TigerHawk

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Realigning tolerance: Our options in the collision between free speech and Islam

By TigerHawk at 2/19/2006 10:25:00 AM

How can we tolerate the intolerant? What do we do when tolerance is assymetrical?

Since the end of the Cold War, "tolerance" has become the ultimate Western virtue. This has been easy for us, because it has, until very recently, been possible -- even recommended -- to ignore intolerant people. We could not tolerate the intolerance of Nazis or Commies, but the Nazis are long gone, and the Commies that remain outside of Cuba and North Korea are CINOs¹ and in any case not eager to extend a worldwide revolution. The Christian Right and the anti-religion Left are each fairly intolerant of the other, but neither are violent and both groups prefer their own company, anyway.

Resurgent Islam is changing this dynamic. The cartoon intifada has taught us that Muslims all over the world believe that they have the religious obligation to reach in to Western countries and nullify our most cherished rights. Not only does the "Muslim street" think this, but we have endured the absurd spectacle of Arab kings lecturing the Danes and other Europeans about respect.²

To unapologetic Westerners, who have become scarcer than hen's teeth in recent years, this has been obvious for a while. Jean Francois Revel, writing four years ago:

The dominant idea in the Muslims’ worldwide view is that all of humanity must obey the rules of their religion, whereas they owe no respect to the religions of others. Indeed, showing such respect would make them apostates meriting instant execution. Muslim “tolerance” is a one-way street; they demand it for themselves but rarely extend it to others.

Anxious to show tolerance, the Pope permitted – even encouraged – the erection of a mosque in Rome, the city where Saint Peter is buried. But no Christian church could be built in Mecca, or anywhere in Saudi Arabia, for that would profane the land of Muhammad.

Revel says that this assymetrical intolerance is a "worldwide view" of Muslims. One would hope that it isn't, but the evidence is not encouraging. LGF points to this poll of British Muslims, which reports that 40 percent support the introduction of sharia law in parts of Britain with a large proportion of Muslim residents. The numbers go more deeply than that:

Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".

Since there are more than 1.5 million Muslims in the United Kingdom, if the poll is valid there are more than 300,000 people who sympathize with the bombers' "motives" -- whatever they were. Since we do not know what the bombers' motives actually were, it is more accurate to say that there are 300,000 Muslims in Britain who sympathize with some motive for indiscriminate slaughter of London commuters. Fifteen thousand people felt that the attacks were "right," which presumably means that they themselves would have conducted them if they had both the courage and the means.

Is the poll valid? I have no idea if the sampling was done well, but one might well wonder whether British Muslims were not understating their radicalism. How many of them believed that the pollster was actually from a legitimate polling organization, and not the police?³

Back to the cartoon intifada, and the demand from Muslims, both officially and unofficially, that Western democracies regulate domestic political speech. What is our menu of options?

First, we can ignore the outrage, at least insofar as it is happening inside non-Western countries. The price for this may be that there are large parts of the world that are off-limits to most Westerners, and/or that the cost of oil may go up considerably. In short, we might suffer a geopolitical defeat in the defense of free speech.

Second, we can knuckle under, and agree to regulate core political speech inside Western democracies. This may well happen in many parts of Europe, where free speech is a recent right and where many consider it more a bug than a feature.

Third, we can forcefully defend the right of speakers in the West to say what they will about Islam or any other subject, but agree that governments in the Islamic world are entitled to suppress speech within their borders and limit the access of their people to speech eminating from free countries. The result may not be any different than the first option, but at least we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror.

Fourth, we can believe that freedom of speech is important for people everywhere, and oppose oppressive regimes everywhere, including on the Arabian peninsula, for their intolerance of people who believe and speak inconsistently with the powers that be. Setting aside questions of feasibility and courage -- this option would require much sacrifice if it is to be backed by more than words -- how many Westerners today would support this option as desireable, even in the abstract? Libertarians of the right surely would, but how many Western leftists believe that the right of free speech is just another vestige of Occidental imperialism, another dead right discovered by dead white men?

Is there a fifth option? Which option do you choose? Take your stand in the comments.

UPDATE: Tim Blair has a picture of a (presumably) Muslim man who openly expresses his contempt for the very freedom of speech that allows him to say such offensive things and requires that the police defend his right to do so. Astonishing, and contemptible.
_______________________________
1. Commies In Name Only. Duh.
2. Monarchs have their job because one of their ancestors was a monarch. Is there any less legitimate or less respectful form of government than monarchy? I'm hard-pressed to think of one. And, no, I'm not counting the symbolic monarchies of Western Europe, which are both harmless and entertaining, just like Disneyland.
3. If there is "good news" in the current poll, it is that British Muslims may have become somewhat less sympathetic to the London bombers with the passage of time. This poll from July reveals even more hostility. Are British Muslims moderating, or are they being less candid with pollsters?

Permalink - - Main

36 Comments:

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 11:32:00 AM:

Is there a fifth option? Which option do you choose? Take your stand in the comments.

Yes, there is a fifth option which you haven't mentioned: the unabashed military option backed by a revival of the Christian Church Militant.

-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 11:38:00 AM:

I would go for option 4 and defend free speech at any cost. So much of what we beleive as a country rests on this principle - free speech and freedom of the press depend on one another. Without one you diminish the other, without both we're operating in the dark, making moving forward as a country difficult and engaging with the Muslim world in a meaningful way impossible.

By sbw, at Sun Feb 19, 11:45:00 AM:

Fifth: Innoculate the rest of society to understand that underneath the trappings of different societies exists an underlying fabric essential to any society. The fabric's warp is humility, the weft is reciprocity -- a sense of others. The race for understanding is critical because, now that science can put so much power in the hands of any who care to learn how to use it, isolation no longer protects us.

People think using a mental map of reality. Humility is the understanding that sometimes that map can be wrong without any way to know it. Interestingly, democracy codifies humility, allowing anyone the opportunity to convince others there may be a better way to do things. Reciprocity means that since other people live their lives as acutely as you live yours, don't do to someone else what you don't want done to you.

Our job is to help others extract from their own experience that those who understand the value of these ideas have society and that those don't live the law of the jungle, with no rules and all the attendent risks. The choice is yours.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 11:47:00 AM:

What Scott said!

If America doesn't stand up for its values, and the best form of Government ever devised, no-one else will, and we will end up going the way Europe, and Britain seem to headed.

Now that I've read an essay MORE stimulatin' than what I found in my
LA Times, and OC Register Sunday Opinion Sections this morning, can I go eat my breakfast in peace? ;-D

By Chap, at Sun Feb 19, 12:09:00 PM:

Good choice of Revel for a quote.

One aspect I see isn't covered in your options well, and that is acceleration of the dehumanizing and hatred that happens in war. I'm not saying we're near what Dower described in his book War Without Mercy, but have seen a crystallizing of "all muslims are x" amongst some of my commenters and coworkers.

This may be a civil war within Islam but there is a good chance it'll burn a lot of people.

By Triet, at Sun Feb 19, 12:09:00 PM:

I fear that it will be option 4 or the option 5 suggested in the first comment. I use the word fear, because I do not think Europe or the USA has room to back down, since doing so would deny us what we consider part of our core rights.

Without these rights, we feel enslaved, less than human, and no culture, once tasting self-worth and freedom of thought can go back.

However, that said, sbw is correct saying that humility is an innoculum. Teaching humility is the only way for us to realize we in the west may be more like Muslim extremists than we want to accept (believing in the supremity of our beliefs and "helping" other countries see it our way) and that in dealing with the "Cartoon Wars" problem, we must not only change their culture, but also our culture as well.

This doesn't mean option 1 or 2, but it does mean we will not be the same after following option 4.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 12:15:00 PM:

100,000+ US military personnel have been practicing option 4 for years now. It's just the rest of us that has been so sadly useless.

It's not a clash of civilizations, it's a clash of civilization against anti-civilization, in my view. And sadly, out of cowardice or philosophy, our leading journalists and cultural figures have taken the anti-civilization side. that won't put them in a good position in the very near future.

By TigerHawk, at Sun Feb 19, 12:19:00 PM:

Triet, that is an excellent comment, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. My writings sound more triumphalist than I actually am. I suppose I lean in, rather than leaning out, because there are so few Western opinion leaders who act as if they are proud of our civilization, its accomplishments, and its principles. I am, notwithstanding my strong belief that we would all benefit from deeper understanding. Understanding, though, is not the same thing as acceptance or capitulation. I can understand that many Muslims may have excellent reasons for hating the West and what it stands for without in any way, shape or form agreeing to Muslim demands.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 12:32:00 PM:

The Ninth Crusade was called 'The Children's Crusade'.

The Tenth Crusade will be called 'The Thermonuclear Crusade'.

Time to start building lots of really big, clean nukes. There's a lot of land that needs sterilizing.

By Gateway Pundit, at Sun Feb 19, 12:52:00 PM:

Your post made me think of this comment I saw if a different post:

And tell the oh so tolerant and secular Turkish govt to give back Hagia Sophia to Christians to use as a church. We built it. We occupied it for something like a 1000 years. Christians never willingly surrendered it. It was stolen from them. Converted to a mosque to make sure the Christians knew they were a "humiliated" people. It was wrong to take it. It is never right to steal a place of worship. It should be returned to the people who originally built it and worshipped at the site.

But this will never happen.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 12:59:00 PM:

believing in the supremity of our beliefs

But our beliefs ARE superior.

And tell the oh so tolerant and secular Turkish govt to give back Hagia Sophia to Christians to use as a church. ...

That's an excellent point.

Instead of letting the Muhammedans take over Kosovo, neo-Christendom should start talking about the liberation of Constaninopolis.

-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 01:13:00 PM:

You make a valid point in citing the Pope's tolerance of a mosque in Rome, yet the current Pope (no left winger he) deplored the Danish cartoons as a tasteless provocation.
Cartoon sponsor Flemming Rose is a crony of Daniel Pipes of Campus Watch fame. That tells me all I need to know about his putative free speech ardor. Rose is just another Bernard Lewis Muslim-baiter--at a time when we don't need them.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 01:39:00 PM:

It is when we call for chaos, carnage and death in response to something rude that we become them.

Good Christians must always turn the other cheek, eh?
I suppose the bien pensants of Constantinople used to tell each other that.

-- david.davenport.12netzero.com

///////

The Sunday Times - World

The Sunday Times February 19, 2006

Minister offers £6m to behead cartoonist

Dean Nelson in Delhi

A MINISTER in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has offered a £6m reward to anyone who beheads one of the Danish cartoonists who outraged Muslims by depicting the prophet Muhammad.

Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of minority welfare, said the killer would also receive his weight in gold. He made the offer during a rally in his constituency in Meerut, northeast of Delhi. Protesters then burnt an effigy of a cartoonist and some Danish flags.

A Pakistani cleric has also offered a $1m reward — and a car — as a “prize” to anyone who kills one of the cartoonists. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi made his announcement after Friday prayers in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar.

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2047114,00.html

By TigerHawk, at Sun Feb 19, 01:45:00 PM:

yet the current Pope (no left winger he) deplored the Danish cartoons as a tasteless provocation

I'm not sure that we should look to the Catholic pope to defend free expression. The right of free speech exists only to defend people who say or write things that offend. People who say or write inoffensive things need no protection. However prestigious the pope's office or accomplished a person the pope may be in any individual, how many popes other than John Paul II have made individual liberty a personal cause. Even that great pope did not stand up for freedom in general so much as for millions of Catholics trapped under the rule of ideological athiests.

Put differently, modern Christian leaders often believe that they should resolve conflict. This is quite different from standing up for free speech. Because the defense of free speech often means the defense of the outrageous or unpopular (popular speech needs no defense), it usually creates conflict rather than resolves it. One can rarely defend free speech and resolve conflict simultaneously. Usually, we have to choose.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 02:04:00 PM:

In every conflit the "right" part has to reach to the "wrong" part with a language that the other part understands. As an example the language that Nazis or Militarist Japanese understood was that of the Bombs. So Democracies that arent a thuggery or criminal had to resort to violence to make the criminal "understand". So sometimes we have to reach to the others level. Neverthless we must be very carefull and must be sure to not be enamorated of it.

It's sad but sometimes it's the only thing that works.

lucklucky

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 02:20:00 PM:

Slighty off topic, Tigerhawk. But I noticed several references to Revel's book, "Anti-Americanism" Might I also recommend Paul Hollander's "Understanding Anti-Americanism : Its Orgins and Impact at Home and Abroad". I've found both books fascinating, enjoying many of the same things you did in Revel's book. Hollander's book, really a series of essays, takes a regional/historical that adds some additional depth. I've refferred to them both, over the past year.

Ragards.

A Bookworm

Working on Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism" and Hoffer"s "True Believer".

By Tom Grey, at Sun Feb 19, 02:56:00 PM:

The post WW II United Nations was to stop war between nation-states. This was the "inviolability of national sovereignty".

The UN Dec'l of Human Rights clearly states that people have free speech, and free religion.

Countries that do NOT respect Human Rights of free speech and free religion, should not be given the protection of national boundaries.

The US should institute regime change in Sudan and Syria for human rights violations; and let Israel do regime change in Saudi Arabia. Putting them under a minimal gov't protectorate -- not allowing violence to be used against builders of churches or other peaceful free behavior.

While failing, the UN did provide a fig-leaf for US reponse to Iraq's Kuwait agression, although not China's Tibetan landgrab. The UN is a failure, and the US should look for partners in Human Rights Enforcement Group -- and use its position on the UN SC to veto any UN resolutions against it.

By BBridges, at Sun Feb 19, 03:10:00 PM:

You make a valid point in citing the Pope's tolerance of a mosque in Rome, yet the current Pope (no left winger he) deplored the Danish cartoons as a tasteless provocation.

Forgive me for what I am about to say but Fuck the Pope.

The last thing we need is to worry about what that guy has to say about religious intolerance. Or...whatever. I'm not looking for some preacher to lead the way in this war.

I'm sure jerry Falwell and his ilk wishes the world would be more sensitive to their wishes.

Well fuck them all.

Sorry, just my opinion.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 03:48:00 PM:

I'm quite concerned that we will see a surreptitious approach to the erosion of free speech. The implementation of blasphemy laws are a very real possibility as an appeasement strategy in Western countries. I see the big problem with such laws is that blasphemy is defined by the believer. Only the pope can say what is blasphemous for Roman Catholicism and perhaps the Deli Lama can for Buddhists. For Muslims can any self-declared Iman?

So what is blasphemous is up for grabs. All of following could be blasphemous: images of the Muslim prophet, the theory of evolution, abortion, the eating of beef, homosexuality, Newtons laws -- that predict the moon orbits the earth, calling L. Ronald Hubbard an idiot -- and who decides, well the believer! This is, somewhat, moderated if blasphemy is defined as a believer violating a law or code, but in Islam an unbeliever also commits blasphemy when breaking the rules. A Pandora's box for sure!

By Kurt, at Sun Feb 19, 04:53:00 PM:

I'm inclined to agree with option 4, but I must say that I do have one big area of hesitation with respect to the idea of assymetrical tolerance, and that is: this is the kind of logic that left-wing activists use to try to shut down conservatives, by claiming that they are "intolerant" or that they support a "corrput" status quo, and therefore, they are not to be listened to or even heard.

