Contrary to the impression one may get from this article, hatred is not an STD. Nor can it be transmitted through sneezing or coughing, or by handshakes or other casual contact. The gorilla in the living room of this article is why so many of his hearers believed the teachings of Abdul Nacer Benbrika. If they didn't catch them as one might catch a cold, what did happen? Could it be that what he said resonated with what they knew of the teachings of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira? Of course, no one wants to admit that, because no one wants to deal with its implications.
But what if the media (liberal and conservative) and policymakers did admit that Islam contains incitements to violence within its traditions, theology and law? What would these dreaded implications be? Genocide? Of course not. Acknowledging this would simply be a step toward calling the Muslim communities in the West to account, asking them specific questions about their commitment to Western pluralism and disavowal of the Sharia. Of course, the answers, if favorable, would have to be followed up with education and action. But no one can even ask those questions today because we are all not supposed to notice that Islam contains any elements that might be incompatible with Western pluralism in the first place.
From The Australian, with thanks to all who sent this in:
IT was the day that changed the life of accused terrorist ringleader Abdul Nacer Benbrika. Other Muslims see it even more darkly - as the day when al-Qa'ida first infected Australia's Islamic community with its toxic distortion of Islam.Now for the first time The Weekend Australian can reveal what unfolded on a country property in Victoria in the sunset of 1994. There, in front of the nation's leading Islamic fundamentalists, including Benbrika, a bearded cleric in flowing robes was giving a sermon which many now believe gave birth to radical Islam in Australia.
The speaker was Abu Qatada, now the spiritual leader of al-Qa'ida in Europe. Qatada had been invited to Australia by his childhood friend and fellow hardliner, Melbourne cleric Sheik Mohammed Omran. His message mesmerised the group - and Benbrika.
"He spoke out against Arab governments for not being Islamic enough, for not adhering to pure sharia law," recalls one senior Muslim who asked not to be named.
"He was radical and politicised - we had never heard this stuff before. His impact was enormous and that is where it all began. This is how the ideology of Abu Bakr (Benbrika) entered Australia. Prior to Abu Qatada's visit, most radicals were just normal guys."
And so it goes. Normal guys became jihadists. They were "infected." And this preposterous non-analysis is printed in a major newspaper.
Not so fast, Billy the Kid. Sometimes a single person can ignite a conflagration in a nano second. Case in point is the first Watts Riots when one voice, that of Malcolm X, ignited a firestorm. Granted, these single voices must ignite combustable materials already there and ready for lighting. And the pre-existing gasoline or dynamite is where we look. The remark that before xyz the "Muslim young were just normal guys," tells us only that like the sudden youthful killer that just explodes for "no reason" we really need to search to find the gasoline and remove it.
Our problem is internal because the Left is set on a course to weaken America believing that we are an evil empire that is causing death and destruction around the world. Everything fits into that simple goal of weakening America for our own good. Giving foreign cultures the "right" to exist and grow within our culture will only supply the fuel for the next speaker.
Multi-culturalism in Austrailia and here will be our doom.
Excellent analysis. Though I understand the objection by Duke, this is very clever to remember that "hatred is not an STD". Hatred IS a PERSONAL choice. This is like when the media worldwide say that the "racaille"'s violence in France is in fact caused by whatever "social injustice". The violence you see may trigger your own violence but you have to have this violence within you in the 1st place to be able to "ignite" so easily.
I am sick and tired of this pervert and yet so widespread idea that someone's violence can be justified by a so called discrimination done to the group he/she belongs to. All this leftist and totalitarian way of thinking that impregnates as respectable medias as say CNN has to be opposed to, like this present paper on Jihad Watch. Thanks to the author(s).
Oh, come on. Are we supposed to believe that? There's nothing in Islam that promotes violence but then this guy comes along and ruins it for all of them. Get f**king real. He didn't just pull that ideological sh*t out of his arse, it has its roots somewhere and the sooner we stop denying that the sooner we'll be rid of religiously motivated violence.
The REAL question that needs answering is not whether or not Al-Qaeda "infected" the Australian Islamic community but did he or did he not just reminded them of their duties.
