Fairness
By Jim Fryar.
I am and will always remain an enemy of islamofascism.
I will always resist any attempts of these bigots to impose their bizarre values on me and on other people. I do not accept that they are representative of any legitimate religion or faith; rather, they are representative of a hideous cult bent on world domination.
If their claims that the Koran condones, justifies or orders their actions then the Koran is not in fact a holy book, but a mish mash of ramblings of a medieval warlord liberally plagiarised from the holy books of others, and twisted towards supporting his own actions and fetishes.
The reason I say if is that among us there is a core of decent, honest, peaceful people of the same faith, who read the same book without wishing to kill us or impose their lifestyle, faith, or customs on us. I have nothing but goodwill towards them. It concerns me that if the first group are correct, then in the context of the group, the zealots have the “moral high ground” and ultimately the moderates must submit to them.
Another serious concern to me is I see with increasing frequency, signs that people are advocating changes to our way of life, because “the Muslims will be offended". On following these up, I find some of them are caused by complaints of intolerant Muslims, but in many of these cases they are not backed by the mainstream and are even opposed by moderate clerics.
In many of these cases however the moves are nothing to do with the Islamic community as such but have been started by some idiot liberal appeasement artist who has assumed that the more intolerant elements “may” be offended and moves to pre-emt this.
Where the Muslim community are not behind such complaints, and certainly in the cases where they have nothing to do with them, it is totally unjustified to criticise them for this.
The appeasement artists however should be strongly censured as they are not only giving aid and comfort to a dangerous enemy, but also encouraging him to try to force us to abandon our way of life and submit to his will. Every move that we make backwards to avoid conflict will result, in a step forward by the radicals.
The sheer craven cowardice of the liberal political correctness and appeasement brigade is unbelievable, given that they don’t just want to step back from defending our values, they want us out of the way so that the other side don’t even have to confront us.
It concerns me that if the first group are correct, then in the context of the group, the zealots have the “moral high ground” and ultimately the moderates must submit to them.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing could be said about the Christian right in the USA who would like to impose their fundamentalism on society. Fortunately our culture is so secular that they don't have a chance but unfortunately most Muslim nations do not have a secular culture. Still, there's some hope - look at Turkey.
Jim do you have any examples of lefties intervening in such a fashion? This is something I would be very keen to oppose.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ben
ReplyDeleteThe reason I wrote the post was out of concern at the types of reporting I see. Some of it is fair, some of it is exaggerated, some is just wrong, some is sensationalised, and some is inflammatory.
I was reading a post on another site, which gave eight examples of “Muslims offended by”, which on follow-up resulted in; 1 was an action by the Chinese government, 4 were ridiculous complaints by Muslims, 2 others were the same but were opposed by clerics, 1 was the sort of thing that you mentioned, a passport photo rejected in England, by the post office. It was of a child with bare shoulders, which the mother was told, “could offend Muslims”, however the passport office maintains that this is not in their guidelines, and the official was wrong.
My main beef is that there appears to be reluctance in the media to report the Muslim aspect of crime, which seems to be a form of voluntary censorship. Eric Dondero has detailed this phenomenon several times on Libertarian Republican. My post on the BBC below is I feel another example, but it has more of a political element to it.
My post below on Multiculturalism is on my analysis, partly ridiculous complaints by Muslims, partly lefty bias in doing the survey, partly government waste, and partly poor reporting. The headline was ”ANZAC DAY MAY OFFEND MUSLIMS”, where I feel that given the content it should have been lower key.
The headline for a lot of people is the sets the “colour” of the story.
The sample was very small, only part of that was Muslim, an Islamic cleric disagreed with it, I mean it probably deserved reporting but didn’t deserve the prominence.
My position is;
1. I am seriously concerned by radical Islam,
2. I am concerned by inflammatory reporting (mostly on the internet),
3. I am concerned by “voluntary censorship”, - We need the facts.
4. I am concerned by the “we mustn’t offend them attitude.
We have to have a balance, the radical elements need to be confronted, our culture should be defended against bigots, but we must do this in such a way as to avoid driving a wedge between ourselves, and the peaceful elements. To do this we must have accurate information, we must extend goodwill toward moderate Islam, and we must reciprocate when they offer it to us.