To some extent you've addressed this question in your first paragraph, but I'm not sure that the dismissal there is completely adequate. Much of the logic that still informs the left today is derived largely from Marxism, and many leftists are willing to deny the true nature of Islamo-fascism because they feel that any Islamic hatred of the West is justified and understandable.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 04:54:00 PM:

Re: 10th crusade and Constantinopolis - the problem is that we don't WANT them.

A bit provincial and parochial, aren't we? :0]

Once again having the passage from the Black Sea to the Med. under European control would be very valuable to our, er, cousins in Christendom, the Russians and the Ukrainians.

You say Putin is sucking up to Iran? I predict that the Russian-Persian axis won't last.

If there weren't oil in the Middle East, it would be a god-awful backwater that no one cared about, like most of Africa. We would be perfectly content to buy their product on a open market and otherwise ignore them

There is an objection to that line of thought. Here is the objection: if the West totally withdrew from the Middle East, the area would technologically revert to the Middle Ages and not much oil would be extracted and shipped.

Or maybe the Chinese would exploit the power vacuum there and force the West to pay higher prices for petrol than does China.

Now what practical need does the West have for Muhammedan immigrants?

That is another, separate question.

I can't find any passage in the New Testament where Jesus opines that Jerusalem needs more Samaritan immigrants. Even He considered a good Samaritan to be an exceptional specimen.

-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com

By gbarto, at Sun Feb 19, 05:04:00 PM:

The positive in all this, and the reason we will win, is the very fact of the debate unfolding here.

Yes, our governments are caving at the moment. When a country develops some spine, the politicians are almost always the last to catch on. What started with bloggers publishing the cartoons led to a few newspapers publishing them. In time, they will be recognizable to all.

While the individuals in the West are starting to give their supposed betters a little backbone, then, what are we seeing in the Muslim world? Are we seeing 90% of the population in any Muslim city turning out for these rallies? Even 80%?

The so-called leaders of the extreme Muslims say that the only way to live is to die in a blaze of glory killing infidels, for which Allah will reward you with Paradise. Sounds like a compelling message. But 99%+ of Muslims ain't buying. Sure, they'll burn down churches and embassies, go to protests, etc, on their day off. But how many Muslims are risking their incomes, never mind their lives, to advance Osama's agenda? In percentage terms, there's been a pretty pathetic response to the expanding reach of the infidel occupation. Makes you think that most Muslims are more focused on living their lives than fighting Jihad as the worst of the lot conceive of it.

Like every other fascism or totalitarianism to come along, including our own varieties from earlier centuries, Islamism will fail while Muslims find their way to lives where you don't have to die to be a good believer. The way to victory for the West lies in doing what we've been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan: taking away the option of having a normal life and advocating this stuff both. If, in Nigeria, those massacring Christians had faced the same threat of physical retribution, even death, that would come from undertaking such action in most Iraqi cities, those of such fervent belief would have been decidedly few in number, had there been any at all.

If the radical imams are the standard, most of these folks are MINOs, Muslims in Name Only. They aren't prepared to fight and die for what the imams believe. Indeed, the imams are fighting so desperately in the knowledge that if their people are allowed to even know about something other than what the imams believe, most of them will be lost to a Muslim identity adapted to the world the way the Christian identity identifies as much with life on earth as life in heaven.

In the end, Islam will join Christianity and Judaism as a faith that must be reconciled to this world, rather than the other way around. While there are setbacks and advances, the struggle is being slowly but surely won by the West for the simple reason that leaders are secondary - the actions of individual Westerners enjoying their freedoms and individual Muslims failing to heed to the fullest the imams' calls will lead to the slinking away of this menace.

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 05:21:00 PM:

Are we seeing 90% of the population in any Muslim city turning out for these rallies? Even 80%?

How do you know that the majority of the stay-at-homes don't sympathize with the rioters?

//////////////////

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/november2000.htm

...

There was much animosity between Jews and Samaritans. When the Jews were rebuilding Jerusalem (following the Babylonian captivity, 606-536 B.C.), the Samaritans offered their services. They were summarily rebuffed (Ezr. 4:1-3), and the Samaritans responded in kind (Ezr. 4:4ff). Josephus characterizes the Samaritans as idolaters and hypocrites (Ant., 9.14.3). Edersheim quotes a Jewish saying: “May I never set eyes on a Samaritan” (1947, I.401).

( Samaritan -- a.k.a. West Bank Palestinian of long ago. )

...

( Missionary work or colonial exploitation? )

Normally, Jews did not eat food that was produced or handled by Samaritans. The rabbis taught:

“Let no Israelite eat one mouthful of any thing that is a Samaritan’s; for if he eat but a little mouthful, he is as if he ate swine’s flesh” (Lightfoot, 3.275).

And yet, the disciples are buying food in Sychar. Perhaps they were already beginning to be influenced by Jesus’ kindly disposition towards all those fashioned in the image of God. One cannot but be reminded of a later circumstance when, observing the boldness of [goyim] Peter and John, certain Jewish leaders “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

Living Water

When Christ asked of this unnamed woman a drink of water, he challenged the best from her. It is commonly the case that when we offer to assist someone who harbors a grudge against us, they will ruffle up and resist. Yet, if they are petitioned for assistance, they surprisingly respond. Jesus appealed to this lady’s kinder instincts, thus eroding the cultural wall between them.

The woman, with perhaps a little edge to her voice, responded, “How is it that you, a Jew [which she could discern by his clothing and manner of speech], asks a drink of me, a Samaritan woman?” (4:9). She is taken aback, but intrigued. Who is this stranger who is willing to address me?

The Lord seizes the opportunity, lifts the conversation to a higher plateau, and ...

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/november2000.htm

-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 06:04:00 PM:

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 06:31:00 PM:

Y'know, anyone who claims the Christian right is non-violent hasn't been paying a lick of attention. Or are you blaming abortion clinic bombings, doctor murders, and gay bar bombings on the moderate middle?

How many such murders are there, compared to the number of people killed by Muslim terrorists and rioters?

And how many Christian preachers and priests enorse such violence, compared to the number of Muslim witch doctors who endorse violent Jihad?

The Al-Gebra indicates an inequality, both in percentages and absolute numbers. Moral equivalence? Not much.

In regard to what the silent majority of Muhammedans think, at least in Britain:

Survey's finding of growing anger in the Islamic community are described as 'alarming' by leading Muslim Labour MP

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
(Filed: 19/02/2006)

The findings of today's ICM poll on the attitudes of British Muslims, which are described as "alarming" by a leading Muslim Labour MP, present a complex overall picture.

They show growing radicalism among Muslim communities and will provide serious food for thought not only for Islamic leaders but also senior politicians. Startlingly, 40 per cent of British Muslims want to see Islamic sharia law in force in UK communities which are predominantly Muslim, while 20 per cent say they have some sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the July 7 bombers.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/
news/2006/02/19/nsharia119.xml&sSheet=/
news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html

Only a minority of Muslim residing in Britain -- 40 percent - want to impose Sharia law there. So no need to worry.

I expect the riposte here will be, "But there's no difference between conservative Christianity and the Sharia lifestyle."

-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com

P.S. "... a lick of attention." Oh wow, the phoney-folksy prose stylist.

By Papa Ray, at Sun Feb 19, 07:19:00 PM:

They say you should get to know your enemy in order to defeat him.

Here is what an ex-Muslim has to say about Islam. He will tell you what Islam is really about.

With all the references and proof you will need in order to try and convince your left leaning friends. Not that it will do them much good, but it sure does me good when I tell them and show them what the "The Book" (the Qur'an) really has to say.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

By sbw, at Sun Feb 19, 08:15:00 PM:

> Here is what an ex-Muslim has to say about Islam. He will tell you what Islam is really about.

I don't think so. You are better reading Ibn Khaldun or about him. A classic Islamic historian. There is more wisdom in his "Muqaddimah" than in contemporary noise.

Here's a pointer to pointers, or check Amazon.com:

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/ibnkhaldun/2.html

By Anonymous, at Sun Feb 19, 09:52:00 PM:

You are better reading Ibn Khaldun or about him. A classic Islamic historian. There is more wisdom in his "Muqaddimah" than in contemporary noise.

This classic historian -- does he think it healthy for a grown man to have sex with a nine year old girl?

-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com

By pst314, at Sun Feb 19, 09:58:00 PM:

Paul Hollander's "Anti-Americanism: Irrational and Rational" and "Political Pilgrims" are also very good.

By The Sanity Inspector, at Sun Feb 19, 11:29:00 PM:

Revel had a good line in How Democracies Perish, years ago. He said that as long as there was a single rock in the world's oceans that did not have socialism, there would be boat people.

By Anonymous, at Mon Feb 20, 08:03:00 AM:

Some thoughts of no particular wisdom.

Catholicism (lapsed Catholic here) demonstrates the superiority of Christianity over Islam. From what I understand, since there is no overarching doctrinal authority even among the various sects of Islam, there is really no mechanism by which explicit teachings in the Koran labeling all others as infidels can EVER be finessed. In the Catholic church, for example, we were taught the same thing...but the tone was one of pity. That coupled with a lack of explicit or implicit ceding of earthly authority ("render unto Ceasar"), means we are in for an interminable struggle which sad to say means we lose because of demographics alone. In the near term (50 years), it means we will see an essentially Islamist EU. The Chinese alone have a strong enough cultural identity to survive, but demographics may bite them in the ass too.

The "hollywood celebrity culture" is dead because its message is the nihilism which has essentially already killed Europe/UK. Evidence: blue states for the most part are already below the dreaded 2.1 fertility rate. If a left wing democrat were ever again be elected President...you can just kiss this country goodby.

What does this have to do with the subject of the thread? I think it means we need the recognize the long term weakness of Western civilization's prospects and act accordingly. That will require public identification of the problems we face. Whether a bunch of ignorant muslims riot is the least of these...there will always be more of them waiting to be "radicalized".

So I say appease now but start looking at the real problems we face. (As much as I hate to say it.)

By Anonymous, at Mon Feb 20, 09:19:00 AM:

5th Option: The west shoould print 10 million cartoons over the nest 10 years. Keep the outraged ones busy and let them kill themselves off without rasing a figner.

By Anonymous, at Mon Feb 20, 10:26:00 AM:

I have said for a long time that the best option is to build a high wall around the entire Middle East (including Israel) and throw weapons over. Then wait for all the noise to stop, take down the wall, and have Disney build a theme park there.

By Solomon2, at Mon Feb 20, 01:41:00 PM:

Modern-day Western religious tolerance of Muslims began not under any democracy but under the rule of "enlightened despot" Frederick the Great. Frederick was frank about relying on force alone to maintain power. (He also permitted a free press, explaining that he and his subjects had reached an agreement: they could say whatever they liked, but Frederick could do whatever Frederick liked.)

However, Frederick drew a line in the sand: Religious freedom ended where advocacy of violence against other religions began. No religion or denomination had the freedom to express violence against another. At that point, the state would intervene.

(Frederick's wars impoverished Prussia but his many reforms laid the foundations of modern Germany.)

By Anonymous, at Sat Jan 20, 04:14:00 AM:

http://www.photographs.net.in

Improvements also continue to be made in the automated processes used to
develop pictures and have lead to the availability of one-hour photo
processing facilities. The real future of photography may lie in the area
of digital imagery, a computer-based technology, which produces images
electronically.

By Anonymous, at Tue Sep 16, 03:40:00 AM:

TigerHawk

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Realigning tolerance: Our options in the collision between free speech and Islam

36 Comments:

Recent Posts

Center-to-right Blogs

Law and policy

Specialty and Unclassifiable Blogs

Left-to-Center Blogs

Other Links

Archives