Skip to comments.The nation's tolerance is being carried too far (Where's The ANGER?)
Posted on 09/09/2002 2:26:06 AM PDT by kattracks
Sociologist Amitai Etzioni sees one thing missing in all the polling data on American attitudes in the aftermath of Sept. 11 - anger.
Last week, Etzioni's Communitarian Network issued the report "American Society in the Age of Terrorism," an analysis of post-Sept. 11 polling. Unsurprisingly, the report finds more interest in family, spirituality and volunteerism and more trust in government, though "all these effects have begun to recede, and are predicted to decline further if no new attacks occur."
But "there can be little doubt that, by and large, the American people were decidedly low-key in their expressions of anger at those who attacked us" - a very unusual response to a mass slaughter, Etzioni says.
Why so little anger?
"It looks as though Alan Wolfe was right," Etzioni said. His reference is to Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe, who wrote in his books "One Nation, After All" (1997) and "Moral Freedom" (2001) that nonjudgmentalism is not just an ethic confined to the media and other elites, it has become normal middle-class morality. He found that Americans are morally tentative and very reluctant to criticize others.
This makes the nation far more tolerant, but also constructs a laissez-faire morality - a presumption that even destructive acts deserve understanding rather than judgment.
The good side of this new ethic is that the nation refused to scapegoat Muslim-Americans for the Sept. 11 attacks. The bad side is that to avoid anger and judgment, a normal emotional response was diverted into an orgy of self-examination, much of it revolving around the notion that the U.S. somehow invited or deserved the attacks.
There is also a downside in the nation's overwhelmingly positive treatment of Muslim-Americans. Perhaps out of guilt over treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the U.S. and its media have framed attitudes almost wholly in terms of hypertolerance and bias, rarely in terms of what allegiance a minority owes the rest of the nation in time of peril.
The Associated Press reported last week that violence against Muslim-Americans seems to have slowed to a trickle. But it was never more than a trickle in the first place.
The same is true of nonviolent acts of bias. The New Jersey Law Journal calmly analyzed the evidence in June and concluded that anti-Muslim acts are notably rare and statistically insignificant. It quoted an anti-discrimination lawyer saying that in terms of anti-Muslim bias, "basically we're not seeing anything."
Our elite press is ever alert to sniff out bias, but issues of allegiance and obligation get much less play. Some American mosques and Muslim schools are indeed troublesome places. The first plot to topple the World Trade Center was hatched at a Jersey City mosque. Does the nation have a right to expect that Muslim-Americans will report any such activity they happen to observe? Or that they will refrain from supporting foundations that subsidize terrorism?
We need a serious discussion about loyalty and assimilation. What we are likely to get, though, is yet another massive cloud of hands-off nonjudgmentalism.
If you get angry because someone murders your brethren, you need counciling.
They require you to promise to bear arms for the country. The oath of allegiance is as follows: The Oath of Allegiance I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. If they require or ask you to bear arms against a muslim country, what should be the response. Their laws are against 4 marraige law of Islaam. Does the pledge cause any "Ilhaad" or any such anti-islamic view? Please answer according to Hanafi Fiqh.
1. If your intention is solely to facilitate easier travel, you are permitted to obtain US citizenship. Although the oath of allegiance is un-Islamic in nature, it will not be treated as an 'Islamic oath'. Therefore, you are not compelled to execute the oath.
2. If you are called up to bear arms against Muslims, you are not permitted to do so by Islamic law.
3. The pledge does not constitute Ilhaad.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Muhammad Kadwa
CHECKED AND APPROVED CORRECT: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
No appeaser, peacenik, Muslim apologist or Euroweenie better get near me Wednesday.
Nothing, but you knew that already.
They had some psychologist on the news last night, talking about the emotions you might have on the anniversary of 9/11, and how to cope with them. I commented to my wife, "I have two feelings, anger and desire - desire for retribution."
I'm ready to see some serious retribution, soon. I'm not alone in this.
And knee-jerk defensiveness.
Judgement is the 50c word for 'survival instinct'.
It has been beaten out of us as a society by Political correctness and multiculturalism.
Me? I still believe in profiling and discrimination.
Everyone is not equal and being judgemental is an essential part of a (long and) healthy life.
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.