Vampires make uncongenial guests: Having invited one into the house, you have forfeited any power over him. It becomes his decision when, and under what circumstances to leave. Or even if he will. He might even come to feel at home in your place. Admire the views.
Rearrange the furniture.
Notice, in time, that you’re still pottering about in the attic. Make a note to do something about that.
The living and the undead make uncomfortable housemates – sooner or later, one or the other will have to go. Dreadful nuisance, much drama in the way of broken crockery, but there it is.
So it may be too when western civilizations – bodies of people bound together in a framework of laws that seeks to emphasize individual liberty to the maximum practical extent compatible with a beneficial social order – invite others whose culture emphasizes the sublimation of the individual to the family, clan and tribe, and the whole of it under submission to the unalterable will of God as perfectly set down by a man 1500 years dead. And then invites those people to not only preserve and enshrine those same cultural aspects which impoverished their abandoned homelands, but extend them into the common sphere. Let them – voluntarily of course – submit to alternative frameworks of law.
Where does it all end?
Well, if you’re a UK book publisher hoping to tell a “moving love story” about the history of the Prophet and his child bride Aisha, it ends with your house burning down around your ears, and clerics telling people that you had it coming to you.
(Radical) cleric Anjem Choudhary said the book was an insult to the Prophet Mohammed’s honour, something he said would warrant a “death penalty” under Sharia law…
“It is clearly stipulated in Muslim law that any kind of attack on his honour carries the death penalty,” he said.
“People should be aware of the consequences they might face when producing material like this. They should know the depth of feeling it might provoke.”
He denied any involvement in the attack but said he “understood” the feelings of the perpetrators.
“If the publication goes ahead then I think, inevitably, there will be more attacks like this – this is the thin of the wedge,” he said.
Speaking from Lebanon, the radical cleric Omar Bakri, added: “If anybody attacks that man I cannot myself condemn it.”
But what if the book’s publisher hadn’t voluntarily placed himself in submission to God’s will? A mere technicality, apparently. After all, who is a publisher to constrain God?
By the way: Nice place you’ve got here. Shame if anything should happen to you.
And, prithee,
How is this any different than having a presidential candidate sic prosecutors on anyone who speaks against him?
Methinks there may be something of a muslim soul in a certain candidate for president. Either that, or he has learned the subtle ways of terror and intimidation from our enemies and has put them to use to further his own position and goals.
He denied any involvement in the attack but said he “understood” the feelings of the perpetrators.
Heh, the guy’s channeling Sam Kinison (remember him?)
“I don’t support wife beating, but I understand what turns MR HAND into MR FIST….YARRGGGHHH!”
I thought we had crossed this bridge some 20 years back when Rushdie wrote “The Satanic Verses.” Apparently we’re going in circles.
Didn’t their ‘prophet’ die around AD 650? Wouldn’t that be more like ~1300 years ago?
Minor nit. The post is spot-on. The British have put themselves in an almost indefensible position. Their multi-culti mores have denied them any defense against their submission to a more assertive, confident culture, and a superior culture is being slowly subsumed by an inferior one, all due to the pernicious effects of the cultural doubt, the uncertainty, that is inherent in multi-culturalism.
Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism.
“The end result of progressive politics is totalitarianism.”—-Eric Voegelin
Should have been titled “Camel’s nose under the tent”.
England is less of a friend than France, and a dangerous back door exploit past our own security. The nation of Churchill is no more. The bishop of Canterbury and jurists now give recognition to sharia law.
So I presume that whoever torched this poor man’s home, is aware of the consequences of his actions…
Oh wait, we’re talking about England here, right? That means they’ll have a party to celebrate the arson, just like they are celebrated 9/11 at a conference in London on September 14, 2008.
Can someone please explain to me why we should let these scumsucking worms live.
A wise man once wrote:
Neither political correctness nor multiculturalism are inherently bad or wrong. It’s simply that people (some more than others) will taken any good idea that a human can conceive of and twist it into something perverse and ugly. That I truly believe.
And when it comes to the UK, yeah, they have been stepped on good. No doubt about that.
Michelle … Forgive me, but I’m going to have to differ with you on multiculturalism and political correctness. Both of these are wickedly bad ideas, because they encourage intellectual laziness. Part of growing up, I have found, is facing the fact that you have to make value judgments about people and cultures. As far as cultures go, not all of them are equally good. Some are not good, some are bad and some are just plain evil. The same judgment factor has to be in play on political correctness, which requires that one remove certain groups or ideas from the necessity of being judged by others — give them a “free pass” so to speak.
Obama, for instance, keeps trying to bring up the fact of his race, so that politically correct people will feel ashamed that they subject his ideas to rigorous examination, since he is black and should get a “pass.” I feel that there is so much to criticize about his ideas and plans, that I haven’t even gotten around to his blackness yet, and won’t, since I think it’s irrelevant. He’d be just as wrong if he were all white.
Marianne
Marianne – Most everybody does what you say, “…make value judgments about people and cultures.”, it’s just some are not capable of admiting that out loud. Honestly. Without fear. They make those judgements, then, they spout something entirely different out the pie hole. I’ve done it… but only because I like being gainfully employed (keeps the paychecks coming, ya know?). Otherwise, I’d be one of those 100%ers, letting all the kooks know how I feel.
I’m probably going to have to ask your forgiveness, Marianne, but your post raises several questions for me.
I’m wondering how you are defining multi-culturalism, for you to perceive it as a “wickedly bad idea”? Our country is based on the principles of tolerance for a diversity of opinions–and by association–life ways (including religion). There is much that we enjoy in the US–socially, politically, economically, culturally–as a result of a willingness to eventually coexist in a multicultural society. The founding fathers were products of the Enlightenment, a cornerstone of which was the notion of a shared humanity that made all peoples understandable to one another through reasonable dialogue.
You seem to conflate the notion of catering to a fringe group with both political correctness (which in its essence is asking that people not assume that our country is comprised of only white middle class male interests–the hegemonic/hypothesized/mythologized norm) and multiculturalism (which is the ability to appreciate the strength that can be derived from living in a society comprised of multiple perspectives). Instead of promoting intellectual laziness, both philosophies require reflection and consideration of the “other”.
To rely upon generalizing stereotypes to pigeon hole peoples and societies seems to be intellectually lazy to me, and when last a popular approach in social theory in the late 19th century, gave us the eugenics movement, which ultimately, didn’t work out too well. If you want to line up some of the most abusive leaders in human history, intolerance of others certainly binds them as a group.
Just as it would be misleading to equate all Muslims with Radical Islam, and all Pro-lifers with abortion clinic bombers; to equate the philosophies of multiculturalism and political correctness (better thought of as simple politeness and consideration for the feelings and experiences of others) with its baser applications is off base.
I’m sorry, you’re just never going to convince me that intolerance trumps tolerance, and the subtext of your argument is just that.
Marianne, I would expect no less.
As in I would expect many here to disagree with my statement.
Let’s see, I agree with the majority of what you said, with the exception that I don’t think political correctness is/should be about giving any group a free pass.
Multicultualism – while I, too, will judge some cultures as better than others, in the ideal world (where these concepts must have sprung from), I see mulitculturalism as simply being me not forcing my culture down someone else’s throat. So if someone wants to come and live in my country, why can’t they keep a certain amount of their culture and traditions? Why because you end up with what you see happening in various countries (with the UK being the most obvious example) where certain groups go to live and then attempt to force their culture down everyone else’s throats. In my mind, that’s the very antithesis of multiculturalism. And it will no doubt result in the very necessary pushback that will end the whole concept of multiculturalism. The way things are going I really can’t see any other result. Which is really sad. Necessary, I would agree. But nonetheless sad.
Political correctness has such a bad name, just typing or saying the words leaves a dirty taste in my mouth. But I think what it was meant to be was simply the recognition that there are other groups of people out there (with different life experiences) whom our careless use of language and unthinking actions can truly hurt. Is it political correctness or simply sadly-lacking human kindness to not go around indiscrimately using highly-charged offensive words like nigger or retard, as examples? Whatever it is, I vote for it.
And I agree, the colour of Obama’s skin is irrelevant to me, too. I wouldn’t vote for him because of it any more than I would vote against him because of it.
Multi-culturalism is a disease that is spread by liberals to assist them in dividing and coquering a population. It is used to promote “victimhood” and justify government programs to assist the “victims” and also thus provide the hackerama with more jobs and graft.
Multi-Culti programs are anathema to freedom and liberty, and the homogenous society that America is. There can be no room for a something-hyphen American. Either you are an American, or you are something else. Either you subscribe to the melting pot, or are the scummy leafy bits that float to the top of the pot and get skimmed away.
America has three colours: red, white, and blue. We have one culture and one flag and one ideal. We have one constitution that recognizes the inherant freedom of the individual and the many differences of those same individuals. Celebrating diversity, however, is not a positive thing. It reenforces differences rather than promoting common threads. It drives wedges between groups rather than treating everyone as a part of the whole.
Lastly, it weakens the society by creating small patches of cloth, rather than one strong piece of fabric.
Some of the greatest, most heinous sins committed by liberals and foisted upon the populace are multi-culturalism and the concept of social diversity as a positive thing.
The “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” concept is a lie and the sooner we recognize that fact and dispose of it’s putrid carcass, the better this nation will be.
Just sayin’…
AW1Tim,
Well said. Agree with it all the way.
Multi-culturalism…corectness… IMHO both bad ideas.
PC just because it is stiffling, unnecessary and common sense should prevail
Multi-Culturalism. I believe it is appropriate during “weekend festivals”, be it greek, indian, iranian, whatever. then on monday back to being american.
I say that as an immigrant. I came to the US at the age of 12, joining my parents who had escaped from Romania almost 3 years earlier. I’m not an Romanian-American, neither am I a European-American, or whatever other hyphen others may care to attach. I’m simply american. English is the language. My daughter speaks english, and although I speak 5 other languages, I’ll teach her some, but english is the language of the house. I don’t see why multi-culturalism needs to be extended to “others” outside the culture. In this case, the Muslims can have their beliefs, like other religions do. HOWEVER, do not allow their beliefs to impinge on the rights of others. Unfortunately, Great Britain, and others in the Continent, especially the northern states, seem to have allowed this multiculturalism to threaten their own existence. As for me, as I see it getting closer to that reality here, it will just be time to buy more ammo.
CLaudio
km … sorry for my delay in answering your post. Had to feed my husband his dinner.
I’m not arguing that “intolerance trumps tolerance,” as you suggest in your post. Nor am I suggesting that we rely on generalizing stereotypes to make rational value judgments about people and cultures. What I am pleading for is reasonable examination of principles and arguments on their merits. What too often happens these days is that folks use the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism to opt out of making any judgments about pretty much anything at all. It’s tough to make fair and considered value judgments in the first place, about hot button issues like politics and other cultures than our own. But if we duck the issues, the need to decide personally what we think is acceptable or not acceptable for ourselves and our country, we can lose something very precious to ourselves and our children.
In my long life I’ve seen debating clubs in high schools virtually disappear, because the young people are taught at home that “you don’t make judgments about other people,” and that all cultures are valuable. All cultures are interesting, perhaps only to anthropologists, but not all of them are valuable to the forward progress of mankind. And some of them are toxic — like Adolf Hitler’s Germany, which killed 6 million Jews in concentration camps, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, in which he killed many thousands of his own people, to name only two of many.
Someone above this post mentioned Great Britain, which was once the cradle of our ideas of liberty and equality, and is now increasingly held hostage by a hostile minority which refuses assimilation into Western ideals and culture. This can happen in this country too, if we give up our right to make reasoned value judgments — to accept some new people and ideas and reject others. This is why I said that multiculturalism and political correctness were wickedly bad ideas. They invite us to be lazy … to stop examining ideas and people who want to change us and take us over.
Do you see what I mean?
Marianne
You seem to be drifting in my direction. Both with this post, and the ones on the Congress.
I will be interested to see what you propose when you stop pointing out the problems, which all of us can see, and start considering the solutions.
We are a nation of laws, not men. One culture’s law may be that beer and brats be on the coffee table whenever the Cubs play. That’s fine so far as it goes, but the day that becomes a law White Sox fans must follow under penalty of fine or imprisonment, that is the day The Law ceased to function as a glue to our society. That is the day we quit being a melting pot.
I won’t have it.
The Law exists in the public forums, on the street and in the town square. In your home you can enact whatever law you require and it’s your property, you’re the king of that castle, everybody there is your guest and follows your rules.
My home? My land? On Main street in broad daylight? If you’re offended, I can assure you that there are scientists even now trying to come up with a unit of measurement to exactly quantify how little I give a whit.
*That* is the strength of the melting pot — not having to give a darn.
– Max