For John, BLUF: Do rioters get a veto over free speech?
From Reason Magazine we have an article that asks the question "Can violence in the Middle East justify censorship in the United States?" Ths isn't directly about the video "Innocence of Muslims". It is about posters (advertisements) in the Washington, DC, Metro.
In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.Can we retain a robust democratic form of government, our robust democratic form of government, if demonstrators, including demonstrators in other nations, can quash the ability of minority groups in the US to express their views. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
10 comments:
Good question. The only answer at the moment however is, "It does." That is the reality. The US will do almost anything to appease the Muslim world. If you have any doubt, look at the track record of CAIR in getting its way in the US. The argument from the liberals is of course that nobody should be discriminated against and thus, it is appropriate that Muslims in America get an "equal" shake. I don't have a problem with that except and until by giving the Islamists an "equal" shake, someone else gets penalized or deprived of their "equal" shake. There is a fine line between "freedom and justice for all" and "freedom and justice for the squeaky wheels at the expense of the silent groups." Put another way, when Pilate gave up Barabbas instead of Jesus, his justification was, the supporters of Barabbas yelled louder.
Majority rule I guess. Look for Islam and the Muslims to have a lot more majority rule in the US. Signs like the one referenced will be judged as "hate crimes" and the perpetrators jailed under Federal hate crime law.
In the end, everything will be judged as "hate" or "racist" unless it agrees with the status quo....the current "majority" who rule.
To that extent, there really is very little that is "democratic" about American society. It is a ruse, a lofty goal that has never been attained, and never will be attained. It will always be fair and just if you are part of the group that wins what it wants. However, hope springs.
Post script.
In my post, above, I am merely pointing out reality. Having said that, there is a sort of perverse equality in the ways of the world, unfair as they might seem.
If you are a conservative and you dislike liberals, particularly when they win various political battles, there are but two choices, neither of which have much to do with "equality" or "fairness." Those two characteristics apply only death (no longer to taxes). You can accept the liberal zeitgeist or you can roll up your sleeves and do whatever you can to beat their donkey butts at the next go around. In the meantime, slobbering over a loss of this or that is merely wasting time.
If you don't like what CAIR does and wins, then go to work finding ways to issue them a checkmate.
Put simply, "lead,follow, or get out of the way and for God's sake, shut up."
I can't/won't shut up, and I detest following. Like the rest of the dogs in the sled team, the view is always the same. Leading provides a certain dynamic ambiance that is quite thrilling.
Do you have any examples of when CAIR 'got its way' where it shouldn't have?
Probably, but would that matter to you? Would the fact that I think that they get things at others expense make you change your mind? I hardly think so.
But, the fact that you issue the challenge makes my point perfectly. Thank you so much.
Can't resist paraphrasing a couple of old aphorisms to suggest it's always a bad idea to get between a couple of disagreeable idiots. One conclusion to the saying is that they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Another is that bystanders will always have trouble telling the difference.
Let 'em solve their own arguments. We shouldn't be letting oil run our foreign policy.
Right on Kad. Using your approach I might use a trite metaphor, getting involved in ME arguments which are little more than tribal warfare at best is akin to punching a tar baby with all that brings.
The whole CAIR discussion in this thread is simply an unpredicted diversion, but a consequence of our ME policy none-the-less.
Once you get into contact with a skunk, the stink gets on you and stays for a long, long time...and even your friends don't want to be around you.
Of course I am assuming that the two idiots you were referring to are not me and Mr. Lynne....LOL!!!!!!!
"Probably, but would that matter to you?"
Yes, of course. Examining evidence is important for evaluating claims. You're making a zero sum argument about 'equal shakes' so I wanted to evaluate the first premise of the argument, that CAIR (which I guess means Islamist in your book) 'gets its way' beyond what it should.
I haven't come across any instance where CAIR 'got' more that was due, so I have no examples of what you seem to be very familiar with.
"But, the fact that you issue the challenge makes my point perfectly. Thank you so much."
Which was what exactly, that asking for evidence is out of line? Not in my book.
"I can't/won't shut up, and I detest following. "
At least follow the evidence.
I'm not shutting you up, I'm just trying to understand your case. I've seen CAIR beaten up in the news but haven't come across instances where they 'crossed the line' or got undue favorable treatment.
Ah....and one more post script. This is unfortunately an instance wherein my strawman has taken on a life of its own.
I didn't intend or mean to sound snarky to you Mr. Lynne. I was merely acknowledging my own point that "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There are many who feel that our treatment of the Muslim world e.g. Iraq, et al has been unfair and amounts to a further example of our American exceptionalism which of course has taken on a decidedly negative connotation in many quarters of late. CAIR has acted (in my opinion based on the narratives of a number of instances in which they have intervened in community or organizational matters) as an arm of the jihadists with a goal of imposing their will on all of society. In Oklahoma, they have tried repeatedly to force the courts to employ sharia. In fact, imposing sharia throughout the US has been an objective of CAIR. You may disagree with that assessment, but it is not one that I have arrived at unilaterally, but is backed up by many much more learned than me.
My only point was and remains, your view is perhaps shaped by your perspective which is of course derived from your belief system or political frame of reference. Fine. I don't want to claim that you are wrong in that view. You are entitled to it if it is your view. You may in fact be part of a majority in that viewpoint. However, simply because more people believe one way rather than another does not necessarily equate to "right."
I happen to believe that any group who dominates another is engaging in some degree of unfairness. But then...that is life. Life is unfair and if we find something that seems that way, we can accept it or act to change it.
I believe that the rioting and other jihad related acts and actions in the middle east ARE having a negative effect on our own freedom of expression here in the US. I abhor the idea of introducing sharia into our society. I will oppose it for as long as I live. That isn't our culture. It isn't our heritage.
There is an element in the US today who have altered our frame of reference by altering what is acceptable speech. For instance, it is not PC to refer to jihadists as terrorists. We must not be suspicious of folks of middle eastern descent as that would be racial profiling. That it was not a bunch of Irishmen who flew planes into towers and the Pentagon apparently is not meaningful. Instead, folks with a middle eastern appearance get a pat down by TSA to avoid appearing "racist" while we strip search 5 year old children and 85 year old women in wheelchairs. We do this in the name of "fairness" and "equality." We do this in mortal fear that CAIR will show up and raise the roof using our very own judicial system against us.
You wanted an example of where CAIR has achieved more than they were due? Go talk to the folks in Dearborn, MI about walking in public displaying Christian symbols....walking in the very town that they were born in and grew up in.....and being verbally and physically accosted by Muslims who have taken over the entire town. Fair? So much for "integrating into society." At least, in my opinion.
To me, America is a melting pot and folks who come here and wish to be part of the American dream become Americans. They adopt the culture and become "one of us." That doesn't mean that they have eschewed their heritage or even their ethnic identity. It means that they have chosen to follow our Constitution and way of life. Thus far, CAIR has not been a real champion of that. They wish to create another Muslim country out of the US...whether we agree to it or not.
Sorry to take up so much space here...but just saying how I feel without demeaning how you feel or what you believe Mr. Lynne.
My comment about following didn't have anything to do with evidence BTW.
Trying not be be offensive but none-the-less being aggressive in MY belief structure.
Regarding CAIR getting more than its fair share, there is some dispute about its intervention with regard to teaching about Islamists at the Joint Forces Staff College, in Norfolk, Virginia.
This article may be a little prejudiced, coming from where it does, but it suggests that CAIR, amongst several groups, got Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley removed from his position teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College. From the web site, LTC Dooley "was publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism." This is the same General Dempsey who stuck his oar in the water WRT the 15 minute video, Innocence of Mulsims. Yes, in the view of this source, CAIR is associated with Islamists, Islamist being those who take a more militant view of how Islam should dominate any society under its sway, rather than allowing a pluralistic society.
Here is CAIR itself talking about the JFSC situation. They believe they have achieved their goal. The question is, in our pluralistic society, did they overreach?
The view from Wired magazine is that around 2011 the JFSC elective became more hostile to Islam, so the defense that LTC Dooley merely picked up someone else's work may not hold water.
Frankly, I am not in a position to judge the course itself, but it is fair to say that CAIR is pushing back aggressively against what it sees as attempts to paint Islam or parts of it as an aggressive ideology, perhaps akin to militant Communism in the time of Joseph Stalin.
I think the story of this Islamist approach, represented perhaps by al Qaeda and its franchises, will play out over the next year or so, as the Arab Spring turns to the Arab Autumn.
At the end of a current article in Newsweek, Mr Christopher Dickey, the Middle East editor for Newsweek, writes: "Egypt alone has the possibility—some see it as a duty—to lead the Arab world toward a democratic future in which governments will come and go, but the legitimacy of the nation, the state, and its elected rulers will no longer be in question. Only then will perverse stability be replaced by real stability; and only then will the apocalypse, truly, be behind us."
For sure, it would appear the breakup of Syria and Iraq would represent the final conclusion to World War One, the Great War.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment