To know what I truly believe read my weekend post 'The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny'.
It has become necessary to explain to the Liberal side of the Blogosphere that despite the hurling accusations due to my coming out as a "politically incorrect" individual yesterday, I am not "an immigrant hater".
It is quite absurd to say that in any event as I am not a native American. I do however love and respect America and believe that if you do not like your host country, you should leave, instead of constantly knocking that country, complaining about the fact that no one is speaking YOUR language, and openly despising it's culture which you degrade at every turn, and wish it to basically disappear replaced by your own.
If you are an immigrant who relates to any of the above, it is YOU who are rude and not as my commenter Jim R claims the politically incorrect. It is people's refusal to assimilate and to learn the language of the country they live in who have no respect for the culture of their host. I was brought up to be polite, considerate and respectful to my host, otherwise we did not go and visit their house, let alone entertain the thought of living with them!
The Italians didn't have a problem with that nor did the Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese; in fact almost all the Europeans, East and West, in the past and today.
I do not know a single one of my dear Jewish friends of which I have very many, who get offended when I say "Merry Christmas" and wish them also a "Happy Hanukkah". It is only those miserable people, the complainers and the socialist radicals like the ACLU that have a problem with it. They call it politically incorrect.
We live in a Christian country therefore we will say "Merry Christmas" whether the atheists or Muslims or anyone else likes it or not. And if that makes me politically incorrect then I am proud to be, but being rude to anyone in a multicultural society I have never been. I have always lived happily in an international community and have never been considered rude because I dare say "Merry Christmas" to my non-Christian friends, or because I refuse to fall to my knees every few hours and turn towards Mecca.
"War on religion is a war on the underlying assumptions of American political life. Why the same group that insists on equality of outcomes in all matters also insists on undermining the religous basis of American politics is an interesting question. Hypocrisy or double dyed villainy?"
As my great friend Kenny Pierce said: “The intelligentsia has gone a lot further down the road since Jefferson and Franklin, especially in Europe; having attacked Christianity with a certain degree of political success, they have moved on to denigrating Christian values as well, and in doing so they hack at the foundation of our country's prosperity and character. You don't have to be a Christian to be a good American; but you do pretty much have to believe in the Golden Rule. You don't have to be a non-Muslim to be a good American; but you can't be a good American while still believing in jihad and sharia. You don't have to be a Protestant to be a good American; but you can't very well be a good American without possessing enough of the Protestant work ethic to believe that a man who through laziness lives off the sweat of other people's brows is no kind of a man at all. You don't have to hold New Testament views on wealth and poverty in order to be a good American, but you can't be a good American if you have talked yourself into some variant of morality that pretends that it is intrinsically evil for any one person to possess more material goods than any other person, or if you consider that all "charity" should be done by the government so that you can be spared the trouble of ever having actually to be involved personally in the lives of the unfortunate.
[...
You don't have to be a Christian to be a good American; but you do pretty much have to believe in the Golden Rule. You don't have to be a non-Muslim to be a good American; but you can't be a good American while still believing in jihad and sharia."
The Liberals in America have brought every argument of this nature down to accusations of racial prejudice, and ad hominem attacks of being against other cultures if you dare declare that America has a culture of it's own. They have entirely managed to kill any sense of proud heritage they once had, in favor of some sort of misplaced democracy which allows others to spit on their culture. Why? Why should the Americans allow others to spit on their culture whilst living in THEIR country? What's next? We all have to speak Arabic, and live by the Law of Shari'a just so as not to upset our Islamic friends who think our infidel culture is inferior and insult us every day.
Until the West begins to pay attention to what Muslims are saying in Arabic, Persian and Urdu, rather than what their apologists sprout forth for foreign consumption, the word insulting will not take on the new meaning and level of hatred it should do.
When I came to England at the age of ten I spoke no English. Due to my excellent grades I was accepted at the best school in England where speaking English was no big deal, after all everyone did. Being the person that I am, determined and proud, by the end of the year I came at the top of my class. Needless to say it was one of the most difficult years of my schooling. I did not say "Sod this country I hate it, and I do not wish to learn it's language. I despise the British people, and will never assimilate".
If I was at school today and someone told me that I was not allowed to sing a Christian song for fear of offending someone I would leave that school. I am proudly politically incorrect today as I was at the age of 10.
Half of my family gave up their lives for freedom of speech and democracy, and the other half lived and breathed and fought for it all their lives, and no one is going to tell me that I am a totalitarian demagogue, racially prejudiced, an immigrant hater, or best of all the latest - an anti-multilingual. But they do.
Why should an American be insulted in his own country? I love and respect the American people and their culture. I would think what IS the height of rudeness is to insult them, their heritage and their way of life in favor of what you consider YOUR own superiority. As I said before, if you do not like it leave, if you think your culture is far superior and your own country “the kingdom of heaven” please exercise that great American freedom of “the right to leave”.
The Liberal left completely fails to comprehend the "E pluribus unum" motto. What they really want is for the "many" to remain "many"; or, more accurately, to break down the "one" into "many" without any common culture, moral cohesion, or civil society to bind them. I of course, am familiar with that model from the Balkans, where it worked so very well (!). My culture has also been under the Turks for 500 years, and we are still reeling from the problems.
And, as I recall, the Founders wrote a great deal about the fact that if America ever ceased to be a religious society, freedom, and the republican ideal, would fail, because the citizenry would lack the moral virtue to keep it all going.
Since the Gore defeat in 2000, left-liberals in the US have turned away from identity politics. You could say that this was one of the few unambiguous intellectual victories of American conservatives, except that devotees of Old Left class politics provided much of the ammunition. At first, the multicultis blasted the likes of me as crypto-racists or, worse yet, crypto-conservatives, but fear of Bush ended all of that.
The most aggressive proponents of the multicultural world-view—that America is a congeries of “cultures” defined by race, and that said “cultures” are entitled to proportional representation in key institutions, if not some kind of quasi-sovereignty—were cowed by electoral logic. Somehow, the vast majority of Americans, “people of color” included, didn’t buy the implicit anti-Americanism, to say nothing of the liberalism, of this profoundly odious world-view, and so the multicultis remained silent as the grave.
Banished to their redoubts in the universities, the multicultis never gave up hope. They’ve been plotting a triumphant return. The hope was that it would happen now, under a newly elected Democratic administration. Because that didn’t work out, some have grown impatient and are jumping the gun, as daily reported by the MSM. Far from presenting the “fact” of an “emerging of distinct races” dispassionately, they champion it with verve. One wonders if they consider those immigrants who identify as white or black or Asian as somehow less authentic.
And now you can call me a racist as well as an immigrant hater. Just in case anyone has missed it: I am politically incorrect and proud of it, and will carry on saying Merry Christmas until my dying breath, which hopefully will not be at the hands of a Muslim aggressor : "...Ahmadinejad also grasps that there are millions of highly educated but cynical Westerners who see nothing much exceptional about their own culture."
Facets of postmodern political correctness has just been one of the many disturbing consequences.
UPDATE: From the comments section, where things have got rather heated:
The Founding Fathers were deists. If you want to relate that to Christianity, then it boils down to one line. "God said let there be light, and there was." The end.
To suggest they promoted a religious society is either due to ignorance or it just happens to be a lie you enjoy believing.
I responded:
Ah more insults. I am now an "ignorant liar" no less...why am I not
surprised coming from the "atheist left", and yes I have had a look at your site.
And now dealing with the above:
1)
While this is perhaps to some extent true of Jefferson, it is absolute
rubbish with regard to both George Washington and James Madison
(remember him, the minor guy who wrote the Constitution?), pure canard.
Both were devout, orthodox Episcopalians.
Their letters,
speeches, actions, practice, and even the wording of the Constitution
make clear that their aim was not to prevent the intrusion of religion
into public life, but to PREVENT THE INTRUSION OF GOVERNMENT INTO
RELIGION in any way, shape or form- but above all, into the abridging
of the "free exercise thereof."
2) Your forget that the founders
were all CHRISTIANS, and that- again, going back and looking at
historical context, as good historical method requires- whenever they
use the word "religion", they were a) clearly referring to Christianity
and a Judeo-Christian heritage (yes, there were Jews, and Washington
respected them highly, but they were statistically insignificant); b)
when you cite "fiat lux" as the basic tenet of the Founding Fathers,
please note that this is a Judeo-Christian tenet, from the Jewish Bible!
The
Founding Fathers were passionately supportive of religion, and
encouraged religiosity in the Republic, so don’t call ME the liar. They
were living in a time when Christianity was an integral part of public
life, something that permeated the entire fabric of American society to
such an extent that it was taken for granted until the 20th century.
When Washington, Madison and Jefferson write of "religion," they were
referring to the beliefs of the 99.9% of their populace that was
Christian.
If you were to check US law up until the late
twentieth century, you would see that religion- Christianity-was also
an integral factor in law. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court case of
Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.(1892) cited 87 historical
precedents in its conclusion that, "Our laws and institutions must
necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of
mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense
and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are
emphatically Christian."
In contrast, that much-loved ACLU
penumbra, "the separation of church and state", exists neither in word
nor intent in the U.S. constitution or pre-20th century case law- on
the contrary. In 1811 the U.S. Supreme Court, in People vs.Ruggles,
declared against a man for profaning Jesus Christ and the Bible, ruling
that "whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to
the dissolution of civil government."
Your position collapses
the moment one takes a look at empirical historical evidence from the
18th and 19th centuries, particularly actual law and governmental
practice. Washington, Jefferson, et al, the supposed ACLU
Separationists, for some odd reason never objected to the recitation of
Christian prayers in school or at official governmental functions, the
use of the New England Primer in schools, the use of public lands and
buildings for religious events etc.
You fail to understand that
the broad-minded tolerance of the Fathers went hand-in-hand with their
desire to actively encourage all religious faith: the proof is in the
pudding. Again, I challenge you to actually examine American laws and
governmental practices of the 18th and 19th centuries- you're in for a
real shock. Historical reality makes Jerry Falwell and any other
bogeyman of the left look like a real ACLU member by contrast...
Again,
the proper relationship of government and religion as conceived of by
the founders was to further the cause of religion (I am afraid that
they did not look too kindly on Atheism, John ) and enable its free and
untrammeled expression. Yes, these men would have disapproved of
"moments of silence" in schools- but only because these were men who
approved of and allowed actual Christian prayer- sometimes delivered by
Christian ministers and priests, no less- in schools, government
assemblies etc.
To pretend otherwise is false; it is an
Orwellian revision of history, and absolutely no foundation for your
scurrilous accusation. But then, as I have written before, the argument
of the left has been reduced to one word namely “liar”, in absence of
any substantial supporting arguments.
Related on ATB:
It Is About Time We Were Politically Incorrect Part I
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny
The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics
The Declaration of War on Christmas
The Jihad Apocalypse 'A Muslim Obligation'
The Clash of Civilizations
Linked to Basil's Blog and Mudville Gazette.
I'm sure that quite a lot of America's greatness comes from it being the "melting pot" of the world. But I think that the men and women that worked and died for this country in the first days had a vision and wrote it down for us.
Nowadays (at least in the southwest) immigrants are illegals. Illegals from all of the countries south of the border and a few middle eastern countries too.
A lot of them are hard working, honest people, but a large number are not. Some of them that came across the border, came across to do us harm. Many that are here now hate everything about America, except our welfare system, our medical system, our educational system and our law that makes their kids born here citizens. They don't meld in, they set up communities and slums and don't bother to learn our language or be bothered with common sense or treating others like they demand to be treated.
But, thats just our problem down here, right? It has no effect on the rest of the Nation, right?
Oh, and before you call me anything, let me tell you that the mexicans that have been born here several years ago, educated here and that are my friends, feel the same way I do.
Not that, that makes any difference.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Posted by: Papa Ray | Friday, January 27, 2006 at 05:56 PM
“Melting Pot” really is a misapplied phrase in regards to American Society. “Patchwork Quilt” might be more apt. American culture is made up of many, many ethnic groups, races, religions, economic classes, sizes, and shapes but what is it that keeps us together? What is it that makes all of us Americans? It is a shared Civil Culture and a shared language with which we communicate and cooperate with our fellow citizens. This is the thread that keeps the patches together. This civil culture is the genius of America. Immigrants (and native born folks as well) are not required to abandon their culture, their customs (there are obvious exceptions here), their language, or their religion. It is from this infusion of ideas, talents, foods, music, words, and wisdom about life that has kept our country the most dynamic, exciting, and powerful country in the world. There are some reasons that this is possible here and has not worked…pretty much anywhere else in the world. We expect, no, demand, one thing from everyone who wishes to be “in the club”: they must act as Citizens. How do people from all corners of the earth create and sustain a government, a society, and a community? English. Sorry, folks. It is as simple as that. How else do we communicate? Do business? Resolve affairs in court? Write laws? Hear the proposals of those who wish to be elected to represent us? Build communities? How does the man from Somalia express to the Hmong woman running a corner store what he wishes to purchase? How do they create a community? English: the common thread. People are free and even encouraged to speak any language they please but English is to be the common denominator. When the Left fights to keep immigrant children from learning English in school it is less like protecting their cultural heritage and more like holding their heads underwater. To succeed here you must strive for a command of English (this goes the native born as well). The problem with “Multiculturalism” is that it is not about tolerance in the least. It is “Cultural Socialism”. It applies the same class struggle mentality to cultures. The “bourgeois culture” is that of the “White Christian” and it must be brought down so that it has no more influence than all other cultures. The cultural playing field must be leveled by bringing down the giant which must be the source the perceived “cultural repression”. This is obviously asinine. What the Left (which has so thoroughly confused itself with decades of revisionist historical propaganda that it honestly doesn’t know which way is up anymore) keeps misunderstanding is that it the system it is fighting is the very system that has made this free civilization possible. Tolerance is a Christian virtue. It is the struggle of Christian people with their governments, other religions, their own human and societal demons and failures (slavery comes to mind, and each other that has been the crucible in which we formed the modern understanding of human dignity and rights which is now used to attack Christians. It is like someone standing on top of a house and remarking on the wonderful view while calling for the removal of the foundation because it has nothing to do with the roof. Are people so weak minded and pathetic that if they even read the 10 Commandments, glimpse a crucifix, or see a “Merry Christmas” display at City Hall they suddenly become Christian Zombies? C’mon, you’re not fooling anyone with these crocodile tears of “alienation”. Christian culture is unmistakably the most tolerant and accommodating the long and tortured history of mankind. As for these hardened atheists who are calling for “under God” to be removed from the pledge because it allegedly “indoctrinates” children with religion...every single one of them grew up saying this pledge everyday of their school lives and they turned out just...”fine”.
“Tyranny of the Minority” is still tyranny.
Posted by: Stefan | Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Alexandra,
I do not call you a liar. I apologized if you took any thing I said as calling you a liar. I probably am arrogant. I am not a good debater. However, I do not call you a liar.
In you post, I found three distinct themes, which I think would have been better separated into three distinct posts. Since you have already blogged extensively on Islam, Islamofascism and the fight with terrorism, and done it well, you don't need to go there. I understand your feelings and recognize that your knowledge on that topic.
Regarding the war on Christmas, I have extremely strong feelings about this because of relatives and friends that are in situations now, or in the past that have been threatened or killed because they were/are Christians. I won't go there again. I have a friend that was killed because she was Christian. This is Christian persecution to me, not that the ACLU wants to keep overtly religious displays off government property, or that some people or organizations say Happy Holidays rather then Merry Christmas.
Last, regarding the third topic - immigrants who don't want to learn English. There are a lot of arguments for immigrants to learn to speak English, and these arguments can be made as a lure to help immigrants become contributing members of American society. I think this is really your point. Immigrant should learn English, so they can become better contributors to American Society. What I object to, is saying they must learn English, and if they don’t they are insulting American culture and should leave.
I am not calling you a liar here. I drew the inference of “But I guess since they dare to speak their own language, they are America haters and should leave” from the third paragraph…
“I do however love and respect America and believe that if you do not like your host country, you should leave, instead of constantly knocking that country, complaining about the fact that no one is speaking YOUR language, and openly despising it's culture which you degrade at every turn, and wish it to basically disappear replaced by your own.”
In your response to me you say that I have misinterpreted that statement. I guess I don’t know how to interpret that statement then. I understand you love America. I understand your dislike of people who you see as insulting America. I see your dislike of people who don’t want to learn English. I think there is a distinct difference between people who don’t learn English, and those that despise the culture. I find it pretty rare in America that there are many immigrants who do hate American Culture. Even those that don’t learn English, in my experience do a pretty good job of trying to become contributors to American culture.
I do not see a link between immigrants who hate America and Islamofascists. I think the two groups are different. There is an overlap, but I think the percent of Muslim immigrants who hate America is a very very small percentage of the total immigrant population. While I do not have facts and numbers to back this up, this is what I think.
Do I fear Muslim extremists in this country, you bet. But I believe anyone who is in this country to do real damage – like the 911 terrorists, ARE going to learn English so the blend in better, they are going to try to fit in so they are less noticed. These are the people I fear, not the immigrants who don't learn English, even if they are Muslim.
Posted by: Jim R | Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 05:25 PM
NxN, that is one outstanding post.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Phoenician
Quick PS:
I think you may have failed to understand Umberto Eco's fundamental intent with his list. He expressly states that the 14 features in his list "...cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it." So, if Islam would only meet one out of the 14 features, Eco would have been satisfied. No need to cherry pick around #7 & #10.
Nevertheless, #7 will do nicely in as much as it matches Islam's declared goal of world domination - without intimate knowledge of Islam, it's unfortunately far too easy for us in the West to dismiss the seemingly delusional rantings of an Ahmadienjad, but thanks to Guest, they take on a whole new meaning as we realize that his goals are based on sound teachings enshrined at the very core of the Qu'ran. #7 says: "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country." As Antimedia shows, think bigger, replace 'country' with the religion of Islam, think globally. Move over Herr Hitler...
Whilst Guest has actually dealt with the issue in the real world and outside your quiz-show, Antimedia quite rightly points out, that, if you insist on Eco's definition, you can actually marry ALL of Eco's listed features with those of traditional Islam. I particularly love #9: For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. The very definition of 'Jihad', as Guest explains:
And #11 seals it: "...the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." Can you think of a better description for your typical Mujahid hero fighting a Jihad?
Anyway, Eco's closing words make yet the strongest case why fascism in 'Islamofascism' is in fact a perfect match according to his list:
Well, thanks to Ahmadinejad, life has unfortunately just become that 'simple' again. But let's hear Eco to the end and take heed:
Thanks Phoenician, that was fun albeit rather not so 'quick', and I hope you will not forget to explain your reasoning for why the distinction between fascism and totalitarianism in relation to Islam is both valid and necessary.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 08:39 PM
Phoenician
I don't understand why you are objecting to the use of 'fascism' in the term 'Islamofascism'?
I can't quite make out as to whether you are (a) 'protecting' fascism from Islam (i.e. Islam is worse then fascism, more far reaching and, inter alia, better "organized") or (b) 'protecting' Islam from fascism (i.e. fascism is far worse than Islam; Islam may display signs of totalitarianism but not fascism in the sense that fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach, whereas totalitarianism relates to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state)? I think you need to clarify your understanding of both terms in relation to Islam so that we can better comprehend your distinction and the importance thereof.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 06:42 PM
Phoenician writes
Oh, well, you've handcuffed me then. I'm totally bereft of cogent arguments. :-)The Atheist's prayer - it's the one that is silent and won't allow anyone else to speak either. You know - you can't say that - it's religious. The Atheist's prayer is that God will never again be mentioned in public discourse because — you know — um, God doesn't exist. So, remove the motto from our money, tear down the monuments to the Ten Commandments, ban prayer of any kind from all public functions, ban any form of religious expression in the public square....you know — the Atheist's prayer - There is no God. Let them all be a like me, and let God never again be discussed except in private. The State is good and all powerful. Suckle at the State's breast, for the State will provide for you and care for you and take care of all your needs.
Based on the link you provided earlier, I'd be hard pressed to argue that the al Qaeda-bin-laden-zawahiri form of Islam isn't facist in nature.
1) The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Islam? Check.
2) Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Islam? Uh, definitely check!
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Islam? Well, yeah.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. Islam? Um, punishable by beheading - check.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Islam? Uh, even Shiites are in big trouble after the kufers are taken care of. Check.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. Islam? Well, the liberal certainly seem to think so. Check.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. Islam? Well, OK, it's not a country, it's a religion, but same principle. Check.
Need I go on?
Posted by: antimedia | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 05:43 PM
How is this compatible with governmental schools prohibiting a schoolgirl from choosing to sing a Christian song at a school talent show?
I have no idea, and I wouldn't defend that decision.
What we have seen instead is a situation where an entire majority culture is being supressed and denied public expression because of groups that, by any definition, are "non-mainstream"
Oh, puh-lease. Take it from an outsider, what I've seen of American life (which is little, I have to admit) is far more in-your-face Christian than in the two other Western countries I have some experience with. You're not victims.
Regarding your second piece: Eco is talking nonsense. Look at his point 3; obviously, he has failed to grasp German National Socialist aims and actions, which conclusively rebut his points 3 AND 2, because they never had to do with mere "action for
action's sake", nor with "irrationality", but were, rather, highly organized, well-planned, and logical steps aimed at achieving the National Socialist goals.
Oh, for the love of God. The Beer Hall Putsch was "well-planned"?
The Nazis, at least prior to getting complete power, were complete opportunists.
Then, for Pete's sake, call it "Islamic totalitarianism" (which seems quite accurate) rather than "Islamofascism" - I realise that it wasn't you throwing around that fnord, but understand that it was to that I was responding.
Now, it is utterly immaterial whether you choose to call that particular totalitarian vision "fascist" or not.
Incorrect. Fascism is a subset of totalitarianism; but the two are not the same. Islamic fundamentalism may be totalitarian, but it is not fascist.
Secular != atheist. Secular means the government makes its decisions based upon laws, not religion. It does not mean that religion has no place in government nor does it mean that atheism is the only religion government can support.
Show me where the government insists that the Atheists Prayer be said in schools...
(And, no, evolution doesn't count 8-) )
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 04:49 PM
Marc,
Antimedia is referring to a discussion we had here, where you'll find all the usual suspects discussing 'Is The Holy Trinity A Doctrine Of Monotheism'
I think it is one of the most incredible discussions on this blog, and well worth the read. It went on for more than ten days I think.
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 02:16 PM
Antimedia,
Thanks for the confirmation and the insight on the Jefferson story.
May I ask a very respectful question, as just an average Jewish schlepper? How can one be a Christian but not believe in the divinity of Jesus? Perhaps you could supply a link to the discussion? Thanks.
Posted by: MarcH | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 01:20 PM
MarcH, Jefferson not only did that, he put them in a book. He argued that much of religion was man-made and that if Christians would simply follow Jesus things would be quite different in the churches. He did not believe that Jesus was God (we had a great discussion on that here not too long ago), but that doesn't make him a "deist" or anything other than a Christian. In fact, Jefferson's beliefs were startlingly similar to my own, and I certainly consider myself a Christian.
Posted by: antimedia | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Phoenician writes
Secular != atheist. Secular means the government makes its decisions based upon laws, not religion. It does not mean that religion has no place in government nor does it mean that atheism is the only religion government can support.Alexandra was exactly right. The Founding Fathers sought to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. The ACLU and other communist groups (yes, read the founding articles of the ACLU - they are communists) want to remove religion from the public square and replace it with atheism - which is a religion as well. Why should their religion be given a special place of honor in America when the entire purpose of founding this country was to keep government out of religion?
Read the First Amendment some time. I mean actually read it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
"Make no law" does not equal "never celebrate our heritage" or "eliminate every vestige of religion in government" or "refuse to allow anyone to pray at a public event". It means "make no law". There is no prohibition in the First Amendment against putting creches on city property. There is no prohibition in the First Amendment against praying at a public gathering. There is no prohibition against having "In God We Trust" on our money. There is no prohibition against displaying the Ten Commandments on the courtroom wall. (Yes, I know what the Supreme Court has ruled. They're wrong.)
It is disingenuous in the extreme to insist on eradicating all vestiges of religion from life while insisting that the government must be atheistic. (And no, I'm not accusing Phoenician of saying that, but it's a very slippery slope from "secular" to atheist.
Posted by: antimedia | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:37 PM
I recall reading that Jefferson would often spend his spare hours scanning the Bible for statements which he could identify as directly attributed to Jesus. He would then copy these statements into his personal notebook. Not quite your typical 21st century, latte sipping ACLU member.
Posted by: MarcH | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:31 PM
John,
You say:
Ah more insults. I am now an "ignorant liar" no less...why am I not surprised coming from the "atheist left", and yes I have had a look at your site.
And now dealing with the above:
1) While this is perhaps to some extent true of Jefferson, it is absolute rubbish with regard to both George Washington and James Madison (remember him, the minor guy who wrote the Constitution?), pure canard. Both were devout, orthodox Episcopalians.
Their letters, speeches, actions, practice, and even the wording of the Constitution make clear that their aim was not to prevent the intrusion of religion into public life, but to PREVENT THE INTRUSION OF GOVERNMENT INTO RELIGION in any way, shape or form- but above all, into the abridging of the "free exercise thereof."
2) Your forget that the founders were all CHRISTIANS, and that- again, going back and looking at historical context, as good historical method requires- whenever they use the word "religion", they were a) clearly referring to Christianity and a Judeo-Christian heritage (yes, there were Jews, and Washington respected them highly, but they were statistically insignificant); b) when you cite "fiat lux" as the basic tenet of the Founding Fathers, please note that this is a Judeo-Christian tenet, from the Jewish Bible!
The Founding Fathers were passionately supportive of religion, and encouraged religiosity in the Republic, so don’t call ME the liar. They were living in a time when Christianity was an integral part of public life, something that permeated the entire fabric of American society to such an extent that it was taken for granted until the 20th century. When Washington, Madison and Jefferson write of "religion," they were referring to the beliefs of the 99.9% of their populace that was Christian.
If you were to check US law up until the late twentieth century, you would see that religion- Christianity-was also an integral factor in law. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.(1892) cited 87 historical precedents in its conclusion that, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
In contrast, that much-loved ACLU penumbra, "the separation of church and state", exists neither in word nor intent in the U.S. constitution or pre-20th century case law- on the contrary. In 1811 the U.S. Supreme Court, in People vs.Ruggles, declared against a man for profaning Jesus Christ and the Bible, ruling that "whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government."
Your position collapses the moment one takes a look at empirical historical evidence from the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly actual law and governmental practice. Washington, Jefferson, et al, the supposed ACLU Separationists, for some odd reason never objected to the recitation of Christian prayers in school or at official governmental functions, the use of the New England Primer in schools, the use of public lands and buildings for religious events etc.
You fail to understand that the broad-minded tolerance of the Fathers went hand-in-hand with their desire to actively encourage all religious faith: the proof is in the pudding. Again, I challenge you to actually examine American laws and governmental practices of the 18th and 19th centuries- you're in for a real shock. Historical reality makes Jerry Falwell and any other bogeyman of the left look like a real ACLU member by contrast...
Again, the proper relationship of government and religion as conceived of by the founders was to further the cause of religion (I am afraid that they did not look too kindly on Atheism, John ) and enable its free and untrammeled expression. Yes, these men would have disapproved of "moments of silence" in schools- but only because these were men who approved of and allowed actual Christian prayer- sometimes delivered by Christian ministers and priests, no less- in schools, government assemblies etc.
To pretend otherwise is false; it is an Orwellian revision of history, and absolutely no foundation for your scurrilous accusation. But then, as I have written before, the argument of the left has been reduced to one word namely “liar”, in absence of any substantial supporting arguments.
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 07:43 AM
Dear Phoenician,
Regarding your first post: Actually, you are the one who seems to be confusing culture and government. The First Amendment states, quite clearly, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How is this compatible with governmental schools prohibiting a schoolgirl from choosing to sing a Christian song at a school talent show? That sure looks like a prohibition of "the free exercise thereof."
Your quotation from the Treaty of Tripoli is quite disingenuous. It all boils down to a question of definition: the Treaty was stating merely that there is no official religion established by the US government, according to the lights of that time (why is it that liberals are always anxious to speak about changing meanings and historical conditions when it comes to "penumbras" and "living, breathing constitutions," but are deliberately historically anachronistic when it comes to any other document?). At that time, when those words were written, actual Christian prayers were held in the US Congress, every governmental body in the US, local or national, sponsored, promoted, and held Christmas events that were religious in nature, Christian holidays were national ones (which they remain), laws were on the books in every state respecting the sanctity of the Christian sabbath, and so forth. All that Alexandra is advocating, is that the US remain the same type of "non-Christian country" that it was in the 18th century.
What we have seen instead is a situation where an entire majority culture is being supressed and denied public expression because of groups that, by any definition, are "non-mainstream" (to borrow Teddy Kennedy's phrase). Does anyone doubt that there would be a 2/3 majority of voters who would keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why else would the Left resort to the courts to try to destroy the moral foundations of American culture (e.g. the Ten Commandment displays on various courthouses around the country) if not because they could never, ever win at the ballot box? And when a court decides that a town that is 95% Christian wants to put up a creche, that it may not do so; or that the only student groups denied permission to organize and use school premises for after-school meetings are Christian ones, how is it possible to pretend that this is NOT a prohibition of "the free
exercise thereof"?
If I were trying to make your argument, I should certainly not turn to history, because you will find there, empirically, that standard governmental practice until the mid-twentieth century(viewed as neutral because it was not promoting any one version of Christianity, nor was it legally making Christianity the established religion of the country in the way that, say, Evangelical Lutheranism is the official and established religion of all Scandinavian countries today) would cause any ACLU member to faint in horror today. The historical record demonstrates that this "non-Christian" country was thoroughly Christian to its core in all its practices- including its governmental and legislative ones.
Regarding your second piece: Eco is talking nonsense. Look at his point 3; obviously, he has failed to grasp German National Socialist aims and actions, which conclusively rebut his points 3 AND 2, because they never had to do with mere "action for
action's sake", nor with "irrationality", but were, rather, highly organized, well-planned, and logical steps aimed at achieving the National Socialist goals. My suggestion would be that you (and Eco) go read a bit of Martin Gilbert before you posit such bizarre theories and definitions.
On to Islamic Salafism (I should warn you that I am a professor of Islamic history before I continue): I shan't quibble with you over whether it is "fascist" or not, let alone if it is in a way with accords with the definition of one Italian writer, because that is completely irrelevant; what is important, indubitable, and irrefragable, is that political Islam is totalitarian. In the American political system, sovereignty resides, officially, with "the people." In the British system, and those modelled after it (e.g. Israel's), sovereignty resides in the Parliament or other representative legislative body. According to political Islam, sovereignty resides with God alone. Fortunately, Allah has made his will completely clear to humankind, through the Qur'an and the Sunna. The legal expression of the Qur'an and the Sunna is the Shari'a, the canon law of Islam. Moreover, the Qur'an has ordered the Muslims to extend God's rule to all of humanity, at least as interpreted by classical Islam: Sura 21, verse 108: "We have not sent you but as a mercy to all mankind." Again, the argument is not whether or not some Infidel such as you or I could possibly find a different meaning to this verse, but, rather, how the Islamic tradition, over the course of 1400 years, has interpreted and does interpret it.
To choose only the 5 arkan ["pillars"] is disingenuous, and I shall explain why. Islam is a system of law, a way of living and ordering society. As such, the Islamic law books were always incredibly concerned with enforcement. Now, enforcement had two parts: "al-Amr bi'l-ma'ruf wa'l-nahy 'an al-munkar" ("Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Abominable," which means the duty of enforcing God's rule, by force if necessary inside the Dar al-Islam {"Abode of Islam," that part of the world already under God's rulership- Islam); and the Jihad, the duty of spreading God's rule, by force if necessary, so that it liberates all humanity from the tyranny of the rule of human "whim", as opposed to divine rule, and eventually places all mankind under the beneficent purview of islamic law. This, by the way, is what is meant by "peace": the messianic, utopian vision of all of humanity, living in harmony with God and their fellows under the Pax Islamica. Must I really explain to you that Islamic Law is not exactly compatible with, say, the rights enumerated in the amendments of the U.S. COnstitution? I shall be happy to explain if you really fail to grasp that point.
Now, it is utterly immaterial whether you choose to call that particular totalitarian vision "fascist" or not. If you dislike the term "Islamo-fascism", by all means choose another. The real reason that term was chosen was that people couldn't very well state that they were fighting the "classical Islamic vision" of the world's ordering, now could they? Call it Salafism instead, by all means, if you will, or Hanbalism, or Mutatawwi'sm, if you insist upon an unquestioning adoption of Eco's rather misbegotten set of requirements. The nature of the beast remains the same. The only reason why the West has adopted the term "Islamo-fascism" is that they are trying to pretend that there is no connection between the classical Islamic tradition and the rather intractable problem of the political side of Islam.
Posted by: Guest | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:22 AM
Alexandra, these are the 14 signs of fascism. These are the five pillars of Islam.
Please demonstrate that "Islamofascist" is a category that has any meaning. Be sure to contrast the hajj with point 7 from Eco's piece, and the zakah with point 10.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:06 AM
The Founding Fathers were deists. If you want to relate that to Christianity, then it boils down to one line.
"God said let there be light, and there was." The end.
To suggest they promoted a religious society is either due to ignorance or it just happens to be a lie you enjoy believing.
Posted by: John | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Jim R,
You are arrogant and rude, full of your own self importance. You call me names and insult my writing, all the while being delusional about how you see yourself:
Yeah right.
This is utterly fabricated. You could not begin to show me where I have even implied or hinted at the above, which would warrant your ludicrous retort. You willfully distort to support your rantings and vitriolic accusations, and disqualify yourself from any intelligent discussion.
And where did you hear that Jim? Not from me, and again you are calling me names supported by utterly fabricated assertions.
I find your arguments at best confusing and at worst prejudicial and misleading, especially in light of the fact that you have chosen to misrepresent everything I have said in my post. You say you do not understand what I have written, I think you are absolutely right, you DON”T.
You tell me you don’t see the link between immigrants who hate America and Isalmofascists? Yeah right, keep telling yourself the link doesn't exist in America, therefore you must be politically correct when they call you names, burn your flag, and insist they only obide by the Law of Shari'a which happens to include Jihad on the infidels.
You fabricate your own causal chain then you proceed to tell ME it doesn’t equate. Huh?But then I have written enough about this subject on this blog not to take your obtuse comment seriously.
In the Part I thread you accused me of writing "anti-immigrant garbage" amongst other things, yet I had answered you without insulting you. You have now upped the ante by calling me a "racist" and insulting me some more on several different levels. I don’t appreciate it.
I am now anti-multilingual as well? I have not said it or implied it ANYWHERE, and you have no proof to the contrary. As for the rest of the insult, it does not deserve an answer.
Regarding Kenny's quote, don't flatter yourself, this post is only in part a further answer to your comment on the previous thread, therefore the links are not there only to challenge YOUR debating acumen.
I can however see that his comment above went way over your head, as of course you have clearly stated that you fail to understand the link or its relevance to this discussion:
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 08:14 PM
We live in a Christian country.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, 4 Nov 1796.
Why should an American be insulted in his own country?
Requiring that the Government of the United States of America remains secular is no more an insult to a Christian American (the majority) than requiring that a referee treat players of all races equally is an insult to whites (the majority of referees).
The government is not there to reflect your parochialism or to make you feel comfortable by swaddling you in your own ignorance. It is there to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty".
You do not form a more perfect union by relegating minorities to a second class status. You do not insure domestic tranquility by relegating minorities to a second class status. You do not promote the general welfare by relegating minorities to a second class status. You do not secure the blessings of liberty by relegating minorities to a second class status.
You do so by setting the government up as a neutral body, accessible both to the dominant and minority cultures, and where possible consciously maintaining that neutrality even in the face of the expectations of the dominant culture.
You are confusing the culture of America with the Government of the USA. You have stated that the multicultural world-view is that America is a congeries of “cultures” defined by race, and that said “cultures” are entitled to proportional representation in key institutions, if not some kind of quasi-sovereignty. You are wrong. The multi-cultural world-view is that different cultures and subcultures exist within a society and, to the best reasonable extent, the secular institutions of that society should be neutral in dealing with them.
And the simple fact is that most people screaming about people "knocking the culture" are doing so to avoid dealing with very real criticisms that can be bought up about the US - anomie covered by shrill patriotism or religiousity, culturally sanctioned violence, a shallowing of intellectual engagement, ignorance of other perspectives displayed not as xenophobia so much as apathy.
Other countries have had to deal with people criticising their cultures - "Tall Poppy Syndrome" springs to mind here, not to mention your comments about Islamic societies. So why exactly should the US be immune just because you think you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream "Love it or leave it!"?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 07:55 PM
Jim,
But I guess since they dare to speak their own language, they are America haters and should leave.
I think the only objection would be if they insisted on speaking their own language exclusively and, a forteriori, if they started demanding that all traffic signs be posted in their native Cambodian (for example), and that election ballots had to printed in their native Cambodian, and that court-appointed and taxpayer-funded Cambodian translators had to be kept on staff at all emergency rooms in case a Cambodian were to show up...in other words, if they announced that not only were they not going to bother to learn English but that it was the responsibility of the rest of America to go to whatever expense was necessary to cater to their linguistic indolence. (By the way, I can throw that particular stone since I have at various times learned nine different languages and currently converse with my Kazakh friends primarily in Russian. I have many bad qualities but linguistic indolence is not one of them.)
But as far as maintaining their own language as well -- I at least certainly have no objection to it, considering the lengths I'm going to in order to make sure my Anya and Kinya don't forget their Russian the way most adopted-from-Kazakhstan children do. I just expect them to learn English as well.
One of the most offensive things about stubborn refusal to learn English is the degree to which such non-assimilators often expect their linguistic laziness to be subsidized in part by the taxes paid by other recent immigrants who have learned English and partly as a result are now doing well enough to pay hefty chunks of taxes -- which would, of course, include the vast majority of Cambodians, Cambodians generally speaking being a notably hard-working and deft bunch of assimilators and a thoroughgoing asset to the American nation.
By the way, when you get into the La Raza types who refuse to learn English precisely as a way to express their contempt for the legitimacy of American government, and who expressly intend to seize power, then you have something quite different from mere refusal to assimilate. Again, I believe that there are special-interest educational groups who, in order to maximize the number of children in these groups' programs and thus maximize their own funding, deliberately try to keep immigrant children from learning English -- over the objections of the children's own parents, who more often then not know perfectly well that the sooner their kids get out of the linguistic ghetto the better their chances for success in America will be. But I don't think either of those groups are what anybody's talking about here.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 06:47 PM
And so it has been spoken and so it shall be. Assimulate or re-immigrate. I am in agreement.
Posted by: Theway2k | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 06:14 PM
This is a very convoluted set of arguments.
I must say I don’t get the leap from America love it or leave it, to the war on Christmas, to We will all live under Sharia law. I have made my point about the war on Christmas here before. I find this to be an utterly and disgustingly fake issue. If you want to see a war on Christianity, go to Nepal where you WILL be arrested and exported for being Christian, or Sudan, where you may get killed for being Christian. The ACLU is not stopping any individual from saying Merry Christmas to their Jewish friends, or any one else for that matter. Get over it and stop the persecution complex. When you are prevented from going to church by the government, then come tell me you are being persecuted.
“The Liberals in America have brought every argument of this nature down to accusations of racial prejudice, and ad hominem attacks of being against other cultures if you dare declare that America has a culture of it's own.”
America does have a culture of it’s own. It is made up of many different cultures. I recall the term melting pot from my school days. I find this multicultural phenomena every time I go to someone else’s house and see how they celebrate different things. I see this every time I drive through a city and see China Town, Little Italy, Greek Town, Mexican neighborhoods and Polish neighbor hoods. But I guess since they dare to speak their own language, they are America haters and should leave. I see this every time I go through the Russian neighborhoods celebrating Orthodox Christmas in January. Do they hate America because they don’t celebrate it the American way? To ignore the multicultural aspect of American culture is to deny America’s great heritage and history.
“Until the West begins to pay attention to what Muslims are saying in Arabic, Persian and Urdu, rather than what their apologists sprout forth for foreign consumption, the word insulting will not take on the new meaning and level of hatred it should do.”
I am not sure I understand why you are mentioning this here and what this has to do with being politically incorrect. Is this a blog entry about being politically incorrect, or a Hey America, wake up, Muslims hate us blog entry? I do not get how that this is tied to the anti-immigrant sentiment, or the war on Christmas. Frankly, I think the west is paying attention to what Muslims are saying.
“The Liberals in America have brought every argument of this nature down to accusations of racial prejudice.” I know when I hear “If you can’t speak English, then you must hate America so go back home” yup, this is racist.
“We all have to speak Arabic, and live by the Law of Shari'a just so as not to upset our Islamic friends who think our infidel culture is inferior and insult us every day.”
The leap of illogic that this statement made is just plain ludicris. Come on Alexandra, you are better then this It is completely against every single other argument of multi-culturalism, and against every single argument of protecting the religious freedom that Liberals like me want to protect. I don’t want to live under a fundamentalist Christian law any more then I want to live under Sharia law. No one – No one is ever saying you have to learn their language and assimilate into their culture. How ever you are saying they must assimilate into yours.
“I am politically incorrect and proud of it, and will carry on saying Merry Christmas until my dying breath, which hopefully will not be at the hands of a Muslim aggressor”
uh, OK.
I see a big difference between Muslim aggression, and whether immigrants assimilate into “our” culture. No one I know, nor have I read anything anywhere that says Iran getting the bomb, or any other Muslim aggression is a good thing. Let’s not mix up issues. This is just typical conservative twisted rhetoric: Because Walmart decides to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, I am persecuted and therefore Iran will become a nuclear power.
Fight Muslim fascism, fight Iran going nuclear, but come on, don’t tie your hatred of Liberals, your dislike of multi-culturalism and your persecution complex from the (fake) War on Christmas to Iran getting the bomb. They just don’t equate.
Last: To your response: "I am opposing multi-lingual upbringing?" Maybe I am misinterpreting your comments that I read as anti-multicultural with anti-multilingual. This is one of the problems I have with your post. You have so many different statements in here, it is hard to figure out your point.
Jim R
Ps. Since you quote our mutual redneck friend, I will just say if you pit me against Kenny, I give up. He is a much better debater then I am. :)
Posted by: Jim R | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 04:47 PM
As an immigrant without prior knowledge of English, I agree with Alexandra's post. Hell, I am not even a westerner! And definitely not a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic.
What passes for multiculturalism is actually cultural relativism spiked with a certain selfishness. "Let others do as they want (so I can do what I want)" and its corollary "I won't criticize if you won't." Without a moral reference point, one that requires a right and a wrong, multiculturalism is a sham.
Posted by: Huan | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 03:10 PM
The intelligence boosting aspects of learning multiple languages is a function of the neural networks established, not of anything those languages have to say. Americans know every thought can be translated into English and we put our time to more productive uses. Uses that carried us head and shoulders above anything that had every been achieved in world history. Recall that people like Joseph got their way long ago, and got their hands on America's educational system. You have to ask yourself if we are better off for it. Spend a few hours watching television and you will have your answer. Watch "Street Smarts" and listen to the answers given to general knowledge questions. And you decide who was right.
Posted by: Darrell | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Look Joseph, I don't know why both you and Jim R keep reading into my posts that I am opposing multi-lingual upbringing? I couldn't affirm more strongly the many benefits, proven in countless studies, which are stemming from a bi-or tri-lingual education. It's the European way of old and only a source of joy and pride both for the parents and their children.
In fact, it is exactly my point. I would like to see those immigrants, who are currently refusing to make the effort for whatever reason, to studiously embrace the English language and reap precisely those many rewards mastering a second language will provide.
But surely you are not suggesting that the politically correct apologists, together with those factions of our society, who are pushing to convert and enshrine the refusal to learn English into some kind of newly found constitutional right and freedom of choice, that their resistance is actually governed by a benevolent desire to encourage a bi-lingual culture for the benefit of the rest of us? Because if that were so, which it obviously is not, then we'd all be happy and had no problem whatsoever, as such perception would of course have been born out of the long acquired ability to fluently write, read and effortlessly converse in English just as well as in their own mother tongue. That's how it should be.
This exchange helps to highlight the very core of the many ills misguided political correctness spawns: an incessant need to admonish ourselves in every conceivable variation precisely because of our xenophobic history and our apprehension and ultimately mistrusting that we may revert back to same.
Instead, we should be proud, not complacent, of progress made and in confidence debate trial-and-error schemes designed to encourage all immigrants to adopt our language and culture. And I say with confidence, because without it, there is no luster, no appeal to create the desire to assimilate.
And who knows, in time such healthy multi-culturism, soundly rooted in American values and principles may yield a multi-lingual appreciation across the nation, inspiring our young, as it in large parts already does, to learn a second language. But voluntarily, not prescribed by the state.
I don't propose to deal with the following presumptious comments:
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Merry Christmas everyday.
Americans have developed under one language into the most brilliant country the world has ever known. What deterioration, if any, that has occurred is recent, a result I believe directly linked to the controlling of our classrooms by liberals turned out by those liberal bastions of high education you mention. One language is cohesion, a uniter of peoples so very different, who filled this country.
You come here, you be an American, or go away. There I said it. I'm going to Hell.
What we need, after reading your post, is one of you in each classroom.
I had teachers like you growing up and I'm thankful for that. I call you and so many like you a lover of a person, not a hater of races. One who encourages people to come here but first looks to the safety and well-being of your fellow citizen. I call you normal to think you can talk in the language of The Golden Rule and fear no censure.
Patriotism has nothing at all to do with refusing to teach a second language in school, it has been more the struggle to teach English adequately and more the inability or refusal of citizens to pay for secondary language instruction. Many school districts have had to cut sports and music programs, not from an overabundance of patriotism but a lack of funds.
It is the immediate accusation of racism or bigotry by the liberal, for failing to do everything they think important, which constantly follows. Patriotism is not a dirty word, not a connotation of racism as they think it but a love of country, the best that a country has to give.
Come here legally, learn our language, follow our laws, be happy. That's it. Happy Easter.
Posted by: Paul of York | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 11:31 AM
The liberal left completely fails to comprehend the "E pluribus unum" motto.
I'll tell you a little secret about that motto of those genial 18th century deists and skeptics who set this country to sail. It was abandoned as our official motto under exactly the same noisy pressure from the Religous Right we see today. It was replaced with "In God We Trust." Not in Allah, not in YHVH, not in Brahma, not in anyone else but the God of Christianity. Period.
If you would really look at the effect that being multilingual has had upon your outlook and your intelligence you would understand why someone like me deplores the chronic American xenophobia that passes in many quarters for "patriotism" and for "Christian piety".
In the interests of that "patriotism" local American public school boards, country-wide, have largely refused to seriously implement the teaching of any second language, as early as possible, to any child.
As someone born and raised in the "American heartland", I have seen this "patriotism" up close and personal for my entire life in a way in which you will never see in a cosmopolitan place such as New York City, and I know this stuff about school boards to be true.
My fellow Americans have made generations of American children stupider than they need have been in consequence. The intellegence advantage shared by the multilingual is a known and proven fact. Native-born Americans, by and large, do not have it. And the reason they do not have it is simply American xenophobia. Period.
American culture is a great thing. It is a culture of liberty. But it is also a culture of licence. It is a culture of fairness under law. But it is also a culture of tar-and-featherings, blood feuds between families, lynch mobs, and collusions by entire towns and entire states to condone murder--particularly if your skin was the wrong color.
This happened in this country within my living memory, and it was common in this country for the better part of my parent's lives. Period.
I am perfectly willing to have you say Merry Christmas whenever you choose to whomever you choose. Even in July if it suits you. But I think before you completely judge American culture, without fully understanding it, you should really read very carefully the best American book ever written: Huckleberry Finn.
It's all there. Warts and all.
I know American history and culture from both the inside and from wide reading and I can tell you for free that we started out with a mature and distinct culture--the culture of Jefferson, Madison, Melville, and Thoreau--embodied in E Pluribus Unum. And we immolated that culture for the sake of sustaining "manifest destiny", slavery and "states rights".
We then spent forty years aping European styles and manners until sufficient numbers of Europe's poor got to these shores and basically rebuilt our culture from the ground up. They did this despite "patriotic" American xenophobia.
Look up sometime the history of Notre Dame University and its confrontation with the Ku Klux Klan in South Bend, Indiana. Or read about the struggles in the tenements of Cherry and Hester Streets on the Lower East Side. Or ask anyone over the age of fifty who is Jewish what the words "counrty club" really mean.
Take pride in being an American. I do. But be sure you're not taking pride in the things which no American should be proud of, or should ever forget.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 08:56 AM