[[[Eventually he brings his family over for an extended visit which turns out to be permanent and before you know it an entire part of your house has been sealed off or, as in some instances, has become a domestic no-go zone.
Your new guests refuse to participate in your home life. They deplete your budget, may not even learn your language, install a V-chip in your computer to prevent the normal range of your communications, and in the course of time begin agitating to introduce a new set of house rules which you, the proprietor, are expected to abide by. It is quite possible that you return one evening to discover that your kids have been traumatized and the house is in shambles. It may happen as you set off for work in the morning, you find your car has been torched.]]]
Gee, he makes it sound just like what the European Settlers did to the native Americans. They welcomed them to Jamestown, taught them how to plant Tobacco and Corn, showed them the best places to hunt and fish and darn it, they took over.
And so the cycle goes on 🙂
Here’s what bugs me:
We are now on very delicate ground as we try to address the central question, which is: what to do? We are a liberal democracy and are bound to uphold the axial principles that sustain it: freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of assembly, the dispensation of impartial justice, habeas corpus, the right to civil and legal protections. These are codes and scruples that cannot be easily bent or violated in endeavoring to deal with the problem.
I seriously don’t get why more people cannot reconcile reciprocity with Western values. Reciprocity should be the foundation on which all other rights rest.
You want free speech and the right to practice your religion? Then allow it for your neighbors. If you cannot comply with granting freedoms to your neighbors that you want for yourselves, there are other countries which might be willing to take you, but this isn’t one of them.
It’s basically phrasing the Golden Rule as a sternly worded command, backed up with the threat of force: Do unto others/us as you would have them/us do until you.
Brock has nailed it.
There’s a logical error right at the core of Western multi-cultural zeal – because tolerance for middle-class American culture doesn’t seem to be part of the worldview (think of the intolerant invective thrown at McDonalds Restaurants, or American mass entertainment, by those who usually stress cultural tolerance, for example), it’s not really multi-cultural.
The difference, Thomas, is that the early settlers did not have the express intention of wiping out the natives. The moslems, as a civilization, have exactly that intention. Instead of unknown and unknowable diseases that mostly wiped out the Indians, Islam has a plan of conquest that we can read, and they are executing it, as we can see.
I seriously don’t get why more people cannot reconcile reciprocity with Western values. Reciprocity should be the foundation on which all other rights rest.
Indeed, as reciprocity (or lack thereof) is what allows criminals to be punished. One would be logically estopped from arguing that one’s own life is sacrosanct after murdering someone else. Further experiments into reciprocal altruism demonstrate that to be part of man’s nature (in contrast to the collectivist’s worldview that humanity is just a big insect hive.) Reality has a “conservative” bias in this regard.
You want free speech and the right to practice your religion? Then allow it for your neighbors. If you cannot comply with granting freedoms to your neighbors that you want for yourselves, there are other countries which might be willing to take you, but this isn’t one of them.
You’re right but this is neither new nor limited to Muslims. Over 20 years ago, I had a conversation with one of my coworkers over lunch. She was a devout Christian and wondered why she had to walk on eggshells to avoid offending others but they showed no hesitation at offending her. Some of them even went out of their way to offend as in those San Francisco photos in an earlier post.
Michael,
[[[The difference, Thomas, is that the early settlers did not have the express intention of wiping out the natives. ]]]
I see. The early massacres of native Americans were just police actions against those who just wouldn’t accept English law and civilization…
The so-called “Native Americans” did their share of unprovoked slaughtering, too. (See King Phillip’s War, for an example.) But what really doomed them is that they enthusiastically joined in with one side in every intra-European fight, usually the eventual losers. It was an excuse to enthusiastically rape, pillage and destroy. They joined the French against the British, and the British against the Colonials, for example. So of course they were less than loved by the winners in those fights.
They kept this tradition alive even into the 1860s when the so-called Civilized Tribes, in what is now Oklahoma who had no problem with slavery, cast their lot with the Confederacy. (One of the last Indian leaders to give up his slaves, doing so only after the passage of the 13th Amendment forced him to, was Chief Sealth, aka Chief Seattle.)
And let’s not forget that the first major action by the US gov’t against the tribes was instituted by the party of slavery and segregation and secession. (see Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears.)
Gee, he makes it sound just like what the European Settlers did to the native Americans.
Since we’re the Americans in this new scenario it would behoove us to take note of the precedent. However, you’ve got your facts wrong again.
Most indians and europeans got along just fine. But not all indian tribes were the same. Some were hunters and some were farmers, long before we got here they killed each other, occasionally to total genocide.
Generally peaceful people can have culture clashes. Indians might hunt from a ranchers herd. Farmers might move to a hunting ground. The indians were not innocents. Many lived peacefully with their neighbors.
Smart ones learn to live as part of a dominant culture (and open casinos.) Islam will never be dominant in America.
This almost regret having children. We can now see the next World War coming, and it won’t be pretty…
Ken,
[[[But not all indian tribes were the same. ]]]
Nor are all Muslims. They range from the home grown “Nation of Islam” to the Truks, to Indonesians and all those in between. A small percentage of the trillion of so are radicals focused on destroying the western world but the majority are just looking for a better life in America, the same as our own ancestors were.
Really most of the arguments this author is using are just recycled versions of the ones used against Asians, Jews and Catholics when they were immigrating here in numbers a 100 years ago. You could probably take any of that nonsense that was written then in newspapers and magazines, do a search and replace for the ethnic group they were ranting against with Muslims and be considered insightful by the conservative right.
Yes, the first generation of those immigrate groups had problems adjusting. My grandparents never learned much English and still dressed Polish over 70 years after they immigrated to the U.S., as did many of their neighbors in northern Wisconsin. But the children and grandchildren of those first generation immigrates have done just fine adding to the rich tapestry that is America. T
The new Muslims immigrates will be no different and the dress restrictions that are customary in their home countries will fade away. Burqas for example don’t come from the Koran, but from Arab and Persian traditions that likely pre-date it. That tradition was absorbed into the religion as it expanded in those regions but its not core to it.
the majority are just looking for a better life in America
This is because people are individuals. However, Islam is an ideology with specific goals that are the antithesis of American principles. I’m still looking for those that are not ‘for it.’ They seem to be very rare in this ideology.
Ken,
[[[Islam is an ideology with specific goals that are the antithesis of American principles.]]]
No, Islam is a not a single ideology any more then Christianity or Judaism is. Condemning all Muslims because of the ideology the terrorists follow is no different then condemning all Catholics because of the IRA’s philosophy.
Yes Thomas, I’m painting with a broad brush, but you can say some things about all Catholics and all Jews even if not true in the particulars. Some in Islam are religious in the ways of Madonna or Shirley McClain. Not all Mormons are the same. Perhaps even Amish have significant differences… I don’t know. Nixon was a Quaker but seemed quite different from my Quaker friend in high school (well, my genius friend was different from everybody.)
Speaking in generalities you can hardly be strictly true. I have in mind those that were cheering in the streets and those that are ‘for it.’ For those not among those, I recommend they find their voices.
Born an Italian Catholic I can find fault, but seldom worry a priest will have a suicide vest on or cheer the death of thousands of innocents.
I am a bit concerned about those Amish terrorist though… I hear they’re using cell phones now.
[[[Eventually he brings his family over for an extended visit which turns out to be permanent and before you know it an entire part of your house has been sealed off or, as in some instances, has become a domestic no-go zone.
Your new guests refuse to participate in your home life. They deplete your budget, may not even learn your language, install a V-chip in your computer to prevent the normal range of your communications, and in the course of time begin agitating to introduce a new set of house rules which you, the proprietor, are expected to abide by. It is quite possible that you return one evening to discover that your kids have been traumatized and the house is in shambles. It may happen as you set off for work in the morning, you find your car has been torched.]]]
Gee, he makes it sound just like what the European Settlers did to the native Americans. They welcomed them to Jamestown, taught them how to plant Tobacco and Corn, showed them the best places to hunt and fish and darn it, they took over.
And so the cycle goes on 🙂
Here’s what bugs me:
I seriously don’t get why more people cannot reconcile reciprocity with Western values. Reciprocity should be the foundation on which all other rights rest.
You want free speech and the right to practice your religion? Then allow it for your neighbors. If you cannot comply with granting freedoms to your neighbors that you want for yourselves, there are other countries which might be willing to take you, but this isn’t one of them.
It’s basically phrasing the Golden Rule as a sternly worded command, backed up with the threat of force: Do unto others/us as you would have them/us do until you.
Brock has nailed it.
There’s a logical error right at the core of Western multi-cultural zeal – because tolerance for middle-class American culture doesn’t seem to be part of the worldview (think of the intolerant invective thrown at McDonalds Restaurants, or American mass entertainment, by those who usually stress cultural tolerance, for example), it’s not really multi-cultural.
The difference, Thomas, is that the early settlers did not have the express intention of wiping out the natives. The moslems, as a civilization, have exactly that intention. Instead of unknown and unknowable diseases that mostly wiped out the Indians, Islam has a plan of conquest that we can read, and they are executing it, as we can see.
Indeed, as reciprocity (or lack thereof) is what allows criminals to be punished. One would be logically estopped from arguing that one’s own life is sacrosanct after murdering someone else. Further experiments into reciprocal altruism demonstrate that to be part of man’s nature (in contrast to the collectivist’s worldview that humanity is just a big insect hive.) Reality has a “conservative” bias in this regard.
