Far greater evils used to be celebrated, and are now condemned. Western Civilization is the best on the planet, and continues to improve, the blitherings of nattering nabobs of negativism such as Pat notwithstandings.
Posted on 05/19/2004 2:54:18 AM PDT by Theodore R.
What do we offer the world?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 19, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
"So, how do we advance the cause of female emancipation in the Muslim world?" asks Richard Perle in "An End to Evil." He replies, "We need to remind the women of Islam ceaselessly: Our enemies are the same as theirs; our victory will be theirs as well."
Well, the neoconservative cause "of female emancipation in the Muslim world" was probably set back a bit by the photo shoot of Pfc. Lynndie England and the "Girls Gone Wild" of Abu Ghraib prison.
Indeed, the filmed orgies among U.S. military police outside the cells of Iraqi prisoners, the S&M humiliation of Muslim men, the sexual torment of their women raise a question. Exactly what are the "values" the West has to teach the Islamic world?
"This war ... is about – deeply about – sex," declaims neocon Charles Krauthammer. Militant Islam is "threatened by the West because of our twin doctrines of equality and sexual liberation."
But whose "twin doctrines" is Krauthammer talking about? The sexual liberation he calls our doctrine belongs to a '60s revolution that devout Christians, Jews and Muslims have been resisting for years.
What does Krauthammer mean by sexual liberation? The right of "tweeners" and teenage girls to dress and behave like Britney Spears? Their right to condoms in junior high? Their right to abortion without parental consent?
If conservatives reject the "equality" preached by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, NARAL and the National Organization for Women, why seek to impose it on the Islamic world? Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?
In June 2002 at West Point, President Bush said, "Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time and in every place."
But even John Kerry does not agree with George Bush on the morality of homosexual unions and stem-cell research. On such issues, conservative Americans have more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Democrats.
The president notwithstanding, Americans no longer agree on what is moral truth. For as someone said a few years back, there is a cultural war going on in this country – a religious war. It is about who we are, what we believe and what we stand for as a people.
What some of us view as the moral descent of a great and Godly republic into imperial decadence, neocons see as their big chance to rule the world.
In Georgia, recently, the president declared to great applause: "I can't tell you how proud I am of our commitment to values. ... That commitment to values is going to be an integral part of our foreign policy as we move forward. These aren't American values, these are universal values. Values that speak universal truths."
But what universal values is he talking about? If he intends to impose the values of MTV America on the Muslim world in the name of a "world democratic revolution," he will provoke and incite a war of civilizations America cannot win because Americans do not want to fight it. This may be the neocons' war. It is not our war.
When Bush speaks of freedom as God's gift to humanity, does he mean the First Amendment freedom of Larry Flynt to produce pornography and of Salman Rushdie to publish "The Satanic Verses" – a book considered blasphemous to the Islamic faith? If the Islamic world rejects this notion of freedom, why is it our duty to change their thinking? Why are they wrong?
When the president speaks of freedom, does he mean the First Amendment prohibition against our children reading the Bible and being taught the Ten Commandments in school?
If the president wishes to fight a moral crusade, he should know the enemy is inside the gates. The great moral and cultural threats to our civilization come not from outside America, but from within. We have met the enemy, and he is us. The war for the soul of America is not going to be lost or won in Fallujah.
Unfortunately, Pagan America of 2004 has far less to offer the world in cultural fare than did Christian America of 1954. Many of the movies, books, magazines, TV shows, videos and much of the music we export to the world are as poisonous as the narcotics the Royal Navy forced on the Chinese people in the Opium Wars.
A society that accepts the killing of a third of its babies as women's "emancipation," that considers homosexual marriage to be social progress, that hands out contraceptives to 13-year-old girls at junior high ought to be seeking out a confessional – better yet, an exorcist – rather than striding into a pulpit like Elmer Gantry to lecture mankind on the superiority of "American values."
I didn't know that Cicero had met Bill Clinton--but he sure painted a good picture of him.
Other than hateful, your comment is ignorant.
Both--in one sentence. Very good! You've passed Propaganda 101. Himmler would be proud of you.
What nonsense. The only mention Pat makes of Jews in the column is of devout Jews joining devout Christians and Moslems in opposing the sexual revolution of the 1960s. This column is about the rot seeping into American culture.
I'm going to rely on you to fix/edit my statements. I go from the gut and you obviously have some formal training/education. I've read many of your comments and haven't found any I disagree with.
Attacking typing or spelling errors diminishes the discussion.."lawyers" is the word inferred and so I did not even notice it.
Ah, I see. No wonder you're afraid of someone "imposing" Christian morality on you. You think the mass murder of innocent civilians is A-OK.
PJB's article was a bit dramatic, but MEG33's hit on the nuts of the debate which will unfold over the next several months.
That is: SHOULD the US 'establish democracy' in the Middle East, and if it should, HOW should this be done?
"Establishing democracy" does not require the Judaeo-Christian tradition, although it's helpful. The Greeks had democracy long before Christ, and without the help of Moses.
But the US military machine is not really the vehicle for instructions on how to use voting machines, nor for instructions on zoning ordinances, plumbing controls, and highway laws.
The military should be used for what it IS good for, in combination with other assets: eliminating AlQuaeda.
Interesting how some folks' resentment of Buchanan is so all-consuming that we now have conservatives trying to argue that American culture hasn't significantly declined from what it used to be...all because they don't want to agree with Buchanan!
And to think I once voted for him in the California primary.
When the enemy hides behind human shields making it impossible to kill the former without killing the latter, the moral onus for the result falls upon the enemy.
If you really think that the US should dedicate a few Divisions and a Fleet to the defense of Israel, and believe that such defense is perpetually in the national interests of the USA...
Then you should send YOUR sons and daughters over there, pronto.
The debate is about the national interests of the US, not the national interests of Israel. Occasionally they are congruent. More often, they are roughly parallel. But they will NEVER be ALWAYS congruent--unless Israel becomes the 51st State.
I ain't the one backing a "Blame America firster" like Pat Buchanan.
They wanted war - I say we make it so hellish they give up on jihad forever.
War is hell.
Far greater evils used to be celebrated, and are now condemned. Western Civilization is the best on the planet, and continues to improve, the blitherings of nattering nabobs of negativism such as Pat notwithstandings.
Of course, you can provide documentation of "Pat's 'Love child'" for the edification of FReepers.
And if he were Jewish he would support Sharon.Naw, he'd call Sharon a sellout and support the "transfer" advocates.
-Eric
You've hit the nail on the head!
Pat Al-Hamas Buchakazi.
What you are talking about here, and what I was responding to which initiated your response to me, are not the same.
This is what we call a non sequitur.
No one, and I mean no one, said or intimated that we should dedicate either a U.S. division or a fleet to Israel.
No one.
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.