Thursday, November 06, 2008

What we can learn from the UK...

Preventing National SuicideMelanie Phillips writes a great piece today titled Preventing National Suicide - Tips on conserving and protecting from across the pond. Here is the closing half:
... Obama believes America has to expiate its sins: both its original, Founding sins of slavery and racism, and its latter-day sins against the world of Islam. Britain likes the sound of that. It wants America to be humbled. Nations, it thinks, cause wars. Arrogant, hubristic, imperial nations like Bush’s America cause big and horrible wars. By contrast transnational institutions — such as the sacred UN or EU — promote civilised “engagement” with the enemy to discuss grievances and reach compromises. So it is thrilled that Obama will get out of Iraq and talk to Iran and may even force wretched Israel (which Britain blames for Everything Bad in the World) to give away the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem to the Arabs.

The fact that such actions would leave Iraq in chaos, empower Iran still further, destroy Israel’s security and imperil the free world doesn’t trouble it at all. And if Obama, under the responsibility of office, should change from an appeaser to a war leader in America’s national interest, then Britain’s new found love for America would revert once again into rage and disdain.

Of course. transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism. and all the rest of it do amount to a national suicide note. The reason Britain has embraced them is because, for the past several decades, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically hollowing out its values and its defences.

The result is a cultural vacuum which is steadily being filled by radical Islamism. Paralyzed by its “universal” value system of multiculturalism and minority rights, Britain is failing to assert its own civilisational principles against the cultural onslaught being mounted by Islamists. Accordingly, it is permitting the spread of Muslim enclaves governed by a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law — the steady creation of a “state within a state” — encouraging the development of sharia finance, and permitting Saudi money to fund British universities and other institutions.

Millions of Britons are appalled by the implosion of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves politically disenfranchized, because the Conservative party does not understand that British values are under attack. And Republicans should take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma facing them following their defeat.

The British Conservatives think that, to regain power, they have to show they have broken with cultural conservatism and go instead with the way society has changed — gay rights, green politics, anti-racism. What they have failed to grasp is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalised, cruel, oppressive and perverse society — one where burglars go scot-free but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the opprobrium that will follow.

The Conservatives don’t realize that by embracing such “change” they are endorsing a kind of enslavement. They don’t realize that the first duty of a conservative is to conserve that which is precious and protect it against attack. The result is that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and yet more still think the Conservative party is just a bunch of opportunists who don’t have any principles. Why vote for the progressive wannabes, after all, when you can have the real thing?

The challenge for conservatives on both sides of the pond is to find a way of conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and defend them against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from without — but to do so in a way that is generous and big-hearted rather than narrow and sectarian, and embraces rather than repels.
Very well-done, I think. It won't be easy, as anything conservative is often painted as hateful and mean by the U.S. media. Is a humbled, apologetic United States really a good thing for the rest of the world? I don't think so, but I guess we'll see.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Melanie Phillips on Rowan Williams: Dhimmi - or just dim?

Dhimmi - or just dim?I'd say possibly both.

It's a must-read article from the woman who wrote Londonistan. She concludes:
... Dr Williams says he has been misunderstood. Tellingly, his website statement makes no defence at all of this devastating renunciation of the doctrine of equality before the law. This omission suggests that at least someone at Lambeth Palace understands what Dr Williams actually said only too well.

The lecture and radio interview were bad enough, heaven knows. But this statement on his website raises yet further concerns. How can the Archbishop of Canterbury put out such a seriously misleading and, in parts, demonstrably false statement? It moves this affair on from questions about judgment — which are serious enough — to questions about integrity. Either Dr Williams really does not understand what he himself said — in which case he is a fool; or he understands exactly what he said and is trying to pretend that he didn’t say it — in which case he is a knave.

Either way, he has done great harm to his church and is a danger to his country (although through this furore he has also, unwittingly and ironically, set back the agenda of Islamisation by stealth which had been making such headway; hence the very carefully modulated support for him by such Islamist strategists as the Muslim Council of Britain). He should stand down and the courageous and sharp Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali — a man whose life is now in danger for having spoken the truth about Islam in a Britain whose religious and cultural identity he actually defends, but about whom Dr Williams has said not one word in support — should take his place.

Now that really would be a statement in defence of Britain and western civilisation.
Read it all.

For more of what's going on in the Episcopal Church, check out Stand Firm.

Update: Bryan from HotAir provides this clip of Dr. Williams' comments from the AP:


Susan Easton adds this in her column titled Archbishop of Canterbury Gone Bonkers:
... For those who might not be up to speed on Sharia law, it is not like The Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. It is not just Holy Law; it is wholly Holy secular law too. It is the all-inclusive law as imposed by a theocratic state. It governs everything from banking to marriage. And it carries some pretty heavy penalties, from cutting off the hands of thieves to stoning women caught in adultery, even if the adultery stems from a gang rape. It also looks the other way when fathers, brothers, or uncles kill family females who dare to date outside of Islam. These are known as “honor killings.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury supports his partially pro-Sharia law position by citing the inherent inequity which ensues when Catholic adoption agencies discriminate against gay couples. Of course, there are no gay people in Iran according to Ahmadinejad so that isn’t the best illustration the Archbishop might have chosen to make his point. In fact, instances of sharia law being carried out within British Muslim communities have been reported. A young man who knifed someone was judged by a Sharia court and let out on the streets when his family compensated his victim financially. ...

Western Dhimmitude

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

'UN Watch exposes the monumental hypocrisies, terrible lies and moral inversions of the new and supposedly reformed UN Human Rights Council'...

