Monday, August 30, 2010


This is what freedom and the US Constitution is all about [via Commentary]:

The Constitution is a marvelous document, and a reasonable interpretation of it means as well that no American can be forced to pour concrete. No American can be forced to deliver materials. No American can be forced to bid on a contract, to run conduit, dig a foundation, or join steel.

And a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution means that the firemen’s, police, and restaurant workers’ unions, among others, and the families of the September 11th dead, and anyone who would protect, sympathize with and honor them, are free to assemble, protest and picket at the site of the mosque that under the Constitution is free to be built.

A reasonable interpretation of the Constitution means that no American can be forced to cross a picket line in violation of conscience or even of mere preference. Who, in all decency, would cross a picket line manned by those whose kin were slaughtered—by the thousands—so terribly nearby? And who in all decency would cross such a line manned by the firemen, police and other emergency personnel who know every day that they may be called upon to give their lives in a second act?

Wretchard once wrote that, it isn't "... the universal chorus of harmony" that the multiculturalists have propagandized, "but religious conflict at its most primitive level." He was speaking at the time about the the hysteria surrounding the Mohammed cartoons, but the same thought is easily applicable to all aspects of the political left's politically correct, multicultural dogma, which is designed to make bigots out of anyone who disagrees with them.

The reality is that multiculturalism as a doctrine brings out the basist, most uncivilized and least admirable aspects of human nature.

To the extent that immigrants to this country refuse to be assimilated into American culture and are actively encouraged not to do so by the PC diversity crowd, then the "melting pot"analogy that was once described the foundation of American strength and resiliance, has morphed into a swirling conglomeration of immiscible liquids. If the container in which they are held is fractured in any manner, each will flow his own way without regard to the other simply because they share no common bond or meaning that holds them together.

Think about what the PC and multicultural gurus preach in their high-minded, superior rhetoric that inevitably brands anyone who dares to disagree with a racist label. Then WATCH WHAT THEIR RHETORIC ACTUALLY BRINGS ABOUT in real life. It is in the tribal and entitlement behavior that you begin to see the toxicity of this dogma; as well as the essential oppressive nature of the politically correct behavior that adherence to the religion of multiculturalism demands of us.

Having given up any objective standard by which to mediate the vastly different perspectives and world views that each disparate group brings to the table; having encouraged the cannibal and looter cultures to imagine they are as worthwhile as the producer and creator cultures; having abandoned reason altogether in favor of expressing some feel-good platitudes about a supposedly essential "need to belong" to one's race, tribe, religion or group first and foremost; the outcome is what Stephen Hicks refers to as "group balkinization" --with all its inevitable and inescapable disunity, disharmony and conflict. Then, after that the complementary dogma of political correctness is used to stifle free speech and to further obscure reality.

Why would universal brotherhood--or even peaceful coexistence for that matter--result from a dogma that is antithetical to the concept of the universalism of human experience that is the bedrock of civilization; and instead glorifies cultural and tribal differences, no matter how insane or irrational; or how violent or destructive are the cultural practices or beliefs that bring about those differences? Why would "tolerance" and "understanding" ever be the result of one perspective being forced down the throats of everyone else?

If it an American value to build a mosque wherever you want; it is equally an American value to be opposed to building it--particularly if the location is considered by many to be insensitive and inappropriate. I can't remember who mentioned this the other day, but what would people have thought if the Japanese had wanted to build a temple to "peace and brotherhood" next to the site of the USS Arizona sinking a few years after they had bombed Pearl Harbor? Opposing such a proposal then or now would not mean that the opponent is automatically anti-Japanese or racist. But, then it is interesting, isn't it, that no such proposal ever came out of Japan post-WWII, let alone during WWII? It is also interesting that the mosque proposal comes about, while we are still at war with the Islamic fundamentalists who unleashed the death and destruction that have killed and continues to kill so many Americans and people worldwide.

Insensitivity, does not begin to even describe the audacity and inappropriateness of the proposed GZM. It is almost as if the followers of Islam--be they radical or moderate--wish to assert their religion's superiority and dominance; and they are willng to use the tools of a free society to do so even as they undermine a free society. In this context, it is important to remember that Islam and it's politics, including sharia, are not fundamentally compatible with a free society since they do not recognize individual rights. This does not mean that those who wish to practice this medieval religion should be forbidden to do so in a free society (just like any other cultish or oppressive religion--if people choose to live that way they should be free to do so); but it means that such religions or cults are NOT free to impose their beliefs on any individual; and that any individual may leave their religion at any time. Try doing that in Muslim countries.

Multiculturalism teaches that what is truly important above all else is belonging to one's sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious identity, and not that one also belongs to the family of humankind. If the former is held superior, then "social withdrawal" from community and a pervasive distrust of other groups follows quite naturally; including conflicts between different nations, religions and ethnic groups.

The only "universal" that is shared under such circumstances is a committment to disharmony and, lurking beneath the overt moral relativism, is a grandiose sense of entitlement from each group as it jockeys for postion in the victimhood status heirarchy.

We already see the same dysfunctional dynamics playing out on the world stage.

When it comes to dealing with tyrants and despots; terrorists and their irrationally violent religious beliefs, it is necessary to be extremely judgmental; and to always and everywhere denounce them in the strongest terms possible, while assiduously working on every front to support and defend individual freedom for all people.

Samuel Adams wrote:
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
Today the world is being run by many "false and designing men" (and, there are a fair share of false and designing women--e.g., Nancy Pelosi comes immediately to mind) who are working hard to cheat Americans out of their heritage and to squander their inheritance. These same false and designing men and women could care less about the freedom of speech and religion that are denied to millions in regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia; they seem only capable of giving lip service to our Constitution and are noticeably reluctant to defend it against attacks.

In a world dominated by the dogmas of PC and Multiculturalism, there is little difference between liberty and tyranny; or between good and evil for that matter.

So let us be American ,and true to the values elucidated in our Constitution; and defend to the death the right to build a mosque in an inappropriate and insensitive location that sends a message of triumph to the ruthless enemies with whom we remain engaged in a brutal war; AND likewise let us be true to the value of freedom of speech and which make many opposed to building such a symbol of victory for the enemy we fight.

The Constitution protects the civil rights of both perspectives. It does not--and should not-- judge which perspective is right or which is wrong while both are legal. But, then recognize that only one side in this argument possesses moral clarity and common human decency

And it is not the politically correct, multicultural, feel-good-about-themselves, self-righteous, self-destructive side.

No comments: