[Vision2020] For Nick who doesn't know the difference!

[Paul Rumelhart]

Essays like this amaze me.  On the one hand, you have multiculturalism - 
which in essence can be defined as the desire to allow distinct cultures 
in a society to exist with equal status.  Allow the cultures to exist in 
harmony so that the best of all cultures can be shared between them, 
basically.  On the other hand you have, what, the opponents of Islam?  I 
could see bringing up multiculturalism if you were going to argue that 
monoculturalism is somehow better.  It appears, however, that the author 
is really arguing that tolerance of one particular religion should not 
be allowed and is placing that tolerance under the name 
"multiculturalism".  She even calls it a faith (in the first sentence, 
no less).

She is also intentionally grouping all adherents of Islam into one 
group: that of the terrorists.  Hate the terrorists - I'm with you on 
that one - but don't hate the members of the religion that the 
terrorists have coopted for their own twisted purposes.

She even refuses to learn about the conflict in more detail, since that 
might change her mind.  She wants her irrational hatreds not to be 
challenged, I guess.  Unfortunately for her, life is more complicated 
than that. 

I pity the author for the blinders she has placed upon herself - all in 
an effort for her to think herself superior and to opt out of actually 
having to understand anything.  The fact that this kind of 
barely-disguised hate speech gets published in this country makes me weep.

Yes.  Hatred of a group based upon the actions of a few members, most of 
which probably only identify with that group for the excuses it affords 
them, has always been a winning strategy.  Not too many steps away from 
bombing civilians because you hate their government or you think their 
culture is too permissive, really.

But, hey, it's those damn multiculturalists who are out to destroy the 
world as we know it.  Actually thinking that other cultures might have 
ideas of worth - how horrible.

Paul

heirdoug at netscape.net wrote:

>Burnt offerings on the altar of multiculturalism
>By Diana West
>Saturday, March 10, 2007
>
>Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: 
>multiculturalism. Without it -- without its fanatics who believe all 
>civilizations are the same -- the engine that projects Islam into the 
>unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as 
>simple as that. To live among the believers -- the multiculturalists -- 
>is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our 
>suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, 
>they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance 
>that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.
>
>I'm not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, 
>even train conductors, who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for 
>civilization abroad and at home. Instead, I'm thinking about who we are 
>as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, 
>tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their 
>promises of "no surrender" even as they flinch at identifying the foe. 
>Four years past 9/11, we continue to shadow-box "terror," even as we go 
>on about "an ideology of hate." It's a script that smacks of sci-fi 
>fantasy more than realpolitik. But our grim reality is no summer 
>blockbuster, and there's no special-effects-enhanced plot twist that is 
>going to thwart "terror" or "hate" in the London Underground anymore 
>than it did on the roof of the World Trade Center. Or in the Bali 
>nightclub. Or on the first day of school in Beslan. Or in any disco, 
>city bus or shopping mall in Israel.
>
>Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than 
>make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that 
>be. These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to 
>identify retinas and fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals -- 
>ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket 
>door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see 
>inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent 
>ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed 
>by Islam.
>
>Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or 
>"fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but 
>I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully 
>so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a 
>wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam -- 
>the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" 
>enables or "extremistly" advances jihad -- with the West. Am I right? 
>Who's to say? The very topic of Islamization -- for that is what is at 
>hand, and very soon in Europe -- is verboten.
>
>A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last 
>year warned even against "expressions of concern about Islamic 
>fundamentalism" (another one of those amorphous terms) because "many 
>perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional 
>Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a 
>negative comment on their own approach to their faith." Much better to 
>watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As 
>the London Times' Simon Jenkins wrote, "The sane response to urban 
>terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident."
>
>In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning 
>about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents 
>us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any 
>serious action -- stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, 
>shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, 
>just for starters -- means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the 
>West, that's the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death 
>-- as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law -- the existential 
>crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.
>
>This is the lesson of the atrocities in London. It's unlikely that the 
>21st century will remember that this new Western crossroads for global 
>jihad was once the home of Churchill, Piccadilly and Sherlock Holmes. 
>Then again, who will notice? The BBC has retroactively purged its 
>online bombing coverage of the word "terrorist"; the spokesman for the 
>London police commissioner has declared that "Islam and terrorism 
>simply don't go together"; and within sight of a forensics team sifting 
>through rubble, an Anglican priest urged his flock, as The Guardian 
>reported, to "rejoice in the capital's rich diversity of cultures, 
>traditions, ethnic groups and faiths." Just don't, he said, "name them 
>as Muslims." Their faith renewed, Londoners soldier on.
>
>Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>  
>