Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Muslims and Moral Handicaps
Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield ^ | April 3, 2011 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 04/03/2011 9:43:08 PM PDT by 6ft2inhighheelshoes

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants an investigation into Koran burning. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that this form of free speech could be banned. Senator Lindsey Graham is also looking for ways to limit free speech, saying, "Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war".

Free speech is more than a great idea, it's a fundamental freedom untouchable by legislators. But all it takes is a few Muslim murders-- and Reid, Breyer and Graham eagerly hold up their lighters to the Constitution. Free speech has been curtailed before in the United States during a time of war-- but only free speech sympathetic to the enemy. During WW1 a suspected German propagandist filmmaker was jailed. But could anyone have imagined anti-German propagandists being jailed? The Wilson administration was behaving unconstitutionally, but not insanely.

Today we aren't jailing filmmakers who traffic in anti-American propaganda in wartime. If we did that half of Hollywood would be behind bars. Instead Democratic and Republican Senators are discussing banning speech offensive to the enemy. Because even though they're killing us already-- we had better not provoke them or who knows how much worse it will become.

Traditionally it's the victors who give their laws to the defeated. But massive immigration at home and nation building occupations abroad mean that the defeated of failed states are imposing their Sharia law on us. We're asked to trade in our Constitutional freedoms out of fear of Muslim violence. And so the murderers impose the terms of peace on us. And then don't abide by them.

Violence in the Muslim world is a constant. We have been fighting Muslim violence since George Washington's time. And we have been subject to it even longer. Whether it's Muslims killing Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians or any and every religion under the sun-- there is a pattern here. It's a story as old as time. And it's not one that we can stop by ladling out honeyed words of appeasement.

Senator Graham warns us to shut up in a time of war-- but is there any foreseeable future in which we won't be fighting in a Muslim country? Democrats elected the most anti-war candidate of the bunch only to see him begin his 2012 reelection campaign by bombing another Muslim country. And what's surprising about that. Most of the trouble spots in the world that directly or indirectly affect us are located in Muslim countries. The major threat to the United States comes from the Muslim world. And that means we're going to be tied up dealing with the Muslim world in one way or another, whether as soldiers, diplomats or aid workers. And even if we weren't-- there are hundreds of thousands of Americans still living and working in Muslim countries. Hostages to the latest Muslim temper tantrum.

As Muslim terror has gotten worse, we have started treating the Muslim world like a ticking bomb-- tiptoeing around them to avoid setting them off. Whatever they don't like about us, we're willing to change. The paradigm of the angry dog or the ticking bomb means that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Whatever you do, the dog mauls you and the bomb blows up. But by pretending that you control the situation, you can feel better about your role in the outcome.

When a man teases a dog on the other side of a chain link fence-- we blame the man for provoking the dog, not the dog for being provoked. Animals have less of everything that makes for accountability. And so don't hold them accountable. Instead we divide them into categories of dangerous and harmless, and treat them accordingly.

Our response to Muslim violence in Afghanistan, supposedly touched off by a Koran burning in Florida, uses that same canine logic. The Muslims are dangerous and violent, so whoever provokes them is held accountable for what they do. Don't tease a doberman on the other side of a chain link fence and don't tease Muslims on the other side of the border or the world. That's the takeaway from our elected and unelected officials.

But the Muslim rioters are not dogs, they are human beings whose moral responsibility is being denied by treating their violence as a reflexive act. Their violence is not unconscious or instinctual-- it emerges out of a decision making process. There is nothing inevitable about what happened in Afghanistan. If Muslims had some sort of hair trigger, then why was the violent rioting confined to a very specific part of the world. For the same reason that the reaction to the Dutch cartoons took so long. And why was it directed at the UN and not the US. The Koran burning was not the cause of Muslim violence-- but a rationalization for existing violence that would have occurred anyway for reasons having nothing to do with Terry Jones. And by treating Muslims like the 'Morally Handicapped' who have no choice but to kill when something offends them, we are not doing any favors for them or us.

It is far more insulting to treat Muslims as if they have no ability to control themselves and have no responsibility for their actions-- than it is to burn their Koran. That is an assessment that even many Muslims would agree with.

To blame Jones for their actions, we must either treat murder as a reasonable response to the burning of a book, or grant that Jones has a higher level of moral responsibility than the rioters do. There are few non-Muslims who could defend the notion that burning the Koran is a provocation that justifies bloodshed. And virtually no liberal would openly concede that he believes Muslims are morally handicapped-- but then why does he treat them that way?

If a Christian had torched a mosque in response to the Muslim arson of churches in Africa-- is there any liberal columnist or pundit who would have directed the lion's share of the blame at the original Muslim arsonists? No. The mosque burning would be treated as an independent act with no linkage to the church arsons. That is the attitude of Western jurisprudence which does not allow one crime to justify another, let alone one provocation to justify a crime. Individuals are treated as responsible moral actors-- not shooting balls in a pinball machine. Why then does this standard fly out the window when it comes to Muslims? Why does the press so easily sink into the rhetoric of 'retaliation and 'provocation', treating Muslim terrorism as a reflex, rather than a chosen act.

Is it not because for all their fanciful prose about the Religion of Peace, they do indeed see Muslims as dogs on the other side of a chain link fence. "Don't tease the dog, son, and it won't hurt you."

Liberalism begins as condescension toward lower class violence and culminates in complicity with it. Class warfare treated the poor as less morally responsible than the rich because of their deprivation and persecution. By treating physical deprivation as equivalent to moral deprivation, they became guilty of a far worse prejudice than those they were combating. They had declared that the poor were subhuman. When class warfare gave way to race warfare, they repeated the same ugly trick, romanticizing the Black Panthers and empowering thugs and rioters who destroyed black and white communities. The discriminated against were not bound by the same moral code as the discriminators. Their violence was 'purer' because it was a reflex against their conditions that they could not control. And so liberals who lectured ceaselessly about racism, were treating minorities as less than human.

Now in the age of Globalism-- Muslims are the new oppressed, exempted from the norms of civilized society. The morally handicapped who cannot be expected to turn the other cheek, the way we're supposed to.

But Muslims are not morally disabled-- they are immorally enabled. Muslim violence is a choice. Their choice. It is not a reflex or a reaction or a pinball bouncing off the cycle of violence. It is not something that we are responsible for. It is something that they and only they are responsible for. By pretending otherwise, we are immorally enabling them. Treating them like mad dogs or ticking time bombs just guarantees that they will play their part and fulfill our expectations by mauling or exploding.

We have never held Muslims morally accountable for anything they do. Not as a religion or as countries or individuals. Instead we pretend that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi are the problem. A handful of extremists and a few bad leaders somewhere. Not the people themselves. Never them.

Instead we have treated Muslims as the morally handicapped, too morally feeble to understand that violence is not the answer to everything from your daughter sneaking out with a boy to a pastor torching the Koran for a BBQ. And they have reacted exactly as people do when they know they will not be held accountable for their actions.

Treating someone as dangerous gives them power over you. They will test that power and then use it. Allowing yourself to be intimidated is the first step to being defeated. For many it is also the last step. We treated Muslims as dangerous and then we insist loudly that we love them very much and aren't afraid of them at all. Guess who we're fooling? Only ourselves. Every time there's a terror alert or American politicians talk about the wonders of the Koran-- the Muslim world sees it as evidence of their power over us. And when a Koran is burned, that just means we need further intimidating. It's a cycle of violence, but we're not the ones driving it except through our appeasement.

Muslims have stifled their own moral development-- but we haven't helped either. And the only way we can do that is to push them toward a moral reckoning. Instead we have bought into their genocidal narrative, enabled their violence and empowered the murderous aspects of their ideology. It's time that stopped. Lies and flattery will not prevent the violence. Only the confrontation of truth can force a moral reckoning.

Senator Graham wishes there was a way to hold Koran burners accountable for violence carried out by Koran readers, but what we really need is a way to hold Koran believers accountable for their own violence.

TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: dhimmitude; firstamendment; islam; lindseygraham

1 posted on 04/03/2011 9:43:10 PM PDT by 6ft2inhighheelshoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes

I thought this was insane. Where are the Free Speech advocates? Flag burning is okay; Koran is not okay. Our freedoms are based on the hurt feelings and violent threats they generate?

And what about Bibles?

Give up land for peace... give up freedoms for peace... Don’t they get that no peace is possible? Start firing guns earlier is the solution.