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer confronts the feckless UN Human Rights Council with the truth on March 23, 2007:


Hat tips to LGF and HotAir.

I'm also with Melanie Phillips:
The UN’s Human Rights Council has long been a sick joke, an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. ...

... The UN’s first instinct in defence of human rights — suppress the truth in support of tyranny.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Jack Straw from... Londonistan?

Britain's Straw lifts veil on Muslim-veil debate - and ignites firestormMichelle links this op-ed from the Times of London:
... Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?


Why would any woman
living in a tolerant country
freely choose to wear
such a restrictive garment?


But a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as three or four are wearing the hijab to school — that is not a freely made choice. Girls under 16 should certainly not have to wear it to school. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls that are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to universities, they have little choice in who they marry, in many cases they are kept down by the threat of violence.

Jack Straw should be praised for lifting the veil on a tabooSo for women such as them it was absolutely right for Jack Straw to raise this issue. Nobody should feel threatened by his comments; after all, the debate about veils has been raging in the Islamic community for many years. To argue that non-Muslims have no right to discuss it merely reinforces the idea that Muslims are not part of a wider society. It also suggests, wrongly, that wearing the veil affects only Muslims. Non-Muslims have to deal with women wearing a veil, so why shouldn’t their feelings be taken into consideration? I would find it impossible to deal with any veiled woman because it goes so deeply against my own values and basic human instincts. How can you develop any kind of a social relationship with someone who has shut themselves away from the rest of the world?


How can you develop any kind
of a social relationship
with someone who has shut themselves
away from the rest of the world?


And if we can’t have a debate about the veil without a vocal minority of Muslims crying “Islamophobia”, how will we face other issues, such as domestic violence, forced marriages, sexual abuse and child abuse that are rife in the Muslim community?
Robert Spencer is at the helm for today's Vent:

Vent - Jack Straw and the veil

Praise Jack Straw, and read Melanie Phillips' Londonistan.

Update: Unfree Under Islam
Muslim women across the world are caught in a terrible predicament. They aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights. Some women have found a way out of this dilemma in the principle of separation of organized religion and state affairs. They fight an uphill battle to achieve and hold on to their basic rights.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

'The rational man seeks God, and the Godly man loves reason'... (Updated)

Is the Pope Hitler? (or Sam from Cheers?)(this is a serious topic, but I couldn't resist this photo... good to laugh too, eh?)

I haven't featured Mac Johnson in awhile, but his latest effort is strong:
... The point of the Pope’s speech, for those that bothered to read it, was that the Christian faith and the modern Western concept of reason are not in conflict with or threatened by one another. Indeed, Christianity, thoroughly Hellenized by its infancy in the Greek-speaking provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean, has been one of great foundations underlying the high accord given to reason, logic, and free will in the European world, the Pope argued.


[The Pope's point] was that the Christian faith
and the modern Western concept
of reason are not in conflict with
or threatened by one another


Those Western intellectuals who reject Christ and the Church in the name of reason thus undermine their own house. There would be no “Western” intellectuals had there been no Western church teaching that God was a rational force and capable of being known and understood through logical philosophy. In Europe, the church and reason have always been like brothers - often in conflict, but more often of the same mind and protective of one another. To separate them now would impoverish both and rob us of one of the world’s most successful collaborations.

Of course, the Pope, being both a priest and a former professor, took about 4,000 words to say that. He also decorated his points elaborately with historical examples and quotes, among which was an exchange between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian Noble, circa 1391 AD. In this discussion, they debate the relative merits of their respective religions, Christianity and Islam, against the backdrop of the Muslim siege of Constantinople - once the seat of Orthodox Christianity before its conquest and conversion to Islam by the sword. ...



... From London to Lahore, howls and threats have been directed at the Pope, as well as Christendom in general. But one of the strangest protests arose from a member of the Turkish ruling party, Salih Kapusuz, who compared the Pope to Hitler for his remarks.

Apparently, he meant this as an insult, but one never knows for sure quite how to take such a reference in a part of the world where anti-Semitism is served up like potatoes at every meal. For example, a government-owned Saudi newspaper reported the arrest of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960 under the headline “Arrest of Eichmann, who had the honor of killing six million Jews.”


one never knows for sure quite
how to take such a reference
in a part of the world where
anti-Semitism is served up
like potatoes at every meal


Kapusuz’s reference was made even more ridiculous by the claims in the Iranian state news agency that the Pope’s remarks show that he is not really a Christian, but is actually a ZIONIST! Yes, Pope Hitler II, Zionist. ...
The Religion of Violence and Outrage.

More of today's reactions:
Murchison: The Pope and the Nut Cases
Buchanan: Benedict XVI - On God and the Prophet
Caruba: What the Pope Actually Said
Prager: The Pope Didn't Apologize (audio)
Medved: The Pope's Big Mistake: Invoking Past Conflict

News links from Drudge:
Muslims Want Further Apology From Pope...
Pope denounces violence after nun's murder...
Angry Turk workers urge Pope's arrest during visit...
The unholy past of Muslim cleric demanding Pope's execution...

Update: Melanie Phillips - The jihad against the Pope...
... If we are ever to defeat the global jihad against free societies, it is vital to tell that truth — that it is the West that is under attack. It is in that context that the Pope’s remarks must be seen — defending Christianity and western civilisation from an onslaught that has not just snuffed out many innocent lives, but seeks to snuff out freedom and truth itself.
Worldistan?

Update #2: Michelle Malkin on "Cataclysmic times".

Labels: , , , , , ,