If, as they say, they had "never heard this stuff before" then what is it that they actually heard that day and why was it so invasive and effective?
The leopard of Islam still refuses to change its spots. They wear it as a badge of honour that the Islamic text has never changed SO ask them: "Since Islam, as you say, is not just a religion but a way of life can you explain for me (take your pick here [the burka / female genital mutilation / honour killings / suicide bombings / killing of apostates / etcetera etcetera etcetera]).
I have long since grown weary of being accused of "nazism" for pointing out what's wrong with Islam but I can't, in good conscience, leave it to the apologists to speak for Islam. EVEN (let's see if this EVEN needs to be examined) if Islam does not necessarily have to be violent. If you really want to pracise Islam non-violently then you may be able to make excuses for the Qu'ran's more violent passages but it is still so ambiguous (2:101, 2:193, 4:101, 4:141, 8:12, 9:123, 9:29, 9:39, 25:52, 47:3, 48:29, 60:13, 66:9) while insisting its simplicity (12:1, 15:1, 54:40) and being clear about who is the man to be (33:21). So if people can't open a f*cking book for themselves or see a caravan raideing paedophile for what they are then, one is tempted to say, they deserve whatever comes to them.
While it may be theoretically possible for somebody to practise Islam peacefully, who will? It is far too easy to take the violent view and far too difficult to explain away those violent elements.
If this were not the case then somebody would have gained majority support already and rooted out the "fanatics" and "extremists" from their ranks. Where are such as these . . .
Help us, peace loving Muslims everywhere, help us extracate you from the murderous extremists that bring you into disrepute throughout the Western World. If you are being misrepresented by the like of Bin Laden then show us that you want to be free of his vile filth.
The best place to start would be a UNIVERSAL condemnation of terrorism which would include a MUSLIM definition of the following:
1 - "Innocent civilian."
2 - "Enemy of Islam / Allah."
3 - "Terrorism"
4 - "Jihad"
Then we may be on the right track.
I await the response of a learned Imam . . .
I was recently talking to one well-connected Republican/Conservative writer who told a group of us that the Islamists are a small group of heretics. I was pleased that many in my group were not sympathetic to the nonsense about heresy. We found it odd that heresy could spread so easily and make bin Laden a hero in the Islamic world.
All it seems to take, as the above article shows, is a call to piety. No extensive new ideology is required like reading a new book of the order of Das Kapital. Indeed, the article says:
Could it be something in these books?According to Hilaire Belloch all of Islam is a heresy.
Spreading of hatred against unbelievers is well within islamic mainstream doctrine. Check out the instructions kids are given in islamic schools in the following site:
www.maldivesroyalfamily.com/editorial_maldives_mdp_british_connection.shtml
The worst thing about islam is its lack of integrity: It causes harm, and then looks the other way and pretends that it's harmless.
Islam does indeed contain incitements to unjust bloodshed. But there's more to it. Not only did this 'sermon' resonate with the Islamic ethos, incitements to violence resonate with the human ethos. All men, no exceptions, have been corrupted by sin and are incitable to every imaginable evil act, including the version of genocide/religiocide which Islam wishes to carry out against all infidels (and all 'un-Islamic' Muslims). St. Paul writes in Romans 3:10ff regarding the complete moral corruption and salvation of *all* men including the writer and reader of this comment: (note especially verses 15-17)
Romans 3:10-24 10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." 13 "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17 And the way of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Back to the main point: the pre-existing mental condition is Islam, not something called "multi-culturalism" which may merely create the conditions of greater tolerance, and refusal to examine the contents or history of, all sorts of beliefs, customs, attitudes, only some of which are connected to Islam, and only some of which are threats. "Multiculturalism" for some at this website has become an all-purpose whipping-boy. Its invocation immediately leads some to focus on the precise contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira,so as to see what it is in these immutable canonical texts that is learned by Muslims, or lies in wait to be learned. It causes some to ignore the "psychology of the Musulman" (Servier)which seems to make many Muslims exhibit certain attitudes -- great defensiveness including a nearly-automatic willingness to lie about Islam to defend it from attack, an insistence on the superiority of Islam and of Muslims, and many other features that are peculiar to Islam, and exhibited even by Muslims who may be unaware even of much of what is in Qur'an and Hadith. And then there is the attitudes which one may possess by growing up in a Muslim society, where every allusion, every other phrase, every bit of history, somehow is connected to Islam, so that one need not go to a mosque to be fully formed within that world, to accept and reflect its attitudes, to have so thoroughly breathed in its atmosphere for so long that those attitudes have become part of one's being that cannot be shaken off, or reasoned through.
And there is the person who is told he is a Muslim because he has been born into Islam, and who accepts this, and in accepting it, even if he seldom or never attends a mosque, is always in danger, out of a loyalty to this "identity" that he finds it so difficult to shake, of embracing "immoderate" -- i.e., full-bodied -- Islam. It has happened, repeatedly. And sometimes it happens to the very "Muslims-in-name-only" who spend decades in the kind of Western looseness that supposedly is so un-Islamic. Think of the life of the Muslim terrorist Azahari, a Muslim, before he "got religion" on top of his religion.
A short comment above, but very important. And while all sorts of things about the Western world can be deplored, if one stops to deplore everything, and in so doing alienates some who might not quite see something called "multiculturalism" as the Great Evil -- not least because the word is flung aobut so much, used to damn so much -- then given the size and power and apparent success of the menace that faces all Infidels, and therefore the world, it is unwise to continue to harp on this thing called "multiculturalism."
There are many other mental diseases that help make some in the Western world quite unwilling to see, or begin to see, or try to see, what Islam is all about. These include anti-Americanism and antisemitism, which never go away and in Western Europe have had an effedt. They include the Seven Deadlies, including Greed (for those directly or indirectly in the pay of Arabs and Muslims and who, over the past three decades, have helped to mislead people, to teach people untruths, about Saudi Arabia, or about Islam in general), and Sloth (many too damn lazy even to read a single intelligent guide to Islam, or go to a single intelligent website).
And then there is the most important problem of all: Stupidity. Not to be ignored. Very powerful, the most powerful force on earth.
Smart children live longer.
I wonder how much money went into that conclusion?
Ancient Greeks lived by sophrosune, translated as centeredness or gracefulness or balance. The Greek ideal of balance is expressed, as a dancer is centered in his or her body. Greeks imagined a spiritual equilibrium correlating with the physical sense of balance. This balances the disciplined strength of our inner life with the demands of our outward experience. We call that equilibrium peace of mind. Peace of mind does not signal absence of chaos and confusion, but rather the presence of the strength we need to counteract them. We develop a sense of the (non-Islamic) Western ideals we pledge to defend, Western virtues we embody, Western values we commit ourselves to live by, we have the balance to stand firm, this will prove necessary to defeat the challenge of Islam, in our Western countries, cities, & towns. Leaders of Islam fully exercise the rights Western societies offer, Muslims exploit these rights to push Islamic interests. Islam is not compatible with Western values. You will find Islam moving into your town, trying to force changes that suit Islam over Western Ideals. Demographics alone will demonstrate how Muslims will walk over your traditions and values & make them go away. Stand strong & know & defend your rights, counter this marching Islamic stampede into the West.
Abu Qatada merely reminded them of what was already there, that which was mandated in the Koran. He pointed out that Muslims are supposed of first among men and that Arabs are meant to be first among Muslims. He reminded them that Westerners, or in this case Australians, don't take kindly to this notion and won't be subdued by Muslims unless Muslim take the requisite action to force them to see the light.
All this multicultal b.s. is just that. It's a lie that's been perpetuated over generations so that it becomes fact in the minds of believers. Muslims want to believe that they are tolerant... but the fact that they eschew the society of non-Muslims and treat them as less prove the lie of their words. The Umma Islamayia, of course, is the largest body of bigots that exist on the earth.
"He was radical and politicised - we had never heard this stuff before.
That is the biggest pile of bullshit I have heard in quite some time.
A senior musulman had never heard this stuff before? C'mon dude, give us infidels some credit.
This sounds like the movie 28 Days Later, in which rage and irrationality becomes a virus and becomes catchable as a the cold. It nearly destroys western civilization, hmmmm.
Hugh writes:
"And then there is the most important problem of all: Stupidity. Not to be ignored. Very powerful, the most powerful force on earth."
Against stupidity, the gods themselvels contend in vain. Sorry, couldn't resist.
By the way, Chaplain, most people have heard the
Good News, so including some long Christian screed in every post is not likely to rope in
any Atheists, Hindus, Jews, or whatever. In fact, at least to me, it makes Christians appear rather imbecilic. That's not just to you, a lot of Christians on this board seem to be unable to
resist the urge to share at inopportune times.
It's a bit offensive to people of different faiths, rather like someone who passes gas in
situations where it's frowned on.
An Interview with Abu Qatada
Interviewer: Terence McKenna of the CBC
Link.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/news/recruiters/qatada.html
Excerpts:
Introduction.
Outside the Regent Park mosque in London on every Friday, the Muslim holy day, Islamic radicals gather to scream out their support for Osama bin Laden and express their hatred for the West, especially the United States and Britain.
The police keep watch but take no action. If no crimes have been committed on British soil, there is nothing the police can do.
However, authorities believe there is more going on at the mosque than peaceful protest. They believe these rallies are where new mujahedeen, soldiers for Jihad (Islamic holy war), are recruited.
Islamic clerics such as Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza are accused of being key recruiters for al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States. Both Qatada and Hamza are open about their moral support for the attacks but they say they have no connection with any group, that they are just religious leaders.
Abu Qatada
Abu Qatada is a Palestinian who lives as a political refugee in London, UK. He says he is merely a religious leader and teacher. He is accused of being a key recruiter of mujahedeen (new soldiers for Jihad, Islamic holy war) for al-Qaeda.
Qatada believes it is the duty of every Muslim to support the Islamic holy war. He also says the United States is the enemy.
Abu Qatada: "The role of mujahedeen is dictated by what the prophet said. Whoever fights to make the word of God supreme, then it is for the sake of God. Therefore, if the jihad is to make the word of God supreme, this is what we call Islamic jihad."
CBC's: "Do you incite hatred against the U.S.?"
Qatada: "No doubt, if anybody asks me, 'Is the American, or are the Americans the enemy of our peoples?' my answer would be, 'Yes, they are the enemy.'"
CBC: "In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued this fatwa against the U.S. Did you agree with that fatwa?"
Qatada: "No doubt that my previous answer about promoting or inciting hatred towards America because of what they are doing to our peoples will explain that."
CBC: "We spoke earlier about your hatred for America. What was your reaction to the events of September 11? Did you think America got what was coming to them?"
Qatada: "Until now, America did not ask itself, 'Why is this happening to us?' Do you think that by what the U.S. is doing now, it can stop what will happen to it in the future? Not only from Muslims, but there are lots of people in the world who hate the U.S. Is this going to end? Why doesn't the U.S. reconsider itself to find out the reason behind all this? The Americans never asked this question, in spite of the fact that it is a logical one, 'Why is this happening to us?'"
Abu Qatada defends the killing of civilians while conducting holy war.
Qatada: "Islam prohibits the killing of women and children. But sometimes during jihad mistakes happen and non-combatants, women and children, do get killed,"(***See Note 1) says Qatada. "The probability of non-fighters being killed does not prohibit jihad. This is an Islamic as well as a worldly principle."
(Qatada:"The relationship between me and those men [his pupils, followers] is just that of a mufti, a religious person who gives sermons to other Muslims. It's only the relationship between a leader and his disciples.")
***Note 1. Qatada is lying at that point, and then fudges a little in the next sentence. Bin Laden's fatwa called for killing of civilians. Jihadists are notorious for targetting killing women and children in modern times. Historical evidence also indicates that women and children were also killed in jihads, in accordance with Islamic Holy War Policy and in accordance with the prophet’s own example.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964
Mohammad also did order the assassination of some women who were satirical poets, critics, or otherwise oppositional. http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm
Satan was really in top form when he started talking to muhammad wasn't he? I swear, there must be at least one demon in the world for every single human life in the world.
Begging your pardon, Hugh, multi-culturalism IS indeed the problem. Unlike the Cold War we are not faced by an enemy with the means to blow us up many times over. Unlike the Cold War we are not faced with an ideology that has wide appeal among influential segments of our own society and so must be understood in order to be countered. The Islamic world is militarily weak and Islam is a threat to convert no one except the most socially and psychologically marginal- those for whom Islam is now the new Satanism. In short nothing prevents us from taking care of the situation at hand (which does not require an extensive background in Islamic theology or law to analyze) except our own moral scruples, which currently are defined by an insane form of multi-culturalism that thinks "tolerance" and "diversity" are more important than the preseveration of freedom or even human life. Knowledge of Islam is certainly indispensable in understaning our enemies' plans and motivations, but 50 years ago we would not have needed to hold a debate over whether jihadism represents Islam's perversion or its culmination- we would have seen the threat for what it is and taken the necessary steps to protect ourselves. Instead of "learning from each other", we use incidents like the Paris intifada to shame each other on not being multi-cultural enough:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051111/ts_usatoday/frenchriotingspursbritishhaughtinessintrospection
Knowing who we are fighting and why they attack us is worthless without the will to survive.
I agree with emperor_diocletian. PC Multiculturalism is the main problem -- it is the most influential factor causing the West to be so myopic about the problem of Islam.
Of course such perennial human flaws to which Hugh calls our attention, such as Greed and Sloth, also play a part (why not bring up all the venial sins while you're at it, as well as the thousands of syndromes & disorders listed in the DSM-IV?). But they are not as influential as PC Multiculturalism.
And the other two mental diseases Hugh brings up -- anti-Americanism and antisemitism: these are part of the nebula of PC Multiculturalism (particularly anti-Americanism, which is of a piece with anti-Westernism, which is of a piece with anti-Catholicism and anti-Christianity and anti-Judaeo-Christianity -- all huddling under the PC umbrella out of the rain of reality), so cannot really be picked out so fastidiously as Hugh does, as though picking candied orange bits out of a fruitcake, when, as we all know, the whole fruitcake which our politically correct Aunt Lefty has bequeathed us needs to be tossed into the dustbin of history.
We are in a life or death struggle now, with Islam. It is not going to go away, or be rendered impotent as Communism was. It must be faced head on, full tilt and without remorse. Anything less is death to all that you love and hold dear. It makes no difference if you are liberal or conservative, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist or Quaker. All are on the Islamic Hit List. If the East/West can wake up soon, perhaps we can save several hundreds of million Muslims. If we wait until our backs are against the wall befor we act, then billions will die.
My metaphor gave the wrong impression:
Concerning "parts of the nebula of PC Multiculturalism", I wrote that they are all "huddling under the PC umbrella out of the rain of reality".
This gives the mistaken impression that PC Multiculturalism is a beleaguered minority when it's just the opposite: it is we politically INcorrect jihadwatchers who are huddling together under our shared, shabby, disreputable umbrella out of the inclement weather of the dominant climate, arrogant as the Sun, of PC Multiculturalism.
I like Multi-culti.
I like all cultures, religions, peoples of all races and all walks of live, but when it comes to Islam I draw the line.
Intolerance is the end of tolerance. Hatred is in their hearts, rape, robbery, terror, death and destruction is their agenda.
Separation, containment, quarantine, no access, no funds, no assistance, no help, minimal contact with the "Islamic world"- that should be our policy in dealing with them.
Trade, OK. Sell us what we want to buy, but we do not give you weapons or technology in return. Yours is yours and ours is ours.
No refugees, no asylum. Allow the Christians, the Jews, the Copts to leave, end of story. No more tourism, no more student-"exchange"- the last one is a one way street anyway....
Leave them to themselves. And of course: Deportations NOW.
Close the mosques, deport the 'clerics' first, and give the 'believers a choice where they want to be re-settled. The rest is not our problem.
Let Allah sort 'em out....
sheik yer'mami
I'm with you on that score, I think multi-culturalism has been fantastic for Oz. I think there were some 50 odd different nationalities at the university I studied at. I met and made friends with people of all races and cultures. My parents were in fact from Germany but I was born here.
