Last week while paying half attention to Brett Baier's show on Fox I heard the 'crew' mention Geert Wilders and I thought, 'well, finally' and then I heard Krauthammer condemn Wilder's for calling to ban the Quran (actually what he said was if you are going to ban hate speech, then we ought to be examining the Quran for just that), and then Bill Kristol called Wilders a demagogue ...well arguable, but harsh. My reaction was just short of outright total shock.
Since neither of these men need to be on Fox considering their other accomplishments I have a hard time going along with some other authors who see the evil editorial conspiracies of Prince Talal who has a spermatic business exchange of moneys with Murdoch over newservices investments going both ways.
I believe them to be terribly in error (as apparently do Dutch voters).
I have personally said that if a mosque here in the USA actively teaches those parts of the Quran and Hadith which incite to violence, and violence results, the board of director of such a mosque should be held to account criminally, and civilly. When some mosques are buried under fantastically large lawsuits, the teaching WILL STOP. Legally. And as a direct cause of those laws which also destroyed Aryan Nation.
I don't see much difference between the process used by the SPLC, and given the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the Cartoon Jihad, ETC, and what Geert Wilders is calling for in stating that if hate speech is going to be banned, and freedom of speech proscribed by limited religious offense, then blind application should be the result.
Nor, Mr. Kristol, do I find the heart of that request ANY kind of demagoguery.
King James Bible, Torah, Quran, whatever ..FINE BY ME. Either that, or allow freedom of speech, AND ENFORCE IT against those who would use intimidation to limit it.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=79f12b49-6042-487d-baf9-64681e3e9e18)
7 comments:
The idea of "Freedom of Religion" is very deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
And, because most people, even smart people like Kristol and Krauthammer, tend to think in broad generalizations, they are not able to make the distinction between a Religion and a Political-Religio Ideology.
If Kristol and Krauthammer had paid more attention in history class (yes, I am accusing my intellectual betters of not paying attention) they would have remembered that we dismantled much of Japanese Shinto Buddhism for the same reason you are proposing we ban the preaching of certain parts of the Krayon.
Additionally, they would also understand that there was a religious aspect to the Southern slave model and to Nazism.
If one really pays attention to history, I suspect one would learn that no truly dangerous society can develop without the absolute faith in one's rightness that comes from combining one's religious belief with one's political ideology.
I am not attacking religion here. Instead, like an American, I am calling for a separation of Church and State.
Truly, the Muslims have it right; we are the Great Satan, because we will, once we remember who we are, destroy their religion, because their religion recognizes no separation of Church/Mosque and state.
Bye bye to Islam as we know it.
Please understand the fine point here ... I seek no BAN on teaching anything, I merely advocate the idea that institutions which seek to survive and maintain congregations or active adherents of any kind in the USA will find it .... economically advantageous ... to abandon incitement of any kind which might or will result in violence.
;)
I got it.
I think the preaching of Jihad and Sharia (strict Sharia) ought to be considered Treason, plain and simple.
So, I go a step further than you.
Roger Scruton on the classical origins of religious freedom:
Vanderbilt Lecture Series on Democracy & Moral Conviction Part 1 of 4
Vanderbilt Lecture Series on Democracy & Moral Conviction Part 2 of 4
Vanderbilt Lecture Series on Democracy & Moral Conviction Part 3 of 4
Vanderbilt Lecture Series on Democracy & Moral Conviction Part 4 of 4
ff to 5:00 "Moreover, the 'no establishment' clause was meant as a limitation on the powers of Congress and not on the powers of the individual states. The founders did not intend the clause to authorize Congress to intrude on the State of Massachusetts, for example, which at the time, had an absolute ban against Roman Catholicism. A ban which the federal government made no effort to lift. But that of course is not how the 'no establishment' clause is interpreted today. It is invoked as an absolute command against religion in the public arena throughout the union and as authority for the radical secularization of all social institutions that depend upon the state or which exercise an authority that derives from the state. It has been regarded as a violation of the 'no establishment' clause that the court should display the ten commandments or that public schools should begin the day with daily prayers. Such decisions do not convey a desire to protect religious freedom so much as a desire to marginalize religion. Indeed to deprive religion of the place it naturally demands in the public life of a nation whose people remain in their own understanding at least, firmly within the faith traditions of the "Judeo-Christian" bible. Nobody was forcing children to take part in the public prayers at school or forcing anyone to acknowledge or genuflect before the ten commandments in the courtroom. Yet there are currents of opinion in America which do not only take offense at school prayers and doctrinal icons but which believe it is part of spirit of democratic freedom to forbid them. Religion for such people is not just a private affair, it is something to be privatized, confined within the home like some habit which cannot be displayed in public. It might reasonably be objected that 'religious freedom', so defined, is actually a forbidding of religion since it removes the freedom to practice religion in the way that faith demands. In other words, the first part of the 'no establishment' clause, strictly interpreted, enters into conflict with the second. The part which shows that Congress shall make no interference in the free exercise of religion."
If religion is to be sanctioned by the state via display of religious dogma in courts of law and required prayer in public schools because to do otherwise would "remove the freedom to practice religion in the way that faith demands," then those of us whose convictions rest on what reason demands will become second class citizens and preference will be given to those religions ranked highest in the approval ratings. In this country any and all forms of Christianity occupy the top of the chart, but as of now Islam still ranks dangerously high.
"Free exercise of religion" does not equate to taking my tax money and using it to decorate courthouses with somebody else's god's arbitrary list of do's and don'ts. Nor does it equate with setting aside time for children in public schools to do what they can just as easily do before they leave home. Since when does practicing religion "in the way that faith demands" require group prayer in a public building? If it does, then let's require it in courtrooms before the start of trials, for example. A few "words of wisdom" from the Holy Quran or the KJB perhaps. Hell, read a few pages of one of L. Ron's novels, Scientologists "need" to have their "faith" respected too.
Eternal vigilence to the point of being a royal pain in the ass is the price of not getting steamrollered by the religion with the biggest bankroll and highest sacred cow status. We learn that the hard way and are promptly reminded, should we forget, of what major religions can get away with because their faithful "need" them. Individual rights will always have one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel when it comes to protecting religion.
I agree with Epam on the subject of legal redress being applied to incitement to violence by religious institutions, but fat chance of that happening any time soon.
I have personally said that if a mosque here in the USA actively teaches those parts of the Quran and Hadith which incite to violence, and violence results, the board of director of such a mosque should be held to account criminally, and civilly. When some mosques are buried under fantastically large lawsuits, the teaching WILL STOP. Legally. And as a direct cause of those laws which also destroyed Aryan Nation.
ALL MOSQUES TEACH ALL PART OF THE QURAN.... JUST AS ALL SYNAGOGUES TEACH ALL OF THE TORAH
Mike, you can teach god's forgiveness, or the Stone and the Tree.
That call's responsibility belongs to the Board of Directors of the Schul, Church, or Mosque
Post a Comment