.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Collision Course

I'll bet that a lot of readers just thought I went off on a wild tangent with the previous posts about the whole Koran thing and the First Amendment.

But no, this genie is out of the bottle, and this is why. Read the comments on Ann's post.

The bottom line here is that it will be moderate Muslims who will be unable to speak out.

Update: Breyer recants. Oops, I mean "clarifies".

And just because I thought it was interesting, and because the whole Koran-burning flap is not really about Islam at all, but about our own laws and government, Bernstein posts about the "Repeal Amendment".

The comments are a sight to behold.

At first I was a bit confused where you were headed. I was concerned that we might not be on the same page.

It would appear we are on the only page that truly matters though. Without free speech all is lost. There'd be no point even discussing our country's problems. Not that we could if free speech was no longer possible!

As a side topic, "internet kill switch" legislation makes me extremely uneasy.
Mark - if one looks at European history, it's clear that marking ideas off as heretical or blasphemous has a long reach in a society. It stultifies. This would explain a lot about the lack of progress in certain Islamic countries.

It does truly irk me that some people are trying to "kill" offensive speech on the grounds that it would offend Muslims.

If it truly offends a Muslim to the point that he or she decides to get up and kill someone, then in my opinion we have yet another winner of the Darwin awards rather than a society trend-setter. Such Muslims need to get out of the country or get killed.

But most Muslims in the US aren't that type of person. And we are really dangling them out to dry.

Aside from that, I just don't care. I don't care if someone wants to jump up and down on a crucifix all day. And I don't care if they want to burn a Koran or a flag. Yes, it is bad behavior, except maybe it is necessary behavior if our government decides we can't do it.

There is no possible way that appeasing violent people like this can lead to peace. It's as if we had tried to placate the KKK after a wild night of lynching. We're just feeding the flames.

There was a time when the Nazi leaders truly were just buffoons. It was a failure to take their malice seriously that converted them into a world-destroying menace. We're doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We aren't going to get a different result.
We're doomed. How do you fight an enemy who will kill you and your family for a few cross words? Society is built around the concept people want to live. For these people death is the maximum payoff.
CF For these people death is the maximum payoff.

- and for adolescents.

Do you know anything about the history of seventeenth century England? It's not as if the Christian world hasn't quite recently been as idiotic.

People and cultures do grow up as long as one does not cater to toddlerism. Our problem is that we are catering to it, and as M pointed out a few posts ago, that just doesn't work with toddlers. You can talk with adults. With toddlers, it's a while before reason sets in.

And you might be too civilized to whack back, and Mark might be too civilized. But I can assure you that most of us aren't quite that civilized. People are becoming a bit cross over this.

If you read the comments on Althouse, you'll note that a tinge of Churchill is creeping across the canvas.

Canada had to abandon its "thou shalt speak no ill of Islam policy". That's because the Scots and the Irish are much better fighters than the Arabs.

This administration is woefully out of touch with the country, and never more so than on Islam/Israel type issues.
Without intermarrying, assimilation will not take place.
Most immigrant communities have begun to intermarry
by the second generation. The Muslim hostility to this
pratice will slow assimilation to a crawl. Can the US
afford unassimilated community whien in 2 wars in
Muslim countries?

The fact of the matter is everyone, especially groups, deserves to be offended. Nobody is so god-like that they don't deserve it. Religion becomes a false god.

If you take yourself off the pedestal, the birds can't shit on you anymore.
I saw the proposal for the states to be able to repeal a federal act. I like it. I would prefer we get rid of the 17th amendment, but I have a hard time seeing how the Senate would vote to repeal their own elections.

The surprising thing about the Althouse posting are the comments. The number of people who believe Molly is being justly punished for offending some Muslim's is horrifying. It reminds me of the "better red than dead" thinking in the 50's and the 60's.
MOM said: "The bottom line here is that it will be moderate Muslims who will be unable to speak out."

That has been the problem all along. Most of them are, rightfully so, scared, frightened, cowed. Few of us realize how much courage it requires to be a Zhudi Jasser or an Aayan Hirsi Ali. They speak out against the violence of the Islamists - knowing full well they are exposing themselves to that violence.

The "religion of peace" is in dire need of reform, but the moderates need some backing from those outside their religion. It would seem a good policy would be to announce repeatedly to the moderate Muslims that we have no quarrel with a peaceful Islam, but we will defend ourselves vigorously against those who use violence and subterfuge to advance the religion. That the Islamists are hiding among them and using them as shields. For their protection and best interests they should identify the Islamists and help us to destroy them. Such an alliance is in the best interests of both parties.

As you say the Scots and Irish are fighters and will not stand down when faced with a challenge. Would that more in our government were of that ilk. Then we would be able to openly define our enemies and proceed with serious intent to destroy them.

Pussyfooting around because we don't want to offend a religious group that continuously threatens, insults, and kills us is nothing more than a death wish. Just like the fools who will do nothing while alligators eat their friends; hoping that the alligators will have mercy on them.
You can usually deflate one of these idiots who claim that any verbal disagreemert or ridicule of their dogma offends god and should be punished by remarking that your god is bigger than most men in all ways,not smaller.
Why is this site and Dr. Sanity being called an attack site? Is there some google thing going on?
Anonymous,it is an attack site because political issues are discussed rationally.
The attack site thing seems to have to do with the blogroll software. They also declared a problem with the website for the ISP I'm working for now. Took a couple of days to get it cleared up. I run a dual boot machine and spend most of my time in linux so I'm not scared :)
The attack site thing seems to have to do with the blogroll software. They also declared a problem with the website for the ISP I'm working for now. Took a couple of days to get it cleared up. I run a dual boot machine and spend most of my time in linux so I'm not scared :)
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days.

The minute some foreign party, government or individual, threatens an American citizen for exercising Constitutional rights on American soil, the President and the Congress should say plainly You have just made yourself an enemy of the United States of America. Maybe that didn't mean something yesterday. It means something today. Whether it is the World Court, a religious fanatic holed up in a mountain, or the government of an ally attempting to extend their libel law to American citizens, the rights of American citizens to life, liberty, and property are the foundation upon which this country stands. If the government will not defend those rights, it is declaring itself illegitimate.

That it even requires thought in these times shows how far we have fallen.

The most expensive war in American history has been the War on Poverty. More money was wasted, and more future wealth destroyed, by the Great Society than we would know how to spend. But I would begin by spending it on a 600-ship Navy, an Air Force three times the current size (with a separate command for control of the ground) and an Army and Marine Corps each two and a half times as large. Oh, and a replacement for the clandestine services part of the CIA.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?