Small sections of the broader Australian community can be a little annoying with their sense of cultural superiority (didn't matter if they were Thai, Indian, Chinese Sri Lanka) but almost to the person they were really happy to be here. Some new arrivals are a little insular but within a generation they mixed really well with mainstream society whilst often maintaining a degree of their original cultural identity.
The overwhelming majority of Australians don't expect immigrants to be completed assimilated into society in every respect, but they do rightly expect them to share the essential common principles and ideals that makes Australia such a great place to live.
One of the essential principles of the Australian way of life is the freedom to do as you please without imposing your standards on anyone else or otherwise adversely affecting the way others freely choose to live their life. You are also expected to abide by the laws of the country, pay your taxes for the development and maintenance of essential services etc etc.
The problem with Islam is that it is intorelant of diversity, it is anti-multi culturalism. Hindus, christians, jews etc can all practice their religion (even the most dedicated followers) without the need to cannibalise the very society that provides this freedom of religious expression.
You have to ask why it is that succeeding generations of non muslim immigrants become increasingly integrated and harmonised within the Australian society whilst succeeding generations of muslims become more alienated and increasingly hostile towards their host? Muslims account for just 1.5% of the Australian population, yet they are creating a hugely disproportionate degree of angst within the Australian community.
Whilst some Australian muslims are from near neighbour Indonesia, most are from the middle east, the other side of the planet. In their travels to reach Australia they could have chosen any number of other countries in which to settle that share common beliefs. Why come all the way to a country that they know full well has a different culture and then, once shown the generosity of spirit that was afforded them by their host, agitate to change all that the country stands for. Its simply absurd!
Islam should not be tolerated for the simple reason that it is inherently, irreparably intolerant.
"By the way, Chaplain, most people have heard the
Good News, so including some long Christian screed in every post is not likely to rope in
any Atheists, Hindus, Jews, or whatever. In fact, at least to me, it makes Christians appear rather imbecilic. That's not just to you, a lot of Christians on this board seem to be unable to
resist the urge to share at inopportune times.
It's a bit offensive to people of different faiths, rather like someone who passes gas in
situations where it's frowned on."
Hey american its called free speech. If you are so scared of what Chaplin writes then don't read it you fool.
I have to disagree with Hugh about multiculturalism. The ultra- liberal, poltically correct, moral relativist multiculturalists are Islam's most ardent apologists and they inhibit rational, honest discourse about Islam. These people hate America and they hate Western Civilization. They dominate academia, the news media, the Democrat party. They hate Christianity because it is synonomous with Western culture and they love its polar opposite, Islam. Their goal is to flood the country with non-white immigrants and reduce whites to a minority status. As whites are replaced by Hispanics and other ethnicities, so is Western culture. Since Western culture is the root of all evil, oppression, and social injustice, demographic metamorphosis is the perfect solution.
The doctrine of multiculturalism posits that all cultures and religions are equal and that is simply not true. Many people think that multiculturalism and diversity are one and the same, or that diversity means the existence of many ethnicities in one country. These are two of the most misunderstood words in the modern sociological/political lexicon. Diversity means much more than various ethnicities; it also means diverse lifestyles which range from the eccentric to the bizarre, basically anything that deviates from traditional social mores. It is difficult enough to tolerate some of today's perversities in the name of "diversity", but they demand respect and recognition as well.
Multiculturalism is a political tool to destroy Western culture. Islam is antithetical to Western culture, which muslims wish to destroy and replace with their own, although they are just one of many ethnic/cultural/religious groups with the same goal.
Islam is the most incompatible of many disparite cultures that have come to America during the last thirty years, but it is not the only incongruous addition to our society. We are being overrun by the third world, especially Mexicans, who are not assimilating or learning our language. There are so many special-interest groups in this country competing for minority privileges that the majority gets pushed aside.
Multiculturalism is now the darling of the conservatives, who kowtow to the liberals just to prove they aren't racists. The elitists in both parties believe that by mingling all races, cultures, and religions people will become tolerant of each other, which is ludicrous. It will create civil unrest and conflicts the likes of which we have never seen. Multiculturalism does matter, because it is responsible for our open, unprotected borders, the huge influx of unassimilable immigrants, the formation of hundreds of special-interest minority groups, and the slow but inexorable destruction of our culture.
