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."
And of course we need Islamic support to deal with an outlaw movement that recruits in the Islamic world.
For my view on the War on Terror, see War 2001--The Shortest, Surest Path To Victory. Obviously, the Administration with its projected idea of changing other people's cultures, is off on an other approach. That does not mean that those of us who disagree with that approach must stand mute, while we lose the War--or cause it to drag on indefinitely. Rather our duty is to point out its flaws, in an effort to mitigate the damage being done.
The comments of Perle and others, whom Pat attacks, are assinine. Pat, not his targets, is the patriot.
William Flax
Unnamed sources close to the Founding Fathers are reporting that the overwhelming majority of of them do not identify with the Moslems, Buddhists, Secular Humanists, Homosexuals, Socialists, or Atheists.
Still, they did not deign to write a Constitution or Declaration of Independance which endorsed any specific faith, and in fact wrote the First Amendment to the Bill Of Rights in such a way as to proscribe a government-sponsored "official" religion.
Nowhere in either document is the name "Jesus" mentioned, nor is "Christianity". The Constitution, the only one of the two documents with the force of law, has no religious mentions whatsoever, and the Declaration mentions a "Creator" but once, and not in any specific setting.
And it's not clear that the division runs as some would have it -- between nostalgic reactionary Pat idealizing the bad old days, and forward-looking modern moralists who accept the present. For one of the defenses or excuses in this last scandal has been to blame the conduct in the prison precisely on modern morals or on pornography or on homosexuals. In other words, some of those who are the harshest on Buchanan, adopt views very similar to his when it suits their purpose. This suggests that there's more to his take on things than many will give him credit for.
Unnamed sources close to the Founding Fathers are reporting that the overwhelming majority of of them do not identify with the Moslems, Buddhists, Secular Humanists, Homosexuals, Socialists, or Atheists.
603 af-vet
_____________________________________
Nor did they 'identify' with over zealous religious views in the administering of our local,state or federal governments.
Check out Article VI, and the "no religious Test" phrase.
Case closed.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm aiming at buchanan the arse, buchanan the hack, buchanan the washed up bitter man who sold out his creditability in the last election.
You have already observed that rational discourse is at a premium on this thread.
Agreed.
PJB's cautions and prophesies go unheard and misunderstood by some. They assume a risk by ignoring him or engaging in mindless name-calling.
Their risk, not ours.
Their risk, not ours.
Except that so long as there is no common sense on these issues within the Beltway, we are all at risk. Nothing could be more stupid than trying to foist not only "Democracy" where it is not applicable, but Feminism on other peoples, and not expect to inflame hatred against America. Nothing could be more stupid that confirming your enemies worst slanders, which is precisely what our present policy seems bent on doing, in a number of particulars.
I deal with some of this in my essay on post conquest Iraq, Iraq--Tactical Folly, Strategic Madness. I was working on a sequel, but more or less abandoned the idea, when the Administration made some statements within the past week or so, which sounded as though they are waking up. One can only pray that they are. I do not like having to attack Republicans. But make no mistake, America comes first.
William Flax
Time for your med and a little nap PAT!
Instead of the hate driven approach that you advocate, I will counter with another appeal to common sense, War 2001--The Shortest, Surest Path To Victory!. Of course, it is not for you. You think we win wars by antagonizing everyone is sight (with reference to your biographical page where you are boycotting France and Germany). But America's young warriors are not your playthings. Every normal person wants to win this battle as quickly and as painlessly as possible.
William Flax
Your knowlege of me is most impressive....LOL is the best I can do.
While the essay acknowledges some disagreements with Buchanan, it is basically laudatory as to his character, so you should enjoy it.
sorry I have no interest in Buchanan
The bigger question is 'What does Buchannan offer to ANYBODY?!?!'
I lost all of the little respect I had for the man in 2000.
You might wish to take a look at www.stratfor.com for some very interesting analysis of the situation in Iraq.
It's a bloody shame individuals aren't banned for stupidity.
This forum could be returned to preeminence in a fortnight.
for your edification.
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.