'cookieChoices = {};'


... Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government ...
click.jpg

Friday, February 24, 2006

Democracy, Religion(s) and the Clash of Civilizations

In their comments at "Are the ENTS Awakening" -Pastorius and Pim's Ghost at Infidel Blogger's alliance start a thought provoking analysis as to whether it is possible to avoid a cataclysm in which certainly tens of millions, potentially hundreds of millions will die, and perhaps settle less than the crusades did.

It's obvious from the cartoon jihad that the freedom critical to all else in the Bill of Rights, and the constitution, the one which we use as the progenitor for protection of the individual against any tyranny of the majority, or as we have seen in too many nations, the MOB is THE flashpoint. Freedom of speech is blashpemy.

According to the salafi philosophical descendents of Ibn Tamiyya, Sayd Qutb etc., there is going to be no alternative. It's them or us. Period. If they control the destiny of Islam, we might as well brings the men and women home, start the salafi arrests, wahabbi-salafi mosque closures and deportations here at home, and then light off all the Tomahawks, Tridents and Peackeepers today.

However, perhaps letting my liberal slip show, I don't think that's going to be the way to go. I think the answer IS democracy. Democracy, despite the islamozoids winning in Algeria, Hamas, etc. PROVIDING the ballot box remains private, sacrosanct and well used.

We have seen today a drawing back of some European nations from the Eurabia the incredible B'at Yeor has accurately described. Some. Despite the attempts of the left there to portray this as some fascist-esque revival, there are enough there to ensure that policies which have lead populations decadent enough to forgo enough children to remain ALIVE, will now get a thoroughly jaundiced review. We see the pope cut to the heart of the problem (the Quran must be considered to be immutable) several times.

So with issues sharpening and each cycle of values exposure, and 'more intimate' contact between Muslims in our societies, and Muslims dominated nations, and the west, how is a clash to be avoided?

I am absolutely CERTAIN after 4+ years of talking with gulf Arabs every day that about 2/3 are completely against the conscience riving actions of the 1-2% who commit mass murder, and the 30%+ who, in some way either do or would support these actions in the name of 'god' emotionally, or worse support it financially or thru other means. These ~67% of muslim folks have a moral compass in relatively good shape, but cannot stand up to the religious authority(ies) which continually, since it's Muslim Brotherhood ascendance - pound the values of {72 hot chicks in heat to get their hands on you if you die in the cause of killing the people who run around making up laws out of their own heads instead of following "god's" (presumably tesoterone gel is provided after a few days or weeks)}

But these same folks have only one way to repudiate the religious doctrine which their conscience SCREAMS at them cannot be "Islam". The privacy of the ballot box. We may see as we have seen, the election of semi-ignorant loony bigots, but I would remind americans that Robert Byrd still serves in the Senate, and I wouldn't crow to loudly about one Trent Lott. More, just as we have seen with Spain, governments freely elected are always transient. That's true for inimical administrations as well as friendly ones. AS LONG AS ELECTIONS ARE CONTINUALLY HELD. The history of democracies, INSISTS, that people free to vote will always vote for the own welfare, with mistakes to be sure, but that has import. That’s why democracies don’t go to real war with each other. Such a war would clearly be peoples against peoples, not peoples against Bin Laden.

Roads and schools will win out over {72 hot chicks who cannot be proved to exist in waiting}. If the elected govts do not deliver these opportunities, then they WILL get fired. This does not assume “they” are like us, it assumes “they” love their children. This will continuously isolate the zarquoids among the Muslims. Once that happens, humanity wins.

Of course this process seems limited when one considers the galactic twerp of Iran and his mullah madmen circling the well, waiting. We may have to deal with them, or our close allies might. But yet .. one idea out of that conundrum may yield some hope…isolate Iran and admit Israel to NATO.

As Wellington said of Waterloo, ‘it was a near run thing’. So this will all be. Must be.

I have no doubt we are going to the brink. None. I have no doubt before it’s all done we’ll buy more duct tape, and stock clean water. But I hope there is a way there are not too many rats in the cage in this close and closer world.

But there may yet prove to be too many to have religious intolerance and bigotry in close proximity to freedom of speech. I which case, we all know what the end must be. Frankly I have no doubt we would do it.

We did it before just to reduce our fighting men’s casualties and shorten a war. Imagine what we would do to save our society.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link#

5 Comments:

Blogger JMJ said...

Great post Epa!! I think your reasoning makes sense. To me, it demonstrates an understanding of a mulit-pronged approach to dealing with the issues of the day. Our response should not be limited to only vehicle. I really feel we need both, the voting booth and a strong, unyielding response to the militants. Of course, we would prefer the voting booth but the radicals will ultimately make that call.

Short term and long term approaches. Unfortunately, like you said I think the short term (not all that sshort term) will still need to be dealt with in a way that we would rather not have to do but if needed, and let this be perfectly clear, we will fight for our freedom 'til our last breath.

To me its like Iraq, we must go into Baghad very strong and but also must be ready for the aftermath. Which Rumy was not.

We cannot make that mistake again!

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:47:00 pm  
Blogger Kiddo said...

Very well done Epa. And as one of the panelists at the National Review Online symposium regarding the cartoonifada quipped, there cannot be a clash of civilizations, as that would require two civilizations. HAHA!

I'm sticking by my belief that they ain't seen nothin yet, as far as the West is concerned!! Bring it on Ents!

Friday, February 24, 2006 3:57:00 pm  
Blogger von Schlichtningen said...

Good post.

Consider also this:
A Muslim cannot be allegiant to a democratic nation state. For a Muslim to say that man's law is superior to shari'a, Allah's Law, is apostasy.
In order for a Muslim to be a citizen of a nation state he must renounce Islam.

I wonder if democracy is the answer for any true believer in Islam? And if a Muslim embraces democracy - can we trust it is not just the usual lying to protect the faith?!

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:07:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

von, you are at the crux, and that's why only the secret ballot box can repudiate the killers.

The logic chain which starts with an immutable koran and ends with Sayd Qutb's racist calls to murder for god cannot be broken unless those whose conscience rebels at the carnage in THEIR name, find a way to junk the salafizoid maniacs. it will never happen out loud. The loonies will just yell takfir and kill them in front of their famlies. Sound like what's happeing RIGHT now in Iraq?
The killers understand. They seem to be a lot smarter than the MSM

Friday, February 24, 2006 11:36:00 pm  
Blogger JMJ said...

von, pim and epa,

Good points all!! Something I have been pondering for awhile now.

Can or will a muslim, even in a private voting booth, vote and go against sharia? Does this by definition make him an apostate of his religion? Even if no one else but his conscious knows how he has voted?

Even with the recent bombing of the Golden Shrine, I understand it has been the clerics (way more than the government) who have really had the most influence in keeping further destruction from occurring.
*************
I learn much from the many people here at this blog because I openly admit that I am only now beginning to really understand and study the workings of Islam.

And I think this brings us back to the question John S brought up earlier, is there such a thing as a moderate muslim?

My western thinking wants to say yes but as I learn more about islam, my logic says no.

And if a muslim is a moderate muslim, does that not really make him an apostate by definition? How does a moderate muslim reconcile this contradiction?

Still wondering.

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:48:00 am  

Post a comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


Older Posts Newer Posts