The right to protest
Michelle Malkin linked to a video of Muslims desecrating the American flag, also noting the lack of Newsweek coverage. Newsweek, of course, recently ran their infamous, unfounded story that claimed American troops desecrated the Koran and flushed it down a toilet. It's complete hypocrisy for mainstream media to focus on these Koran incidents (almost all of which were committed by Muslim detainees themselves), while ignoring the burning and desecration of the American flag both here and abroad. The mainstream media all but ignores all the destroyed Bibles and forcibly disbanded Christian churches in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
I still cannot fathom the accusations of "American intolerance." The U.S. protects the practice of all peaceful religions, protests of almost any kind, even the burning of its flag. Yet these rampaging Muslims (I use it literally, citing the lethally violent riots) who allege "American intolerance" demand so much reverence for their holy book that they themselves are intolerant.
Still, you may hate what these Muslims are saying, and you may hate them as persons, but what they're doing is protected speech. Even if they're not citizens, they have the right to assemble peaceably and speak their minds.
No doubt a lot of people are frightened by that video, which was produced by the Muslim organization itself (it has ties to a Muslim group in Britain that itself has very dangerous ties). Some are probably thinking, "There ought to be a law against that," or that we should deport them immediately. I'm not frightened of them in the least, but I'm extremely concerned because of their tone and message. Still, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if we cherish freedom for ourselves, we must be willing to extend the same to others.
Should we restrict these Muslims' speech because it and they are "dangerous" and "seditious"? Are those sufficient criteria for government to censor anyone? And after that, what other freedoms might government limit, because government determines that they are also "dangerous"? And let's not delude ourselves into thinking we can stop a government, no matter how benevolent and democratic it claims to be, from exceeding the limits on its authority that the people originally established. History is replete with examples of the people failing to reign in government and becoming subject to it, instead of the ideal that government is subject to the people.
Still, don't fall for the PC crowd's absurd demand for "tolerance." The problem is that they define tolerance not just as not interfering with others, but respecting others' beliefs. They quote the First Amendment profusely, but that only says Congress (over time this has been construed to mean all levels of government) "may pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" and the other enumerated freedoms. In no wise does that require anyone to respect others' beliefs, only their rights. It's perfectly within your rights to dislike, detest, even hate them and their actions; it's not your right, however, to infringe upon their rights.
Evelyn Hall of the Friends of Voltaire perhaps said it best: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I, for one, think these Muslims are reprehensible and hypocritical. I think their call for Muslim domination over the world is arrogant, disgusting and immoral. Believing that is my right. But it's no one's right, not government's nor any individual's, to make them cease what they were saying and doing. Likewise, it's not their right to compel me to respect their own particular beliefs. It's hypocrisy to demand "you must respect our beliefs" (and decry any criticism of violent Islamofascism as "racism") while at the same time refusing to accept my differing beliefs.
I will say this, for practical reasons. These Muslims were issued a permit, presumably by the local government. Turn their names over to the Department of Homeland Security, and see if they match the names of known and suspected terrorists. Considering this splinter group's ties, I have a feeling it would be interesting to put them under surveillance. Call it "racial profiling"; call it racism. I maintain it's common sense, unlike airport security targetting elderly Caucasian women.
I still cannot fathom the accusations of "American intolerance." The U.S. protects the practice of all peaceful religions, protests of almost any kind, even the burning of its flag. Yet these rampaging Muslims (I use it literally, citing the lethally violent riots) who allege "American intolerance" demand so much reverence for their holy book that they themselves are intolerant.
Still, you may hate what these Muslims are saying, and you may hate them as persons, but what they're doing is protected speech. Even if they're not citizens, they have the right to assemble peaceably and speak their minds.
No doubt a lot of people are frightened by that video, which was produced by the Muslim organization itself (it has ties to a Muslim group in Britain that itself has very dangerous ties). Some are probably thinking, "There ought to be a law against that," or that we should deport them immediately. I'm not frightened of them in the least, but I'm extremely concerned because of their tone and message. Still, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if we cherish freedom for ourselves, we must be willing to extend the same to others.
Should we restrict these Muslims' speech because it and they are "dangerous" and "seditious"? Are those sufficient criteria for government to censor anyone? And after that, what other freedoms might government limit, because government determines that they are also "dangerous"? And let's not delude ourselves into thinking we can stop a government, no matter how benevolent and democratic it claims to be, from exceeding the limits on its authority that the people originally established. History is replete with examples of the people failing to reign in government and becoming subject to it, instead of the ideal that government is subject to the people.
Still, don't fall for the PC crowd's absurd demand for "tolerance." The problem is that they define tolerance not just as not interfering with others, but respecting others' beliefs. They quote the First Amendment profusely, but that only says Congress (over time this has been construed to mean all levels of government) "may pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" and the other enumerated freedoms. In no wise does that require anyone to respect others' beliefs, only their rights. It's perfectly within your rights to dislike, detest, even hate them and their actions; it's not your right, however, to infringe upon their rights.
Evelyn Hall of the Friends of Voltaire perhaps said it best: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I, for one, think these Muslims are reprehensible and hypocritical. I think their call for Muslim domination over the world is arrogant, disgusting and immoral. Believing that is my right. But it's no one's right, not government's nor any individual's, to make them cease what they were saying and doing. Likewise, it's not their right to compel me to respect their own particular beliefs. It's hypocrisy to demand "you must respect our beliefs" (and decry any criticism of violent Islamofascism as "racism") while at the same time refusing to accept my differing beliefs.
I will say this, for practical reasons. These Muslims were issued a permit, presumably by the local government. Turn their names over to the Department of Homeland Security, and see if they match the names of known and suspected terrorists. Considering this splinter group's ties, I have a feeling it would be interesting to put them under surveillance. Call it "racial profiling"; call it racism. I maintain it's common sense, unlike airport security targetting elderly Caucasian women.
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
12:44 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I deleted the other comment to clean up my usual disasterous attempts at something resembling grammar. Let me try again.
You're right on with the PC 'tolerance' crowd defining tolerance as only tolerating the PC crowd's point of vies. Dissenting from the dissenters is strictly verboten. It is a viscious little circle ain't it?
Then, in the last paragraph, you leave yourself wide open for them to do it. Of course you'll be called racist, or even fascist, for daring to ask the government to intervene against people who openly call for the destruction of this country. They'll say something like, "The threat of government investigations against protesters is a form of censorship." Somehow the PC crowd has maganged to leave out the 'peaceable' part of the right to assemble. This First Amenment does not protect some sort of right to incite violence just as the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not confer a right to hold up the corner convienence store. Furthermore, if you try to explain it to them, you'll be thrown in with some fantasy crowd of fascists trying to stifle free speech because that is their true level of tolerance for opposing views.
Rats, I still botched it. Oh well.
eYe jus kent sPel twonIte. vies? amenment? Way to go, eh?
In the meantime, get a Republican, with a Bible and waving the flag saying that this is a Christian country and then watch the fur fly.
The PC crowd's version of tolerance, just like pacifism, is an ultimately suicidal philosophy. Their acceptance of violent extremism as just another point of view no better or worse than any other rewards those who are most extreme and most violent. It gives advantage to those who are willing to commit violence by preventing others from countering that violence. Steven den Beste had an excellent essay on the folly of pacifism a few years ago. The effects of PC tolerance are no different.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home