What about Major Hasan? He joined the military because we are tolerant. He spoke out against the war while in the military because we are tolerant. He exhibited multiple signs that he was a radical islamo-jihadist but we allowed him to carry on because we are tolerant. He attended the same mosque as two of the 9-11 hijackers because we are tolerant. And now 13 people are dead and 30 some odd people have had their lives changed forever through injuries inflicted by Hasan because we are tolerant. If there was a legitimate reason to tear down that mosque then it needed to be done. Don't trust what is portrayed in the media. I no longer have t.v. but my guess is that the media is having a hay-day with protecting Maj. Hasan and his ties to Islam.
To take down terrorism - resolve in my opinion is the most important ingredient. I don't want to live like Israelis where every time I get on a public bus I have to wonder if it will be my last day on earth because of some whacked out suicide bomber.
Furthermore here's another thought - I think Rev. Wright's church should be torn down. He's spreading hate and avarice and it's creating factions and animosity amongst Americans.
Furthermore here's another thought - I think Rev. Wright's church should be torn down. He's spreading hate and avarice and it's creating factions and animosity amongst Americans.
I value my life and the lives of my family. When you are dealing with terrorists there is no "gentlemanly" warfare. Such a perspective lead to the fall of the British in the Revolutionary war. It will ultimately lead to our ruin because of whimps that are unwilling to fight an enemy on their terms because we think we are above it.
Are we as Americans really ready to give up our freedoms in the name of safety? Have terrorists succeeded in making even devout Libertarians fear enough for their lives that we would rather be in bondage to our own country?
Many Liberals are willing to give up freedoms for financial security, freedom in exchange for healthcare, and even freedom in kind for the ability to feel superior to other countries. Where do we draw the line? At what point is our safety more important than our liberty? Do we have the right to take those freedoms from our children simply because there is a chance of them being harmed?
When compared to the gospel I see that our Heavenly Father has put us in a world where our safety is far from guaranteed. He allows the choices of one to affect an innocent bystander, and even sometimes for a guilty party to go unpunished in this life. While I know that He felt at least as much pain and outrage as I did in the wake of Sept 11, He will not take away our freedom to act and be acted upon simply to guarantee our safety. Do we truly want our government to take away those freedoms so that we worry a little less that we may be a victim in a terrorist attack? Does our government even have close to the power to ensure our safety even if we gave up every freedom we have? Can they make the terrorists stop hating us or those within the country stop speaking ill of others and creating dissension? Every communist country that has tried that has failed.
I have always loved the quote "Give me liberty, or give me death." It summarizes my feelings exactly, and while I feel the tragedy of those who have died the victims of terrorist attacks, each is a martyr in the cause of freedom. I honor their blood with the fight to maintain every freedom they enjoyed, and ensure that their posterity may enjoy those freedoms too.
I agree wholeheartedly that liberty is greater than safety if that's what it boils down to. The point that I was trying to make and that I think you took out of context is that the United States lacks resolve and definitive measures in dealing with terrorists. I'm not saying that I want my freedoms infringed so that I can feel safer, I'm saying I want swifter action taken against extremists and suicide bombers. First you repulse, then you tolerate, then you embrace. Are we traveling down a path leading to embracing the destruction of the United States as we know it?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, rather than fostering a culture of martyrdom and "dying" for one's country - why not foster a culture of "living" for one's country by participating in community service, being an active and educated voter, participating in government and changing things for the better?
ReplyDeleteThe context was that you said you were willing to infringe on someone's freedom of worship and freedom of religion in the sake of your safety.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel that taking one freedom is okay then why not another? The point is well stated in my opinion. Liberals take away freedom in the name of safety in health care. Liberals take away all sorts of freedoms so that they can feel more safe or "fair."
There are other forms of punishment that don't involve the violation of human and constitutional rights. You said, "I think Rev. Wright's church should be torn down. He's spreading hate and avarice and it's creating factions and animosity amongst Americans." Why does this need to be, because you disagree with him? He has caused no violence with his preaching, no rights have been violated by sharing his words. I don't care much for the man but he should have the right to share his opinion just like the next person on a blog should.
You also said, "If there was a legitimate reason to tear down that mosque then it needed to be done." I say that should never need to be done. If there is to be a separation of church and state, then find another way. If this is a method you endorse GWH, then you are endorsing the restriction of a freedom for your safety.
Freedom comes by, through, in safety. You might not want to wear a seat belt when driving, but it sure feels good to not be in a wheelchair after a car accident.
ReplyDeleteFYI, I am at the right weight (fatty is not part of my body) and I haven't consumed a twinkie for at least two years. Also, my blood pressure is within the normal range. Fire away.
GWH-
ReplyDeleteI picked on you simply because you threw out arguments that you normally would have torn apart had they come from anyone else. The hard part about freedom is that it allows many people to take advantage of others, but freedom is worth it.
As for a society of martyrs, I agree with you to a point, and would rather live in a country where all actively participate in the community. The problem with that ideal is that I also believe people have the right to be absent in the support of their community. I realize my point of view would give us a country with some contention and occasional suffering, but I feel my desires demand that I allow others their agency even at the expense of an ideal country.
Geoff- I am not sure I understand you. Are you implying that the consequences of our actions dictate what freedoms we should have? As for seat belts, I believe everyone should wear them, and have only a small problem with seat belt laws. Dumb parents who don't buckle in their kids and cause harm to come to their children should be punished, but the idiotic adult who ends up a paraplegic because he didn't wear his belt got what was coming to him. He has the right to be an idiot, and suffer the consequences.
There are too many laws that dictate to unintelligent people how to live. I would hope that common sense could prevail, but it doesn't.
As for us who live our lives responsibly, we do not need those laws for us to be safe or happy, or meet our needs. I wore my seatbelt long before there were laws for it. I have never even tried drugs because I was lucky enough to be raised by parents who did foster care and I saw firsthand the consequences of drugs, alcohol and other addictions. I will not begrudge my neighbor healthcare and will happily give all I can to help them meet any medical bills without the government taxing me into it. In fact those taxes would lower my income enough that I would not be able to provide the help I already do to others in need. I do not like SSI because I know that if an individual were to take the same amount of money deducted from pay for SSI and they put it in an IRA or similar retirement savings plan they would have larger monthly checks come retirement than the government can hope to provide. I want to save my money where I may receive the full benefit of its savings for my future and in the name of safety that right has been taken from me.
Well I don't feel picked on for one, and two I am more than willing to have my perspectives picked apart because it gives opportunity for my perspective to be honed. I think my comments were taken out of context regardless of what James says, the context being that in order to fight terrorism you've got to get dirty. Freedom as outlined by the founding fathers in my perspective was based on principles of self governance. When people cease to govern themselves in their behavior and it infringes on the rights of others ie. Maj. Hasan infringing upon the rights of 30 individuals to live, then measures should be taken to protect the rights and freedoms of those seeking to live and such should be prioritized over the rights of others to incite murderous behavior. Let me try to say it more clearly - Absolute freedom would be anarchy because everyone would be able to do whatever they want whenever, wherever etc. So in order to protect freedom for all, rules have to be set up and abided by either through self governance or an externality such as a government in order to guarantee as many freedoms to as many people. Prioritization should be given to freedoms deemed most important by individual societies. My right to keep and bear arms is a freedom that I prioritize over say.....freedom of the press. I would rather go target shooting or hunting if I choose than be able to print whatever I want in terms of my day to day life. So when people cease to govern themselves and incite hatred to the point of murder and then follow through with action, something should be done to limit the freedom of that individual or group - case in point Muslim extremists and terrorism.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you can't limit someone's freedoms based on religion. You say that you think that it is okay the restrict the freedoms of Muslim extremists. But you have to remember, it is not the religions that is doing the wrongs, it is the terrorists that are.
ReplyDeleteThis fear is exactly what was happening in the time of the early Mormon faith. They were all scared of the Mormons and so they felt it was okay to rape, steal, and bring all manner of persecutions against them. The extermination order in Missouri was obvious proof that the rights of a religion were being invaded and to what good? The anti-mormons of the time were people that were scared and abused the rights of the early saints as citizens using fear as their motive.
Now you, GWH, are saying that you are okay with the government playing dirty (ie. stealing assets, invading their private sanctuaries, etc) because you are scared of what some religious group might do. If (by principle) you believe that what the government with these Muslims was justified, then you also would have to feel that what happened to the early church was justified on the same principle. Temples were invaded and distroyed then and are viewed today as atrocities towards our faith.
To sum up, I am saying that Muslim shouldn't enter into. Terrorists might use that as a guise or cover, but the faith is not at fault; the people that have engaged in the acts are at fault. In this case the faith was attacked, raided and had its assets ceased. Not the individuals who have done the wrong doings.
If these men do something wrong they should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law and is a matter of national security. And it should be just as you said, the government is there to protect our rights until they go and violate the rights of another. Muslims did not attack the world trade center, terrorists did - and it is the terrorists that are to be punished for their human rights violations, not a faith.
No matter how you talk around it GWH, you are saying that you feel it is okay for the government to take over a religious faith even though it is not the faith that is at fault here. Just like it was not the faith that was doing anything wrong in the early LDS church.
Ok first of all, I did not enumerate the ways in which I am ok with the government getting "dirty" James, you take it to mean what you want. I was alluding towards water boarding being an acceptable form of interrogation.... Second, what is your proposed solution to muslim extremists? It's easy to tear apart an idea, but a little more difficult to propose one. The world is made up of stereotypes and classifiers. How many Christian terrorists do you know of? Christian Extremists certainly exist but how many Christians go around blowing themselves up as "martyrs" and protecting themselves with human shields? A religion that will abed terrorists is an organization which can be classified as hostile and become subject to restrictions in my opinion. I have not heard, and it may be due to a lack of coverage or publicity, but the mainstream adherents to Islam condemn many of the actions of terrorists. Silence comes across as condoning in my opinion. I will say again it is obvious that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it certainly appears that all terrorists are Muslim.....I personally have coworkers in the past who were Muslim and I respect them, but they did not condemn terrorist actions against Americans and I have a problem with that. As a Mormon I condemn polygamists because I want to distance myself from their unrighteous practice and want to be very clear that I am not, nor do I have any desire to be associated with them in any way. I expect the same from "Mainstream Islam" and I just don't see it or hear it. And for the record I said Islam should be subject to restrictions which happens to have a different meaning from the term "take over a faith" as synonomously used by James. Furthermore, the LDS church is subject to restrictions both in the United States and abroad and has the policy that they are subject to Kings, rulers, magistrates, etc. The endowment and temple ceremonies are on record with the United States government so that not only are we protected as a faith, but we as Americans are protected through disclosure from the formal organization of seditious groups. I think it's a little over the top considering I am an LDS member familiar with the religion and temple ceremonies but if the government respects the religion with keeping it private in order to maintain it's sacredness then I am ok with that and expect other organizations to abide by the same.
ReplyDeleteYou ask for my solution GWH, I will give it you. If these were Muslim extremists or just Muslims for that matter, that stayed in their mosques and just secretly hated the government but never did anything to harm their country or the rights of the citizens of this country, then we do nothing. Nothing wrong has been done and they are free to believe the way they do.
ReplyDeleteIf these individuals do something that is against the law such as invite terrorists into the country, facilitate or be accessory to a terrorist act, then you punish the individual who has made the act.
You ask about Christian extremists as if they don't exist today. Have you heard of anyone killing a doctor who performed an abortion (army of god group)? The Klu Klux Klan, any of this ringing a bell to you? The KKK even has their own political party. No one is shutting them down-even thought the atrocities that they performed effected a greater number of people than even the 9/11 terror attacks. We haven't shut them down-why not? Because now days, they just propagate their information and don't cause direct harm to anyone. I can't stand them, but that is their right is it not?
If you do the research and park the generalities for a minute, while some of the terrorists have been Muslim, not all Muslims are terrorists. Therefore, the plan is to punish the terrorists not the faith they profess to be a part of.
While we are tossing this back and forth, if I am to provide an alternate plan, perhaps you would be willing to suggest a better way that the government could have handled this without violating freedom of religion.
Crayon Face,
ReplyDeleteGreat post and questions. I find it funny that those that typically claim "Republican" or conservative are OK with the lose of freedoms in the name of safety from terrorists. If however they actually cared a little bit about the safety of the public at large maybe they would do something about that giant hole in our southern boarder. Instead they screen little old ladies at airports for bombs. Clearly politicians are not concerned about safety in the least bit. As such being killed by some Islamic nut job is very low on my list of potential threats. Even lower then getting hit by lightning or attacked by killer bees. Do politicians take advantage o such situations as 911 and the recent shootings to gain more control over the people through restricting laws or scoring political correctness points by claiming our diversity is our strength? I don't know, I think it goes both ways.
Those on the left are more then willing to give up freedom for safety in the realm of health care and so on. But do we need to cover that ground yet again? I don't think so.
Mr.Geoff, thanks for putting your argument forward without insult. As such I will drop the fatty stuff. I do however disagree with you that freedom comes from safety. Freedom I believe comes from God, its our natural state. your example of the seatbelt comes only through choice, if some one is not willing to see the clear advantages of putting it on then so be it. I think the problem comes in when we try to rescue people from the consequences of their own choices. You choose not to put on the seatbelt then you have to be responsible for those choices. As is often the case when many people say they want freedom what they really mean is they want freedom from the consequences of their choices. The guarantee of safety with in the gospel is predicated on our ability to choose to accept the atonement, there is however no guarantee of safety without us first exercising our agency to affect the right consequence.
First of all I agree with every word posted by M Galt in regards to this post. Second, scanning little old ladies is ineffective and therefore profiling has it's place. I agree prioritization should be given to protecting the border. Profiling is another "dirty" way in which we can fight terrorists more effectively, one profiling characteristic is - are you a member of the Muslim faith?
ReplyDeleteSounds like you agree with limiting religious rights, and now, pre-judgment of individuals based on their religion all in the name of your safety too.
ReplyDeleteVery Christ-like of you GWH.
still pompous james.
ReplyDelete