http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2006/10 ... ogies.htmlTuesday, October 03, 2006
The Right To Defend Ourselves, Ideologies And More Relevant Questions
In Cheap Surrender, Dr Sanity discusses an article by Victor Davis Hanson (link from site), discussing the enemies of reason and those who would capitulate with not even a whimper. She notes the underlying foundation of those who willingly dance the bunny-hop all the way to their destruction:
Multiculturalism after all celebrates--not belonging to the family of humanity--but to one's sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious identity above all else. Political correctness simply provides the eggshells that everyone can walk around on so as to not offend the feelings in other groups (unless, of course, you belong to that one particular culture that is given a pass because of its unique evil; and for which offending is obligatory--you know which culture that is, don't you?)
Like many ideas of the left, it should now be apparent to anyone with a brain, that--in the case of multiculturalism -- the exact opposite of what was promised ends up being delivered.
Just as the false promises of socialism and communism were found to lead to misery instead of happiness; poverty instead of wealth; enslavement instead of freedom--so too, have multiculturalism and political correctness, instead of harmony, brought lethal discord.
Simply stated, some leftist ideologies are no more than a cancer that consumes from within. There are far too many unwilling to defend themselves and our democracies from ideologies that plainly state their destructive and repressive ideologies. We noted that
Radical cleric abu Hamza declared that 'We will use your democracy to destroy you.'
Dr Sanity makes a convincing argument that there are those who share abu Hamza's ideology.
That politically correct road which the left has taken us all down--billed as the path to peace and harmony--has instead led to a land dominated by emotions; a place where barbarism of the most primal sort is tolerated and excused.
There is another issue that has yet to be discussed and addressed- the notion of preemptive actions to protect ourselves. Fausta has been keeping abreast of the Robert Redeker situation (more here), the french philosopher that has gone into hiding with his family because of an article he wrote that upset some radical Islamists. As a result of his article, he now has to deal with very real death threats.
What is Redeker to do- stay in hiding with his family, for life? The laws of most western democracies preclude law enforcemnet from acting until after a crime has been committed. Is this what the future looks like- nations, freedoms and a way of life held captive to threats? Even after the fact, many are cowed. Following the murder of Theo van Gogh, Hollywood was strangely silent (where were you, Susan Sarandon, Jeanine Garofolo, Michael Moore, Mel Gibson, et al?) Hirsi Ali became persona non grata in the Netherlands and remains ignored by the left here in the US. Should we conclude that FGM is OK with the Liberal community?
We have to ask ourselves and reflect. Is living in fear acceptable to democratic values and societies? Do democracies have a right to preemptively defend themselves?
Can democracies afford not to defend themselves?
We wrote, In Freedom Of Religion And The Freedom To Hate,
Political ideologies are quite another thing. Those ideologies that are hateful, encourage violence, bigotry and even worse, are very much the concern of a free government. There are free governments that enforce hate laws, making the expression of such ideologies and there are governments, such as our own, that will allow for that expression- up to a point. When the expression of hate reach the point where they are considered as 'inciting'- the equivalent of yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, the boundaries of free speech have been reached and the government, in the interest of protecting society, has a right to step in. Until now, those realities were only applicable to fringe groups, out of step with American values and society.
What happens when the expressions of hate and worse are not fringe, but rather the expressions of a mainstream religion? How should we respond and react? Can we respond, without curtailing religious freedoms? These are not a theoretical questions...Why, when abu Hamza in the UK said, "We will use your democracy to destroy you", should we not believe him- and why should we believe that belief is not prevalent here, as well? Abu Hamzu and others who share those beliefs, have large followings here.
While we may be uncomfortable infringing upon religious expression, we cannot hesitate when responding to ideologies that will undermine the freedom of our nation...
[Radical] Islam has morphed from a theology into an ideology. It is the ideology that takes precedence and it is the theology that has come to serve that ideology, providing a religious context for the evil that would keep freedom at bay. The ideology that has become much of Islam is undeniable. It is oppressive, repressive, stifling and designed to ‘re-brand’ a once great religion. What once gave the world warm and colorful expressions of art, literature and architecture, has been redefined into cold, stark and controlled expressions of faith. Mosques are now drab and colorless and Islamic expression is focused on hate and subjugation. There is no call to celebrate what is possible under Islam, the potential or greatness, but rather, what can be destroyed or broken and ultimately, what can be controlled.
One way or another, we are going to have to deal with these realities.