2 posted on 04/03/2011 9:47:59 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes

3 posted on 04/03/2011 9:54:36 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes

The western world is being sold out to the Muslims by it’s leaders.

It’s, like, a conspiracy, dude.

No, really.

4 posted on 04/03/2011 10:21:33 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes
So we can speak freely about anything except the murdering pig muslims who are killing Christians and Jews all over the world.
Our congress are cowards who betray on of our basic principals of freedom. Freedom of speech.
This would be reason to lock and load. I not only can speak out about the cancer of islam I will at every opportunity. Islam in not a civilized religion. It is a cult belief based on the rantings of a child rapist.
5 posted on 04/04/2011 12:45:09 AM PDT by oldenuff2no (Rangers lead the way...... Delta, the original European home land security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes
Pastor exercises constitutional freedom and burns koran. Clerics looking for any excuse to do so whip up rabble into killing frenzy resulting in casualties and mayhem. Gutless PC wonders in U.S. government completely ignore the actions of the latter and focus exclusively on those of the former. Up is down, black is white and day is night. Oookaay.
6 posted on 04/04/2011 3:03:12 AM PDT by Free in Texas (Martin Luther King was a Republican and Karl Marx played the stock market...'nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes
Could not have said it better myself.

This should--but won't--silence the few who were ranting and raving yesterday over the Pastor's burning of the so called "holy book" and moreover, defending the clueless, PC, wuss, Patreus who while condemning (and doing his best Dear Leader impersonation at groveling, appeasement and apologizing to the Moozies) could not even bring himself to defend our 1st Amend Rights or offer sympathies toward those slaughtered by the barbaric Islamo-fascist....never mind, condemning their actions.

"You've come a long way, baby..." that being Political Correctness and Multiculturalism!!!

7 posted on 04/04/2011 4:15:54 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

Are there any ministries that focus on converting Muslims? Either through missionary work (which I’d imagine would be ridiculously dangerous not to mention forbidden by most of their nations) or perhaps by beaming Arabic radio broadcasts into their territories?

Maybe we should all start giving $1-$10 a month to such a ministry.

8 posted on 04/04/2011 4:26:54 AM PDT by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes

I could never replace the Commander that Obummer sent to replace McChrystal.I never did aquire the taste for bull dung... For any reasonable person to suggest the burning of a book in America is responsible for the bloodshed and violence on the Arab street is insanity.For it says the one doing the violence is not accountable for their own actions.And if true of the bloody freaking ignorant Muslim then it is equally true of every other identifiable group. Imagine the habitual criminal is not responsible for the crimes he commits-no it is something manufactured by the social engineers. The alcoholic or drug addict is not— is not responsible for the waste of their life—no the social engineers have long told us theirs is a disease and they are not capable of accountability.The serial killer in no way can be expected to be held accountable for the murders-he was the victim.And so the bloody freaking Muslim murderer cannot be held accountable Our General and Lawmakers have said so.

9 posted on 04/04/2011 5:58:31 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Harry reid want to investigate the burning of the Koran. To hec with the American flag and the Bible, because islam is the religion of peace/
10 posted on 04/04/2011 7:29:07 AM PDT by sunny48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; SJackson; dennisw

Any candidates announce to challenge light loafers in the 2014 GOP Primary? (I still can't believe the slackjawed hicks in SC voted ofr Graham in 2008)

11 posted on 04/04/2011 11:51:55 PM PDT by rmlew (No Blood for Sarkozy's re-election and Union for the Mediterranean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Cacique; nutmeg


12 posted on 04/05/2011 8:58:22 AM PDT by rmlew (No Blood for Sarkozy's re-election and Union for the Mediterranean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 6ft2inhighheelshoes; rmlew; Travis McGee; nutmeg

Free Speech? Marxists don’t believe in free speech, neither does the ruling oligarchy that masquerades as two different political parties. They always ramble on about free speech as long as it’s theirs, but criticism is verboten. We really don’t have free speech any more. Unconstitutional limits have been gradually put on us through a tactic that Stalin used to call “salami tactics”, one slice at a time. We’ve been a boiling lobster in a slow cooking simmering pot for quite sometime now. If we don’t take back control of our government in 2012 this country is totally finished. And we don’t just need to get rid of democrats, we need to sack all the democrats masquerading as republicans whom we call RINOS.

13 posted on 04/05/2011 4:52:26 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson