back, then they were subject to clearly hate-motivated attacks because of the lies of the state media.  The Copts acted in self-defense.  The Maspero massacre was, simply stated, anti-Christian violence and should be condemned as such.
So the President relied on disproven anti-Christian propaganda and condemned the Copts equally with their attackers.  It should be noted that besides a few passing mentions of their plight, he has never released any statements clearly calling for an end to anti-Christian violence in Egypt.

While Rohingya Muslims occasionally carry out acts of retribution, they are infrequent in comparison to Buddhist anti-Muslim attacks in Burma.  However, the President could have easily equally condemned the victims of anti-Muslim violence with their attackers by the logic he used in the Maspero massacre statement if he had relied on Buddhist anti-Muslim propaganda, which frequently includes charges of rape and murder of Buddhist women that may or may not be true.

Yes, the raging Internet commenters are correct.


Raymond Ibrahim's Crucified Again: It Deserves Better

I often resort to memes to express my feelings.

Raymond Ibrahim is a scholar.  He is also an intelligent voice speaking on behalf of Christians in the Islamic world, so his new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians, is an important contribution to any discussion on the subject.

Then he went and allowed the nut-jobs Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson to promote it and interview him.

I was floored when I checked his website today.  First, I saw that he had had an interview with Robertson, the perfect stereotype of Evil, Bigoted, Evangelical Christians.  Then, while I was still struggling to breathe after such a massive shock, I saw below the post that Glenn Beck, the perfect stereotype of Loud-Mouthed, Ignorant Right-Wingers, had also had Mr. Ibrahim on his show to promote his book.  I subsequently suffered a heart attack and died.

Jokes aside, surely Mr. Ibrahim is aware that leftists regard claims that Muslims persecute Christians as propaganda perpetuated by evangelical rightists whose minds are ravaged by a schizophrenic persecution complex, right?  Then how--how--could he ever, ever think this was even within a light year of being a good idea?  My heart literally melted with dread (this situation calls for hyperbole and misuse of literally, sorry) when I listened to Beck's words near the end of the interview, when he was listing off the countries where Christians are mistreated.  It's unfortunately true that the persecution happens, but as soon as it comes out of Beck's mouth, it's almost not true--it may as well not be true, that is.  His mouth is where issues go to die.  And with Robertson opening his stupid mouth whenever a natural disaster takes place to claim it was God's wrath, I can almost hear the little leftist atheist voices jeering, "Oh, but it's God's wrath on the Christians!  Mwahahaha!"  (Actually, it's more like me imagining obnoxious comments on liberal websites that read: "lol its gawds wrath", but that diminishes the impact of their attitude.)

Maybe I'm biased because I'm politically center-left, but it's hard to dispute that Beck and Robertson's blessings will do no good for Crucified Again.

New short story: "Five Pounds and Dignity"

Now added to the "Art and Stories" section:

http://greekasianpanda.blogspot.com/p/five-pounds-and-dignity.html

Humanoid Robots: Secular Concerns

With Robots, Humans Face "New Society"

Humanity came one step closer in January to being able to replicate itself, thanks to the EU's approval of funding for the Human Brain Project. Danica Kragic, a robotics researcher and computer science professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, says that while the prospect of living among humanoid robots calls to mind terrifying scenarios from science fiction, the reality of how humans cope with advances in robotics will be more complex, and subtle. (Read more)

Science Daily's report about the possibility that the Human Brain Project will be able to create humans only briefly touches on the ethics of creating humanoid robots programmed with human emotions.  (Kragic calls it a "discussion" about robot ethics, which implies calm, uncontroversial debate.)  Near the end of the report, Kragic explains what she thinks will be the most prevalent objection:

Human rebellion against robots is far more likely, she says, pointing out that even as society's attitudes toward automation evolve over generations, the debate over whether humans have the right to "play God" will likely continue. "There will be people for and against it," she says. "But what is wrong with building a human? We have been raised in a society that thinks this is wrong, that this is playing God."

Clearly computer scientists think most objectors to the creation of these robots will be religious fundamentalists.  While that is not an unfounded fear, religious fundamentalist meddling will probably not be the only obstacle.  I am surprised that Kragic and others do not seem to believe other strong objections will surface, more secular ones on which secular and religious people alike can agree.

