All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Wilders Controversy
Western rights exist on a spectrum. It is not a matter of having all of our rights intact or having none at all. Reasonable culturists can disagree as to what the local situation requires. But let's not get polarized over this issue.
I may have gone overboard in my rhetoric of criticizing Wilders. However, his language is troubling to me, and I think he will be called on for clarification by people who do not like him at all.
Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I also agree with you that a strong culture depends on the idea that people can buy into the culture, and that means people need to be treated with respect.
I amended my comments on the other post, with some additional comments about how I do not think we are in a position, right now, where we even have to think about deporting Muslims for advocating Sharia.
That being said, I think we are in a position where we have to start thinking about it, and we have to come up with laws and policies ahead of time, not in a rush under threat of terrifying attacks.
I totally feel his pain over only having a few minutes in which to discuss ideas.
Also, individual nations in Europe - have different situations with which to contend. Some may need to deport radical imams. Some may just concern themselves with prisoners. Some may have very few that deserve deportation.
But, compromising rights should be a last resort. And, when done, it should rely on legal principles such as the breaking of the naturalization oath. We should stop Islamic immigration, but then err on the side of remaining a free society. Hysterical blanket condemnations divide us and compromise our stability.
Thanks for the conversation that prompted the video!
I don't blame you. Anything that implies the possibility of thought crimes worries me as well, but you, yourself keep talking about jailing or deporting people for sedition. I agree with you there. Free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded building. It also does not include the right to call for treason and the violent overthrow of democratic governments.
Damien, The thing is, we have laws on the books which stipulate what sedition is. It is acting to cause the overthrow of the goverment, which in the case of the USA is chosen by the people.
Clearly, advocating the imposition of Sharia and Jihad is an action to overthrow the government.
It's an action, not a thought crime.
So, I don't think anything I am saying is outside the bounds of what is allowable according to the laws we already have.
It is probably true that, in order to have the existing laws be prosecutable in the case of Sharia and Jihad, we would likely have to add something to the law explaining how and why advocating Sharia is sedition. But, that's not for me to devise. I am not a lawyer.
I personally think, that we should pass a constitutional amendment that specifically bans Sharia on US soil and states clearly why advocating it is treason.
In the meantime, we need to be culturist. That means we must recognize that we are a western nation with a particular legal tradition. Ours is not a multiculturalist nation. We do NOT need to recognize or validate non-western practices or legal systems.
Defeat multiculturalism, spread the words culturist and culturism!
Thanks! Pastorius liked my amendment idea as well. The only real problem I can think of with it, other than trying to pass it, would be how to word it. However, I guess if we could talk to a constitutional law expert, who supported our cause, we could solve that problem.
If we could get passed those two hurtles, the amendment, could stop the spread of Sharia onto American soil, or at the very least substantially slow it down, because they'd have to start denying that they were trying to implement Sharia, when ever they tried to, since the constitution would specifically forbid it.
11 comments:
I agree, John.
Well said.
I may have gone overboard in my rhetoric of criticizing Wilders. However, his language is troubling to me, and I think he will be called on for clarification by people who do not like him at all.
Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I also agree with you that a strong culture depends on the idea that people can buy into the culture, and that means people need to be treated with respect.
I amended my comments on the other post, with some additional comments about how I do not think we are in a position, right now, where we even have to think about deporting Muslims for advocating Sharia.
That being said, I think we are in a position where we have to start thinking about it, and we have to come up with laws and policies ahead of time, not in a rush under threat of terrifying attacks.
Pastorius,
I totally feel his pain over only having a few minutes in which to discuss ideas.
Also, individual nations in Europe - have different situations with which to contend. Some may need to deport radical imams. Some may just concern themselves with prisoners. Some may have very few that deserve deportation.
But, compromising rights should be a last resort. And, when done, it should rely on legal principles such as the breaking of the naturalization oath. We should stop Islamic immigration, but then err on the side of remaining a free society. Hysterical blanket condemnations divide us and compromise our stability.
Thanks for the conversation that prompted the video!
Thank you.
Pastorius,
I don't blame you. Anything that implies the possibility of thought crimes worries me as well, but you, yourself keep talking about jailing or deporting people for sedition. I agree with you there. Free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded building. It also does not include the right to call for treason and the violent overthrow of democratic governments.
Damien,
The thing is, we have laws on the books which stipulate what sedition is. It is acting to cause the overthrow of the goverment, which in the case of the USA is chosen by the people.
Clearly, advocating the imposition of Sharia and Jihad is an action to overthrow the government.
It's an action, not a thought crime.
So, I don't think anything I am saying is outside the bounds of what is allowable according to the laws we already have.
It is probably true that, in order to have the existing laws be prosecutable in the case of Sharia and Jihad, we would likely have to add something to the law explaining how and why advocating Sharia is sedition. But, that's not for me to devise. I am not a lawyer.
I personally think, that we should pass a constitutional amendment that specifically bans Sharia on US soil and states clearly why advocating it is treason.
Damien,
The Amendment would be great!
In the meantime, we need to be culturist. That means we must recognize that we are a western nation with a particular legal tradition. Ours is not a multiculturalist nation. We do NOT need to recognize or validate non-western practices or legal systems.
Defeat multiculturalism, spread the words culturist and culturism!
Culturist John,
Thanks! Pastorius liked my amendment idea as well. The only real problem I can think of with it, other than trying to pass it, would be how to word it. However, I guess if we could talk to a constitutional law expert, who supported our cause, we could solve that problem.
If we could get passed those two hurtles, the amendment, could stop the spread of Sharia onto American soil, or at the very least substantially slow it down, because they'd have to start denying that they were trying to implement Sharia, when ever they tried to, since the constitution would specifically forbid it.
I have a friend who is a Professor of American government. I'll ask him if he has any opinion on this idea.
Pastorius,
Thanks. No matter what his answer, it will be interesting.
Post a Comment