Posted on 02/14/2007 7:05:45 AM PST by SJackson
Why many Muslims demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, and the looniest kinds of slander and insult
-----
Acceptance of a double standard has always been a sign of inferiority. To let someone behave according to one set of principles or values while demanding that you be subjected to others is to validate a claim of superiority that justifies the inconsistent and unfair behavior. A double standard can also reflect incoherent thinking, a failure to apply consistently a principle that presumably has universal validity. In the West’s struggle with Islamic jihad, doubts about the superiority of Western values have coupled with a breakdown in ethical reasoning. The result is the appeasement of jihadist aggression and the confirmation of the jihadist estimation of the West’s corruption.
That’s why many Muslims demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, and the looniest kinds of slander and insult. In the West, respect for Muslim ways such as the veil for women is supposed to be granted as a self-evident right beyond argument or debate. Yet Western ideals and values, such as the equality of the sexes, are derided, disrespected, and rejected as self-evident evils. The worst inconsistencies, however, involve the violation of core Western ideals, most importantly free speech. Many Muslims demand the right to deny the Holocaust, recycle Nazi-era anti-Semitic drivel, characterize Christianity as polytheistic idolatry, and excoriate a decadent, corrupt Western civilization. But no such criticism of Mohammed or Islam is tolerated, and in fact is met with violence and threats.
The past few years have seen numerous examples, from the riots over the extremely mild political cartoons featuring Mohammed, to the uproar over the Pope’s quotation of a Byzantine emperor. The exercise of free speech in all these cases is met with rage, violence, and hysterical demands of “respect” for Islam, but there is no reciprocal respect for Western values. And for the most part, we in the West go along with this double standard, and thus accept the logic of the jihadist position: we are weak and unsure of our beliefs. Our craven behavior is a sign of our inferior status and our justified subjection to those who passionately believe in the rightness of their faith.
Let’s be clear on the roots of this cowardly response––the West has lost its faith. We have created John Lennon’s juvenile utopia in which there is “nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” Shorn of transcendent validation, now all our beliefs are contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or comfort. At the same time, the therapeutic mentality bestows on the non-Western “other” a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture, no matter how dysfunctional, all the while it refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why would it? Haven’t generations of Western intellectuals and artists told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Having culturally internalized this self-loathing, we are vulnerable to those who are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their beliefs and the payback due to us for our various historical sins such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined to be subjected to the superior values of Islam.
Consider the following cautionary tale, from San Francisco State. Last October the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism rally during which posters painted to look like the flags of the terrorist gangs Hamas and Hezbollah were walked on. Since those flags have the name of Allah in Arabic, a complaint was filed in which the College Republicans were accused of “incitement,” “creation of a hostile environment,” and “incivility.” The complaint is now headed for trial before one of those campus star chambers created to monitor and police student behavior.
You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that this investigation is a gross violation of the students’ First Amendment right to free speech. This sort of institutional intervention creates what the ACLU––which never seems to make a peep about this sort of “progressive” censorship––likes to call a “chilling effect.” The Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Robert Shilbey, has pointed out the obvious: “At a public university, stepping on a flag—even burning an American flag—is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest. The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted.”
Here’s where the double standards and incoherence of much politically correct behavior comes in. On any college campus in this country, every day, inside of class and out, you can encounter speech that is “insensitive,” “uncivil,” or “hostile.” But of course, this speech is directed towards Christians, or “conservatives,” or Israel, or Republicans, or “straight white males.” Nobody attempts to censor this speech or haul people before tribunals to answer vague charges such as “incivility,” which will be defined according to the subjective standards of the complainants. And if someone does complain, the faculty and administration will immediately go into high dudgeon mode and start preaching the glories of unfettered free speech no matter how offensive. In other words, free speech for me but not for thee.
But the ill effects of this hypocrisy are nothing compared to the damage done when the institution caters to the unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else, even if those standards violate a core political value such as free speech. And when the appeasement comes from the university, which supposedly exists in order to foster what Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind on all subjects,” the message is quite clear: we don’t really believe in all these goods we profess and benefit from, but we will abandon them at the first threat. And if we don’t believe in them, why should the jihadist?
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
islam has a history of doing a lot more than just harrasing non-moslems. Go back in time and you will find that the Arab moslems in Africa were the slavers who without we would not have had slavery in America. It was because of islam that non-moslem African blacks were enslaved and sold.
A clear expression of what is happening.
Excellent points all. We're seeing many cases all across the nation where First Amendment rights are not being afforded college students whose speech is not politically correct. This does indeed seem to be one of the worst lessons we are learning from Muslims.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Undoing the damage already done is going to be extremely messy.
O'Reilly asked the dem spokeswoman if she, herself would have fired the bloggers, as Edwards was ultimately forced to do. The woman said she would not have fired them, but would have just spoken to them.
O'Reilly then followed this up (brilliantly) by asking her if she would have fired them if they had published anti-Black or anti-Gay material. She immediately (probably reflexively) said, "Yes."
Game, set, match! Hypocrisy is alive and well and thriving in our politically correct liberal establishment.
Every time CAIR opens its yap, it should have something like the following statement read to it:
"For an organization like CAIR to have any credibility, it must strongly condemn, and not just by equivocated and mumbled partial agreement, but in its own words, and loudly, those who it claims to represent who are repulsive, primitive, misogynistic, cruel, tyrannical and uncivilized. both as individuals and as groups.
"In fact, it must be at the very forefront of the condemnation of the vile and barbaric practices of the minority of people they claim to represent before it can, with any credibility, speak out against real or imagined slights against the majority of those it claims to represent, most of whom are indeed respectable, and behave appropriately around others.
"If CAIR fails to distinguish in its own people between the honorable and the dishonorable, between the criminal and the civil, between the righteous and the riotous, between the civil and the vandal, between the ignorant and the learned, and between the warlike and the peaceful; then by what right do they demand that all of these people be treated with fairness and honesty by others?
"If CAIR cannot distinguish between good and evil, and defends the unjust and the just alike as equals, then CAIR creates the very bigotry that they rail against. If you lie down with pigs, then you rise up covered in pig filth."
This is why the internet is such a blessing in this war. More of the truth about Islam is getting out and non-Muslims are becoming empowered.
To read a good article on Islime, go to:
yourarmstoisrael.org
select: "a must read"
pull up: "The Final End Time Beast"
print and save for future reference.
Excellent presentation and other poster comments. It is time to expose Islam for what it is. NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE. Can we try to explain that to W? It is appalling that after all this horror by these tyrannical Islamofascists, that we still do not cite historical facts and analysis of Islamic actions rather than just pious words. When I see all these so called 'moderate' American Muslims finally denounce all Islamofascism , I will lighten up on Islam. Their potential of being Quislings is a real danger: see Houston blogger and Utah killer just today.
But of course.
ping
Except to stupid liberals, who think a double standard in favor of "guest populations" (who have "otherness") is necessary in order to achieve "equality."
I can't wait till the muzzies start stoning gays. What will the liberals say? Probably about as much as they say when new age religious rituals are introduced in school (ie, nothing at all).
It would be incredibly difficult for them, as the saying goes, because "dog does not eat dog".
However, this is the path of integration for any group of people set apart from society. It is almost a definition of integration.
It happens when the people in that group look at someone in their group who has offended society, usually a criminal, and they look at him as a criminal first. They admit he is of their group, but they disavow him. If they sit on a jury, they are more inclined to convict, because he has not just failed society, he has failed the group.
Gay liberals will ask for help. We can refer them to the pink pistols.
Gay liberals will ask for help. We can refer them to the pink pistols.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.