"Will we be able to -- just by the fact that we can build a brain -- build a human? Why not? What would stop you?" Kragic asks.

The real question is not "why not?" but "why?"  The only reason to build a human-like being in such an unnatural way is because of the convenient functions it will be able to perform.  According to the report, Kragic envisions multitasking robots programmed with human emotions doing housework .  When robots have human capabilities like thought, consciousness, free will, complex emotions, etc., it is a practically human.  I highly doubt computer scientists are creating these humanoids with the intention of allowing them to determine their own destinies.  If they are used exclusively for service to naturally-occurring humans, that is forced labor--it can possibly be called slavery.

So why?  Why create electronic humanoids meant for servitude?  The fear of this kind of technology coming in the near future should not be just about the fear of playing God.

The Human Brain Project will involve 87 universities in a simulation of the cells, chemistry and connectivity of the brain in a supercomputer, in order to understand the brain's architecture, organisation, functions and development. The project will include testing brain-enabled robots.

This is really the only ethical reason to create humanoids.

Developing story: Yusuf Ibrahim kills, beheads two Copts -- Jihad? [UPDATED 2.24.2013]

Troopers Arrest Jersey City Man for Double Murder

Hamilton, NJ – Detectives from the New Jersey State Police, working with the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office and the United States Marshals Service, have arrested a Jersey City man for the murder of two Jersey City men found behind a residence in Buena Vista Township.

The suspect has been identified as Yusuf Ibrahim, 28, of Jersey City, N.J. (Read more)

Many, including Robert Spencer, have voiced  suspicions that this may be a "jihad murder", or an act of Islamic extremism, based on the fact that the victims are Coptic Christians.  The available details so far are inconclusive, though they make room for theories that this may be an anti-Coptic (or anti-Christian) hate crime.
 

Reports by various news agencies give somewhat contradictory details.  The N.D.J. World, for example, says that Ibrahim is a family member of the victim, the implications being that Ibrahim may be a Copt as well.  If this is the case, it is impossible that the murders have a religious motivation.  The report also says that police cited an argument as the attacker's motivation.  (The subject of the argument is currently unknown.)

However, community members who knew the victims do not seem to be aware of this if it is so; they would not suspect that the victims were singled out for their religion if Ibrahim were a Coptic family member.  It seems strange that the victims' friend and other residents around the area failed to note this crucial fact.

A close female friend of Ibrahim, Emma Abdelrehim, does not seem to be aware of family ties, either.  She also says that he is a Muslim, albeit one who may not be very devout.
 

The authorities have not yet released information about a motivation, so those following the case should withhold judgment until we know for sure why Ibrahim committed this heinous crime.  The victims being Christians and the assailant being Muslim makes it possible but not certain that this is a case of Islamic extremism.  Note, in the article about Ibrahim's female friend, that Ibrahim is also an immigrant from Egypt like the victims.  Wherever there are Christian Egyptian immigrants, there will also likely be Muslim Egyptian immigrants, so it is not unlikely that, in a place where both Egyptian Christians and Muslims live, a criminal will happen to be Muslim and victims will happen to be Christians--it's just mathematically probable that this would happen without a religious motivation involved.  The last time Coptic Americans were murdered in New Jersey (Armanious family massacre), the Coptic community was positive Islamic extremism was involved, but they were mistaken.

The victims, left to right: Hany Tawadros, Amgad Konds (source)



The alleged murderer Yusuf Ibrahim (source)

UPDATE 2.15.2013:

The victims were roommates, according to NBC Philadelphia, which implies that they were something other than family.  That means that, contrary to N.D.J. World's earlier report, they cannot both be Ibrahim's family members, making a family dispute unlikely.

Yesterday, Ibrahim had his day in court, yet even now the police will not release a motivation, according to New Jersey On-Line.



Ibrahim during first court appearance (source)

UPDATE II 2.15.2013:

The bodies of Tawadros and Konds are being sent back to Egypt.

The latest from New Jersey On-Line: the cause of the killings is still considered to be an argument Ibrahim had with the men, but the police will still not give the motivation.  This is because the investigation is still ongoing.

Not all details of every crime are publically revealed; we may never know why this happened.  I don't blame anyone for assuming this was a case of Islamic extremism, since Egyptian Muslims frequently attack Copts.  It should be noted, however, that religious violence that results in death is extremely rare in the United States.  (The F.B.I.'s hate crime statistics for any given year show very few deaths, if any, resulting from crimes targetting religious groups.)  Muslim-on-Christian violence almost never occurs outside the Islamic world.

UPDATE 2.24.2013:

This is not really an update; it is just a reminder that no new information has surfaced.  I am saying this because there are many, many conservative blogs and news websites reporting this like it is for certain a hate crime or jihad.  Currently, we do not know what this murder was about.  Please stop reporting that this is a hate crime when the motivation has not been officially released.  Blogs and websites that are doing so are discrediting real anti-Christian violence in the world, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Forgetting the Damned released to the Internet

Finally, the story I've been writing for over a year is complete.  Unfortunately, it has to be broken up onto four different pages because Blogger is being stupid and is unable to publish so much text.  (Years ago, it didn't have a problem with "Copt, Interrupted."  Meh.  Granted, this story is almost twice as long, but still.)

Part 1: http://greekasianpanda.blogspot.com/p/forgetting-damned.html

Part 2: http://greekasianpanda.blogspot.com/p/forgetting-damned-part-2.html

Part 3: http://greekasianpanda.blogspot.com/p/forgetting-damned-part-3_10.html

Part 4: http://greekasianpanda.blogspot.com/p/forgetting-damned-part-4.html

Enjoy.

Harris and Klebold on Religion

Eric Harris

Dylan Klebold

A widely believed myth about the Columbine massacre is that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the shooters, targeted Christians, specifically Rachel Scott and Cassie Bernall.  There is little evidence that they shot Scott and Bernall specifically for being Christians.  The "Rachel" Klebold mentioned hating in the Basement Tapes is not Rachel Scott, and Bernall was not asked, "Do you believe in God?" before she was murdered but was instead told, "Peek-a-boo."

Those two cases will be revisited later.  The main purpose of this article, however, is not to debunk an already-debunked myth still believed by some conservatives and Christians but to debunk a myth that appears to be at least somewhat popular among liberals: Harris and Klebold were actually Christians themselves.  It usually crops up in discussions about Islamic terrorism -- "There are just as many Christian terrorists as Muslim terrorists, like the Columbine shooters!"  See Tavis Smiley's discussion with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on P.B.S. for an example of this usage.

Were Harris and Klebold Christians?  The short answer is: No, they are best described as agnostic or non-religious and at least somewhat anti-religious -- though, again, they did not specifically target Christians during the massacre.

First, the origins of the myth should be discussed.  There are only two possible sources.

1.) They had Christian backgrounds.  Dylan Klebold, while part Jewish from his mother's side, was raised in a home in which Lutheran Christianity dominated.  Eric Harris was raised Catholic.

2.) Memorial crosses were set up for them.  Crosses are usually only set up for Christians.

The problems with these reasons are obvious.  Just because a child's parents follow a religion or ideology does not guarantee that their child will follow in their footsteps.  My father is agnostic, yet I am not agnostic.  I have two secular friends who were raised Christian but have rejected religion.  My friends and I are around the same ages as Harris and Klebold were when they carried out the shooting.  And clearly the dead had no say in what their memorials would look like.

Harris and Klebold left behind writings and videos in which they recorded their uncensored thoughts about everything they hated.  They made it very clear on multiple occasions that they disliked religion, making references to Christianity in particular.

In the following quotations, all emphasis is mine unless otherwise noted.  All spelling errors are Harris and Klebold's.

Dylan Klebold on Religion

-Klebold quite clearly expressed his agnosticism.

Journal entry 4-15-97 "My life is still fucked, in case you care... maybe,... (not?) I have just lost fuckin 45$, & Before that I lost my zippo & knife - (i did get those back) Why the fuck is he being such an ASSHOLE??? (god i guess, whoever is the being which controlls shit)"

-He speaks of God and the Bible in a derogatory manner.

