Be Amazed: as warblogger Bjorn Staerk comes to the stunning conclusion that some people might have gone a bit off the rails in wanting to ban Islam. People like, well, LGF commenters! And Bjorn Staerk commenters!
What has gone wrong when Norwegians, Americans and other Westerners who rever the enlightenment ideals of reason and freedom of thought more than anything, justify restrictions on thought with bad reasoning and paranoia? It’s not just LGF readers. You can read similar views (though fewer of them) at Free Republic, Dhimmi Watch, and Liberty Post – all in reply to the Kristiansand story.
Again, I’m not saying these views are shared by the owners of these websites, or the majority of their readers. But neither do I see many strong, principled objections. Phil says above that “the failure of good Muslims to object or organize and stop bad Muslims indicts the whole Islamic movement”, which doesn’t justify a ban on Islam, but is true in a sense. We all have a responsibility to speak up clearly against extremists in our own ranks, whether we are Muslims or peace activists or bloggers who criticize Islam and support the war on Islamist terror.
And so it’s time to stand up for the basic values of our democracies and confront those in our own ranks who want to abandon those values. Because if we don’t, outsiders will be justified in interpreting this as silent approval or apologism.
Something has gone rotten. We can’t blame it on the “left”, the “relativists”, the “PC crowd” or the “multiculturalists”, (and don’t anybody dare blame it on the Muslims). It’s gone rotten here, among people who on 9/11 woke up to the danger of Islamism. The ban Islam meme and all its relatives (Islam is Islamism, Islam is war) must be confronted here, now, before it spreads.
Wow, even people at Free Republic are saying stuff that’s crazy? The rot has spread. But, anyway right on Bjorn! Bjorn Staerk is absolutely, no irony intended, right. Something has gone rotten, and outsiders will be justified in interpreting this as silent approval or apologism.
Guffaw! as Staerk’s commenters dissent in increasingly strident tones!!
—And here they go on record asking for Norway to abandon our equivalent of the first amendment, one of the basic rights of any democracy: Freedom of religion.—
Europe and “the world” have been making demands on Americans for a few decades now to give up pieces of our Constitution.
ICC – violates 3, 4 & 5, possibly 1, 9 and 12. They could have protected our rights to get us to join it, but they refused. Could have done the same w/Kyoto, bringing in the 2 majorpollution-causing countries which has 1/3 of the world’s population, but again, they refused.
UN wants world-wide gun control – there goes 2 which protects #1 – and trust me, all 3 branches have done TREMENDOUS damage to #1, we don’t need outside help, thank you very much.
After all, it’s an 18th century document suited to those times, not relevant in the 21st century, and we must put it aside for the greater good of “the world.”
Hell will freeze over before I give it up. I’m going down fighting.
All the muslims have to do is stop killing us and learn to get along. Where are the “moderate” muslims?
The AQ plans discovered will not help. They were going to bomb The Tube and drown people.
3 years and the crickets still drown out the “moderate” voices.
And the chatter has fallen off – it did before 9/11, too.
Vehicle passes to the Olypics have been stolen partially because the some of the idiots who had them in their cars DIDN’T LOCK THEIR DOORS. Security is going to be a joke.
Bjorn, I understand what you’re saying and why, but when someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him. They’ve not only told you, they’ve done it.
Snicker! as the Instapundit links to this mad heterodoxy with the following caveat:
That said, it would be useful if those more moderate Muslims would take a more aggressive role. Some are—see, for example, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism—but we could use more of that, no doubt.
Sob Softly! As Eugene Volokh goes out on a limb:
As a result, it makes little sense to say, for instance, “Christianity is a religion of peace” or “Christianity is a religion of war,” unless one is speaking about theoretical aspirations about what the religion should be, rather than describing how Christians actually act, have acted, and are likely to act. It seems to me the same is true for Islam.
I should stress that I think it’s perfectly proper for people to criticize religious beliefs and religious movements, just as it’s proper for people to criticize any ideology. But broad criticisms about how Islam is this or Christianity is that—again, with a very few exceptions—are almost always based on inaccurate overgeneralizations.