Saturday, September 17, 2005

Are we Americans

The question of how Americans will react when we have our own Van Gough case is pertinent. Writers like Irsad Manji get regular death threats and sooner or later an American person speaking out will be silenced. The penalty for blasphemy in Islam is death and all it takes is one lunatic.

I personaly have been threatened for discussing Fred Isaacs book Indigenous People Under the Rule of Islam. The discussion of Islamic history sans the PC white washing
upsets many.

The problem is will the American people overreact with violence against Muslims or will they ask questions. Freedom of speech is my birth right as an American including blasphemy. Now as a practical matter I do not do this and stick with the historical record.

The questions are if you can not live in a free society what are you doing here. The problem with liberals is they have their heads in air. Your freedom ends when it diminishes mine. Thus is Abdul Jihad doesn't like my freedom of speech or that the lady next door is promiscous that is too bad. We live in an open society with guarenteed rights. The second that my freedom is restricted to appease Johny Jihad or Karl Commie we all loose.

Violent religious extreemism does not belong in our country. So if you want to kill blasphemers or people who convert from Islam you are in the wrong country.

9 comments:

Esther said...

Right on, Beak! Well said!

Anonymous said...

Are religeous extremists entitled to their own country? And what about secular extremists like the communists of the old USSR? I think you hit the nail when you said..."Your freedom ends when it diminishes mine!" Just wish more people saw it that way. Right on, beak!

-FJ

PS - although I might add, that if I "see you messin' with my homies, you'd better be prepared to throw beef with me!" And maybe, ask me if I want my freedom diminished, under certain circumstances, I might say yes. But if you don't ask, what beak said! And I'll only agree to a curtailment of my freedom for as long as the conditions that prompted their curtailment persist and you regularly ask for their continued curtailment.

An "open" society isn't necessarily one with open "borders", it's one with open minds. Open minds, and "closed" borders. And then respect for those borders. Cuz within my borders, we don't cotton well to either deliberate forces of commission OR omission.

I wish it were more obvious to everyone as to who my homies are, and more obvious to me who your homies are. If only there were easy ways of figuring these things out by proxies like race, sex, or creed. Unfortunately, you'd have to crack open a few heads and look inside, and even then I still doubt you'd be able to tell. Best to just listen to the talk. They're bound to reveal themselves one way or t'other.

That probably explain DARPA's "Total Information Awareness" program, and why it scares the bejesus out of some groups. Or is an "open society" a one way street? Or are there some powers NO group of people should ever be given. Like the power to know everything about the individual AND keep secrets from him in the interest of "national security". Shouldn't the individual then be entitled to keep certain information from the government in the interest of "personal privacy"? Maybe an "open society" is a "pipe dream".

There might be a third way. Perhaps if I had citizens who could "audit" the secrets and civil servants who could "audit" the populace embedded behind each other's borders. But who could be trusted to perform these very sensitive duties? In other words, who will watch the watchers? And what's to prevent the watchers from becoming filled with radical advocates for one party or another and circumvent policies invoking full disclosure and enforcement of the rules? Watchers for watchers for watchers? This problem seems pretty redundant if you ask me. Especially since no one ever listened to Cassandra.

Mr. Ducky said...

How did we react when loony tune thumpers were killing abortion providers or when a freaking thumper clown shot up a clinic in Boston? We hardly flinched.

Now I'm certain we will see a murder by a muslim as proof that they are within months of world domination but I wonder why our reaction won't be as sanguine. Cultures clash...it's man's way.

Beaker in case you want to read a scholarly work and take a break from those doctrinaire ax grinders you love to read:
The Cross and the Crescent: The Dramatic Story of the Earliest Encounters Between Christians and Muslims by Richard Fletcher

Anonymous said...

mr. ducky,

When those things happened, we held the individuals responsible for their crimes, responsible.

But when your side does it, you scream to get the individuals responsible "off the hook".

Now which side is being responsible mr. ducky, and which is living up to your namesake?

-FJ

Mr. Ducky said...

Farmer, the murderer in Holland wasn't arrested? Are you as paranoid as Beak?

Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, where do you stand on Mitt Romney's latest? Governor Olympics has proposed wiretapping mosques and putting muslim students under strict surveillance.

I wonder where you stand on our basic rights. Non muslims only? Doing a little Animal Farm on us here?

Mr. Ducky said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4259798.stm

Israeli high court says it's okay to kill ragheads. Once again they take the world leadership in upholding human rights.

beakerkin said...

Lets see abortion clinics vs WTC and daily attrocities . The example doesn't hold up.

The Israelis offer more justice then any Muslim nation ever did. Need you forget Dhimmi have near zero rights.

Where are the Arab Isrealis voting with their feet. They have more freedom in Israel then the PA.

Anonymous said...

touche senor la duque. He was arrested. But he does have his "apologists" doesn't he? And on which side of the Seine do they sit? Certainly not many on the right bank are accusing the Dutch of "intolerance". In fact, hasn't the backlash against multi-culturalism coming from the right?

-FJ