| Skybird |
08-03-10 03:20 PM |
Appeasement and self-deception was what was wanted, and that goal defined the outcome of the voting since the beginning of the debate. It is no surprise, nor is it a sign of reason. It simply is ideologically motivated calculation in action. and this ideology says: we must befriend with Islam and embrace it, no matter what people feel and say about that - we MUST!
it's also a small illustration of where it leads you if you accept that there are no limits to freedom and tolerance: you end up by tolerating what does not tolerate you, and giving freedom to what wants to take away freedom from you.
to throw in some advise from Karl Popper:
On the pursuit of happiness:
Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle — the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative.
On tolerance:
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
On mutual communication:
There are many difficulties impeding the rapid spread of reasonableness. One of the main difficulties is that it always takes two to make a discussion reasonable. Each of the parties must be ready to learn from the other. You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.
On freedom:
It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it.
And finally, once again, consider the background of those people hiding in the background who are behind erecting this mosque at Ground Zero - and then tell me that they really mean it well.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmNhNTg0ZmY1NzA4NWJmMjM0YjI1MzAwNzljYjFiNDM= |