Political correctness, which goes hand in hand with multiculturalism, intimidates well-informed, intelligent people into silence. If we cannot discuss the issues that threaten us all, what are our options? Our pusillanimous government officials refuse to publically expose the militant, predatory, inimical tenets of Islam because political correctness forbids it, so I guess we'll play games with C.A.I.R. until the next major terror attack and then turn the country over to democrats, who will apologise for making them attack us and then surrender.
I'm with you on that SusanP.
Some posters here obstinately keep confusing Multiculturalism with the modern Western virtue of tolerance and respect for different cultures.
For the simple-minded, it would be easy to confuse these two, since Multiculturalism has been part of the general progress of the modern West (which, like all movements of progress, has flaws), and because Multiculturalism ostensibly claims to value tolerance and respect for different cultures.
Where the two differ starkly and immutably is where Multiculturalism cultivates a myopic indifference regarding the regressive aspects of different cultures -- particularly Islam.
The reason why Multiculturalism is myopic to the regressive aspects of different cultures (and particularly Islam) is because the gold standard of what is ethically, morally, politically, legally, scientifically, artistically and technologically progressive in the world is Western Civilization: and the Multiculuralist's head would sooner explode in a fit of epileptic cognitive dissonance than accept such a horrid, hateful, "bigoted", "ethnocentrist", "racist" notion as that.
Is it racist to simply ban immigration of Islamic people. As I see it, this is the central issue. It does not good to ban those coming from Yeman or Saudi . . . how about the "French." It's not too late for the US to take action. How about banning Islam in Prison . . . or paid Imans in prison or the military. Let 'em stew in their ignorance and hatred.
I agree with those above who say that multi-culturalism and post-modernism are problems in our culture. However, I worry that some conservatives (not necessarily anyone here) use that as an excuse for hopelessness and futility. “Moral equivalency” was around during Reagan’s day; the conservatives denounced relativism then and even used the “E” word (“evil”) to condemn communism. Today the only time I see the word “evil” used is when the left is condemning America. I pointed out that absurdity here.
What worries me most are conservatives. I see The National Review being shaky and uncertain about moral pronouncement – that worries me. On communism, they were tough and uncompromising. I expect Human Events is better (since I keep getting subscription offers with a bonus of PIG guide to Islam.) However, too many conservatives excuse the Republican leadership for its failure to explicate the nature of the threat we face today. “Oh, that won’t sell in today’s PC environment!” Bull! That didn’t stop conservatives before.
Unfortunately, we fail to take on our fellow conservatives who in many cases just can’t believe a long-standing religion can be bad. “Hijackers, heresy, extremists,” they say – all excuses showing ignorance or cowardice. We have to work on those who were tough and pro-American in the last war. Be cognizant of the lies of the far left, but reach out to the conservatives and moderates and yes, common sense liberals, who will eventually “get it.”
Those that fight this fight, today, will be in position to lead tomorrow.
biorabbi, you illustrate my point precisely. Negatively singling out different groups is certainly discriminatory, but not so long ago we could distinguish between the logical and illogical varieties of it, between discrimination motivated by irrational fear or hatred, and discrimination motivated by a judicious and fair-minded consideration of reality. It was certainly discriminatory during WWII to treat residents of Japanese, German, and Italian descent as security threats, but not neccesarily wrong to do so. The rightness or wrongness was purely an empirical question.
Now discrimination is prima facie wrong, however, because it's really a form of "racism", and where does "racism" lead except to "genocide"? (a term which these days can mean almost whatever the speaker wants it to mean, regardless of the fact that neither Serbian atrocities in the '90's nor Sudanese ones today come close to meeting its original definition). And so this formula and it's antinomies ("diversity", "multi-culturalism", "celebrating our differences") are fetishized to the point where their real-world effects are no longer a consideration, even if they lead to the sort of outcomes "multi-culturalism" claims it was specifically designed to prevent. 50 people were killed and 100's wounded in London this year; France and the Netherlands are on the verge of inter-communal civil war and Balkan-style bloodshed. But we must never restort to such things as a discriminatory immigration policy; because discrimination is a form of "racism", and "racism" leads to inter-communal civil war and Balkan-style bloodshed....