You want free speech and the right to practice your religion? Then allow it for your neighbors. If you cannot comply with granting freedoms to your neighbors that you want for yourselves, there are other countries which might be willing to take you, but this isn’t one of them.
You’re right but this is neither new nor limited to Muslims. Over 20 years ago, I had a conversation with one of my coworkers over lunch. She was a devout Christian and wondered why she had to walk on eggshells to avoid offending others but they showed no hesitation at offending her. Some of them even went out of their way to offend as in those San Francisco photos in an earlier post.
Michael,
[[[The difference, Thomas, is that the early settlers did not have the express intention of wiping out the natives. ]]]
I see. The early massacres of native Americans were just police actions against those who just wouldn’t accept English law and civilization…
The so-called “Native Americans” did their share of unprovoked slaughtering, too. (See King Phillip’s War, for an example.) But what really doomed them is that they enthusiastically joined in with one side in every intra-European fight, usually the eventual losers. It was an excuse to enthusiastically rape, pillage and destroy. They joined the French against the British, and the British against the Colonials, for example. So of course they were less than loved by the winners in those fights.
They kept this tradition alive even into the 1860s when the so-called Civilized Tribes, in what is now Oklahoma who had no problem with slavery, cast their lot with the Confederacy. (One of the last Indian leaders to give up his slaves, doing so only after the passage of the 13th Amendment forced him to, was Chief Sealth, aka Chief Seattle.)
And let’s not forget that the first major action by the US gov’t against the tribes was instituted by the party of slavery and segregation and secession. (see Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears.)
Gee, he makes it sound just like what the European Settlers did to the native Americans.
Since we’re the Americans in this new scenario it would behoove us to take note of the precedent. However, you’ve got your facts wrong again.
Most indians and europeans got along just fine. But not all indian tribes were the same. Some were hunters and some were farmers, long before we got here they killed each other, occasionally to total genocide.
Generally peaceful people can have culture clashes. Indians might hunt from a ranchers herd. Farmers might move to a hunting ground. The indians were not innocents. Many lived peacefully with their neighbors.
Smart ones learn to live as part of a dominant culture (and open casinos.) Islam will never be dominant in America.
This almost regret having children. We can now see the next World War coming, and it won’t be pretty…
Ken,
[[[But not all indian tribes were the same. ]]]
Nor are all Muslims. They range from the home grown “Nation of Islam” to the Truks, to Indonesians and all those in between. A small percentage of the trillion of so are radicals focused on destroying the western world but the majority are just looking for a better life in America, the same as our own ancestors were.
Really most of the arguments this author is using are just recycled versions of the ones used against Asians, Jews and Catholics when they were immigrating here in numbers a 100 years ago. You could probably take any of that nonsense that was written then in newspapers and magazines, do a search and replace for the ethnic group they were ranting against with Muslims and be considered insightful by the conservative right.
Yes, the first generation of those immigrate groups had problems adjusting. My grandparents never learned much English and still dressed Polish over 70 years after they immigrated to the U.S., as did many of their neighbors in northern Wisconsin. But the children and grandchildren of those first generation immigrates have done just fine adding to the rich tapestry that is America. T
The new Muslims immigrates will be no different and the dress restrictions that are customary in their home countries will fade away. Burqas for example don’t come from the Koran, but from Arab and Persian traditions that likely pre-date it. That tradition was absorbed into the religion as it expanded in those regions but its not core to it.
the majority are just looking for a better life in America
This is because people are individuals. However, Islam is an ideology with specific goals that are the antithesis of American principles. I’m still looking for those that are not ‘for it.’ They seem to be very rare in this ideology.
Ken,
[[[Islam is an ideology with specific goals that are the antithesis of American principles.]]]
No, Islam is a not a single ideology any more then Christianity or Judaism is. Condemning all Muslims because of the ideology the terrorists follow is no different then condemning all Catholics because of the IRA’s philosophy.
Yes Thomas, I’m painting with a broad brush, but you can say some things about all Catholics and all Jews even if not true in the particulars. Some in Islam are religious in the ways of Madonna or Shirley McClain. Not all Mormons are the same. Perhaps even Amish have significant differences… I don’t know. Nixon was a Quaker but seemed quite different from my Quaker friend in high school (well, my genius friend was different from everybody.)
Speaking in generalities you can hardly be strictly true. I have in mind those that were cheering in the streets and those that are ‘for it.’ For those not among those, I recommend they find their voices.
Born an Italian Catholic I can find fault, but seldom worry a priest will have a suicide vest on or cheer the death of thousands of innocents.
I am a bit concerned about those Amish terrorist though… I hear they’re using cell phones now.