I've read through this post twice, and am trying not to jump to the knee-jerk conclusions that I have done both times. My defense-minded self says, "Yes!" My liberty-minded self says, "Wait a minute!"
Outside of the pressing need to stop ourselves from being wimped into submission, is this appropriate?
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Cannon Fodder
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Is what appropriate? Your reaction, or the proposed amendment?
We know something has to be done.
It can't be the proposed amendment tho. If you pass something like that, the camel's nose is in the tent. Next up, those Roman Catholic's have been naughty; Ban them....and any excuse will be made to ban all the rest. "Whereas religious ideas are intolerant and the source of much strife in our land, ' etc..ban all religion, guns, speech, etc.
Muslims who come here need to understand that this country is ruled by law, and one of those laws is their freedom to practice their religion, and my freedom NOT to.
That should be enough. If people in this country vote for sharia law, they have violated the rule of law in this land. Failing a peaceful of the crisis, then it may , at that time, be time for a plague, the bird flu, or war.
It certainly brings up some interesting questions.
I agree with previous poster - if the government can outlaw Islam, then what would stop them from outlawing Christianity next.
Furthermore - this ammendment would play right into the hands of the Muslim extremists who have preached the U.S. is waging a war - not on terrorism - but on Islam itself.
It is not. Islam remains a religion, even though a Constitutional amendment may say otherwise. And as the prior commentors say, banning Islam is just a step away from banning Christianity.
What we need to do is wake up to the Islamofascist threat. If we do so, this amendment serves no constructive purpose. If we don't, this amendment serves no constructive purpose. Intelligence, sadly, cannot be legislated.
My knee-jerk reaction says, "Yes! Do it!" My rational, freedom-loving self says the same things that all three of you have said so far.
Whenever something like this amendment is proposed, I think about the shoe being on the other foot. I would not like the same decisions being made against Christianity.
Thanks for helping.
John, thanks for stopping by.
The amendment is ridiculous!
Marge,
As batty as it sounds, it forces people to think. Not much requires thought any more. Most politicians would rather tell us what to think, than to allow us to think for ourselves. So, from the perspective that it causes discussion, it's good.
It never ceases to amaze me when people propose new laws and amendments when all that is necessary is to enforce the ones we have. That and the honesty to call things what they are.
When a person enters a busy public place heavily armed, with the intention of killing as many people as possible, with no regard for even his own life, resulting in six deaths including his own, wounding four others what would YOU call it?
Oh, and this person also just happens to be an 18 year old Muslim.
FBI rules out terrorism; authorities tracing shooter's guns (Izzy Abaldy is relieved)
Hey Quipper. Nice new look on the blog.
If only the world was as simple as the PI want it to be. They might benefit by reading some Chalmers Johnson, e.g., Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Johnson worked as an academic for the CIA in the 50s and 60s; he was a cold warrior. Now, he recognizes The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. It's easy to point the finger outward; more difficult to do it standing in front of a mirror.
Here was my response to the proposed constitutional amendment.
Hmm... a lot of unsubstatiated claims in your list of "Whereas's." Perhaps references to support those claims would help solidify your foundation.
Many in the Islamic world want to get rid of their dictators, unfortunately the US government has supported those dictators for decades. Saudi Arabia is the classic example; it was set up by the US to ensure stable oil prices by running the OPEC oligopoloy.
A more balanced history reads more like this. The west installs brutal proxy governments, the people try to resist, they are crushed. This creates a cause for for fundamentalist religious elements, who exploit that cause. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Let me expand.
Skipping the christian cursades (the west attacking the east). The West created boarders and installed proxy governments to control the middle east around the turn of the last century and after WWII. Remember Britain's colony in India, later creating Pakistan (classic divide and conquer)? Remember Britain being in Afghanistan and Iraq? It wasn't because those countries were imposing themselves on Britain. Remember the US toppling the democratically elected mossadeq in iran to install the Shah, who brutally suppressed people who wanted democracy? The Shah either killed or exiled most of the intelligent people, educated in the West. When the Shah finally fell, as brutal dictators often do, the vacuum was filled by the only remaining organized group, the fundamentalist religious leaders.
Granted, these are not all Islamic countries, but the point is the same.
Your frustration is understanable, but your response is unlikely to undo the damage created by decades of Western exploitation of the East.
GDAEman:
Yeah, I'm not certain I would like the tables turned on me on those "whereas" clauses.
Not sure if the "religious right" is going for this, but it would be hypocracy if it did.
Post a Comment