 |
  |
Posted on 02/20/2006 4:50:45 PM PST by rmlew
Here is a trascript of the actual article.
Secularist Stupidity
& Religious Wars
By Patrick J. Buchanan
2-9-6
"What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press."
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Mohammed to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
The storm first broke last September, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Mohammed, including a lampoon of the Prophet with a terrorist bomb as a turban. In the Islamic faith, any depiction of the face of Mohammed is forbidden.
The Danish paper knew this. It published the cartoons to protest "the rejection of modern, secular society" by Muslims. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation. And they succeeded.
The Middle East responded with a boycott of Danish foods and goods. But when, in the name of press solidarity, Le Soir and Le Monde in Paris, El Pais in Madrid and Die Welt in Berlin republished the cartoons on page one, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration by the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any Prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.
"Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots," said Serge Faubert, editor of Le Soir. "Just because the Quran bans images of Mohammed doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."
Faubert, however, is not a Danish soldier in the Shi'ite sector of Iraq. Innocents will pay the price of his heroism.
The U.S. State Department seemed to empathize with Muslim rage, stating that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is unacceptable." But, within hours, State had retreated to neutral ground: "While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view."
As of today the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burned, Danish embassies have been stormed, and Danes are fleeing the Middle East. Europeans are getting out of the West Bank, Gaza and Beirut, where mobs are attacking embassies and Christian churches.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow.
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck's editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United States called Mohammed a "terrorist"?
European governments are wringing their hands over the rage and violence unleashed, but they seem paralyzed. What is the matter? Why cannot they denounce press irresponsibility while defending press freedom? Even friends of the West like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have denounced these cartoons as insults to Islamic values and deeply damaging to Western interests.
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as "insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong." But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what."
What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press.
Nor are we all that different. Sen. Trent Lott was ousted as majority leader for a birthday-party compliment to 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was almost lynched for saying he considers New York a social pigsty. There were demands that Rocker undergo psychiatric counseling.
We have "speech codes" in colleges and "hate crimes" laws to protect minorities from abusive remarks. But newspapers that hail these codes throw a blanket of "artistic freedom" over scatological art that degrades religious symbols from putting a figure of Christ in a jar of urine to a "painting" of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung that hung in a Brooklyn museum.
What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.
Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire.
|
|
Can't believe it, but I'd like to hear his side. WND does publish Buchanan's articles.
I haven't read such an incoherent, illogical, inconsistent argument since I delved into the work of Noam Chomsky, the acclaimed linguist and academic fraud.
Buchanan-if he had any integrity or lucidity left-would have been ashamed to have his name printed on the front cover-in bolded letters above the title, no less-of such an unconvincing collection of tendentious, insipid thoughts.
The implicit suggestion that Hitler and Nazi Germany should have been allowed to trample over Poland, the politically expedient, abortive marriage of convenience with Marxist, anti-Semitic nutbar Lenora Fulani and the Independence Party, his adulatory statements about Choadsky...
If none of these actions convinced Buchananites to reassess their opinion of him, then I hope his disastrous appearance on Sean Hannity's nationally-syndicated radio program served as an epiphany.
The man sounded positively terrified.
His tremulous voice evoked images of hostages held by Islamist terror gangs in Iraq.
It was truly sickening.
I read Pat's work.
I regularly read TAC and have even submitted to it.
Care to enumerate which terrorists we're currently at war with?
What language do they speak, predominantly?
What region of the world do they hail from?
What God/prophet do they venerate?
As for her reasoning, I don't see how it can be any less persuasive than Mr. Buchanan's.
Pat's analysis of the WOT goes something like this:
A. Mohammedans have no right to kill innocent Americans or Europeans-his opinion of Israeli Jews, and their right to live in peace and security, is subject to debate
B. However, we need to address the "root causes" and "genuine grievances" of these very same terrorists
C. President Bush hasn't fully articulated who are enemy is, and how we should confront him
D. President Bush shouldn't enunciate who are enemy is, because it would inflame the ummah, which would presumably lead to a worldwide jihad that would end in our ultimate subjugation.
E. The reason we're not equipped to do battle with this resurgent Caliphate is because of a diminution of faith among Christians.
F. Therefore, we should accommodate Islamo-Nazis as much as possible-militarily, diplomatically and politically-hastening our own enslavement, the prevention of which was the rationale for accommodating the Islamic world in the first place.
Make sense to you?
Buchanan's point on Islam is the right one. We aren't at war with Islam, we at war with terrorism.
When was the last time the IRA attacked us?
WE are at war with Islamist terrrorists. Whether the prospect scares you or has not occured to you, the reality is that Islamism and Islamic terror are based on the concept of Jihad, which is one of 5 Pillars of Islam.
From the 622 CE, Islam has spread through conquestion, rape, enslavement, intimidation, and immigration.
Terrorism is simply intimidation with newer weapons. The goal remains the same: Muslims are taught to believe that the entire world will be conquered by Islam.
Buchanan's position on foreign aid to Hamas is quite sophisticated.
1. It is Carter-esque in its stupidity. The best we could hope for is an advantageous ceasefire, which would end the moment the Muslims felt more powerful. (This too comes from the Koran. Look up the conquest of the Jews of Arabia.)
2. It is at odds with Buchanan's general assertions that he opposes foreign aid. He does not actually bother to address the inconsistancy.
You have the truly odd situation of people *demanding* that a cartoon that mocks the Muslim people be reprinted, while these same "free speech" advocates remain silent over the 3 year jail sentence handed to a loony historian for verbal statements. Irving's only crime was a 17 year old statement that has hurt the feelings of many holocaust survivors.
1. The cartoons were mostly benign. The few inconsiderate ones merely reminded us of the association of violence and Islam. The Muslim world has then proved the point.
2. In its desire not to offend the Muslims, many Europeans are calling for speech codes that will prevent any assessment of the damage ISlam will cause us.
3. I don't support prison for David Irving. That said, his statements were not made to piss off Holocaust survivors. His entire body of work is meant to cast Nazi Germany as a victim.
He has worked with Nazis, communists, and Islamists in this campaign and one of its foundations is to show that the Holocaust was overstated, and besides, Jews deserved it.
4. I don't buy the a silly liberal world of moral equivalencies. These are measures meant to protect the West, and especially the birthplace of Nazism, from this disease. Likewise, showing Islam's roots and threat is a defensive measure. Unpleasent though it may be, such cartoons are useful and proper.
Welcome to the Clash of Civilizations.
odd thing is they still have good articles on domsetic issues, etc. it is like when israel enters the equation their thinking turns upside-down.
What makes your remark so ridiculous is that both the Libbies and Pat have affection for the Muslim terrorists: the Liberals have affection for the Muslim terrorists because they hate America; Pat has sympathy for the Muslim terrorists because they kill Jews.
Liberals hating Pat? Mr. Buchanan is to be a leader in a revified Hitler/Stalin pact -- a new red/brown (Nazi and Communist) alliance, working to destroy Jews and America.
It's nice to see people coming together /sarcasm
Limbaugh is a pseudo-conservative?! Wow. Never heard that before.
I guess this column is proof that broken clocks are right twice a day.
Does anyone listen to Buchanan anymore? He's a complete fool.
Thanks for the ping.....excellent posting, BTW.
I've been accused of being anti-Semitic for simply pointing out that there were 6-7 million non-Jews murdered by Hitler. In some circles, apparently, bringing this up (in response to a denunciation of the Holocaust, simply as additional historical data) is perceived as some kind of a way to minimize what Hitler did, when it's really a more accurate, fuller report of just how brutal the SOB was.
So I'm very sensitive to the way the left -- which is inherently racisat and anti-Semitic -- throws this word around willy-nilly, as a smear. I have observed Buchanan and others who are smeared thus for many years. Questioning Israel is not anti-Semitism. I view Israel as our ally, but not without fault. But if you oppose Israeli action on any point, the left (which, again, is inherently anti-Semitic and inherently racist) will brand you an anti-Semite.
It distresses me to see conservatives falling into this trap also.
I used to defend Pat against the anti-semite charges. But seriously, anybody who sees Jews as a bigger threat than Muslims, has to have his head examined.
Buchanan has either suffering from dementia or is so desperate for attention he will say anything to keep his name in the news.
Either way I recant any admiration I had for him.
Beware where you place your fingers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.