Undated entry (between 1-20-99 and 4-20-99) "to be aware is not a trait, its a godlike thing, Blessed God. Not a christian, jesus, mt. sanai, Abraham, David, bible gay shit god, but a true controller of existence."

-In an ambiguous sentence Klebold might be assuming God exists, but his writing becomes illegible mid-sentence.

Entry 9-5-97 "I have always been hated, by everyone & everything, just never aware.... Goodbye all the crushes ive ever had, just shells.... images, no tu truths... BUT WHY? YeS, You can read this, why did god [incoherent scrawl]"

-Klebold, while he did hate some Christians (more on that later), evidently had Christian friends who brought him to their churches for fun activities.  This indicates that he did not have a general hatred toward all Christians that was significantly greater than his hatred for everyone else.

Entry 11-3-97 "[name removed]['s] church was so fun.... the rec thing w. marc..."

-According to eye-witness testimony, Klebold asked Valeen Schnurr during the massacre, "Do you believe in God?" after he injured her.  She answered in the affirmative.  According to the librarian who was hiding nearby, he mocked her, calling her "awful and hateful names."  This clearly demonstrates his disdain for God and religious people.  (Contrary to the widely held belief, no one was killed for answering "yes" to the question.)

Eric Harris on Religion

-An Internet entry in which Harris rants about everything he hates includes some statements about religion, Christianity in particular.  (There are two versions of the "you know what I hate?" rant.  The section about religion is only in the longer version.  It can be found in the Columbine Documents on page 870).

"Religions!!!  Jesus is dead...get over it!!!  the bible is just a freakin BOOK!!  I would sooner burn to death than say I worship some egotistical god!!"

-Harris did not emphatically disbelieve in the existence of God.  In some cases, he made statements in which he assumed there is a god.

C.D. 427 "It would be great if god removed all the vaccines and warning lables from everything in the world and let natural selection take its course."

Both Harris and Klebold on Religion

-In the unreleased Basement Tapes, both Harris and Klebold rant about two Christian girls and Christianity in a derogatory manner.  (Some low-quality audio clips from the tapes are available in which they can be heard saying some of the following statements.  Part 1, 2.)

Harris: "Shut the fuck up, Nick, you laugh too much! And those two girls sitting next to you, they probably want you to shut the fuck up, too! Jesus! Rachel and Jen.. and.. whatever."
Klebold: "I don't like you, Rachel and Jen, you're stuck up little bitches, you're fucking little... Christianity, godly little whores!"
Harris: "Yeah.. 'I love Jesus! I love Jesus!' -- shut the fuck up!"
Klebold: "What would Jesus do? What the fuck would I do...?" [he acts like he's shooting the camera with his hand, with sound to accompany it]
Harris: "I would shoot you in the motherfucking head! Go Romans! Thank God they crucified that asshole."
Harris and Klebold: "Go Romans!" "Go Romans!!" "Yeah!!" "Wooo!"

("Rachel" is not Rachel Scott.  The only class in which Harris and Klebold were with a Nick, a Rachel, and a Jen was their psychology class.  The two girls are Jen Grant and either Rachel Baker or Rachel Goodwin.)

-Also in the Basement Tapes, they say "religions are gay" and assert that religious people "are weak and can't deal with life."

Final Thoughts

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were both secular individuals.  Their secularism did not fuel their motives to carry out the shooting, so it is irrelevant in answering the question, "Why?"

In a lot of people's minds, tragedies are pieces in a game.  If the perpetrator has a political or religious leaning, regardless of its role in motives, a token automatically goes to the other political or religious groups.  Whoever has the most tokens wins.  I may be engaging in amateur psychology right now, but this really is true to some extent.  I recall the recent events: the Oslo massacre, the killing of Jews in France, the Aurora movie theater massacre, the murder of Sikhs in Wisconsin.  Leftists and Muslims won in Oslo, rightists in France and Aurora, and leftists again in Wisconsin.  Sometimes we try to hide the other teams' tokens by ignoring problems, and sometimes we think we have more because of ignorance -- like thinking Columbine was a case of Christian or atheist terrorism.  We're still squabbling over who earned the tokens on April 20, 1999.

Pictured: Game pieces.