NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

I was meaning to quote/reply to this one earlier but I got sidetracked. I remember the news clips of some of those naughty little celebrations they were having over there, and the resentment that welled up inside as I watched. At the same time I felt sorry for those people. Why is it that humans are so easily twisted to such fervent displays of lunacy, by the whims and ambitions of so very few?

I also remember this treasure:



This was a painting that was hanging in an Iraqi barbershop. Note the lack of destruction and aircraft. I wonder why the shop keeper would risk his neck by putting it on the wall, when it would have been much more fashionable to display a work similar to this one from Nasiriya:



Charming ain't it?


Source articles below for anyone interested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in546437.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...ral/index.html

Sorry to dogleg back into the topic like this. But for every bad, there is at least one good. That is the thrust of my post.

[Aramike]

I wonder what everyone's reaction would be if this were, say, a rundown KKK meeting building in Memphis across the street from the Lorraine Motel, and they decided they wanted to raze it and build newer, state of the art digs.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I have never seen people who have taken personal responsibility for their actions try to take away the same from others. if you have decades of such experience, perhaps you can profer a few examples. I'm willing to learn.

The first time I was ever told "With freedom comes responsibility" it was a WW2 vet who was also in the habit of saying "I didn't fight and watch my buddies die so you could protest against this great country of ours!" It took a trip to Vietnam to make me realize that that's exactly what I was fighting for - so others could say what they wanted, including the negative.

It's true, freedom does require responsible use, just like any other weapon. The responsibility to guarantee it for everyone. As Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his own enemy against oppression."

I feel no desire to infringe upon your rights or liberty. I come to that position because I take personal responsibility for my actions and wouldn't deny you the opportunity to do the same, as it pertains to my rights and liberty.

Glad to hear it. How do you define the "responsibility" part then?

You are being selfish by not allowing the freedom for others not to extend you the same freedom.

Not sure exactly what you mean by that. Please elaborate.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What's wrong with using reason?

Nothing at all. Does "using reason" include preemptive elimination of people just because they advocate my demise. Yes I'm convinced that some are capable and willing to bring that about, but reason dictates to me that I don't become them. Not all of them feel that way, and it's not my place to limit what people say.

What is wrong with you that you want to see the defending of our freedom being prevented becasue only when you get you idea of absolute, total, unlimited freedom then it is freedom, else oyu do not care if the others are taking freedom away from you? Have you so little to lose? The relative ammount of freedom oyu have, is more than they have in most other coutries - and you carelessly give it up?

I would defend it against those who would take it away. But not because you say they would take it away, or even because they say they would take it away. Only when they actually make the attempt do I have the right to prevent them. Otherwise I'm taking away the very freedoms I cherish.

You still give me the benefit of doubt when I would kick you, beat you, betray you, lie to you, take what you give volunaterily for granted, and never trade back to you on your wellmeaning, oh so noble terms?

No, as soon as you kick me you relinquish your right for me not to hurt you. But saying you would like to kick me is not the same thing, and never can be.

you know whwere this will lead you? you will lose freedom. Youj will get ovberwhelemed by those who do not care for your diea of freedom. Who do not value your wanted absolute freedom. Who obey their ideological education of you idea not being freedom.

And you would destroy the very meaning of freedom by removing it from those who offend or frighten you. As I said, it's a fine line that must be walked carefully. Our rights are equal, in that I cannot maintain mine without maintaining yours.

It will lead you to stay aside and doing nothing, while the free world around you gets ruined. You will stay aside when an ieology of totaltiarin control and lack of freedom takes over, gains influence. And by your passivity you will have heölped to create the oppoortunity for this destruction of freedom taking place. Becasu you had too much thinkling stuff on your mind - just getting and educate insight into islamic idelogy, it's content and scripturte -´that for some reason you do not have on your mind. Yiu take it'S porimnicpal gioodness for granted - but you have no clue whether you are right or wrong.

No, I will defend the right of anyone to say what they believe. If they attempt to put that belief into practice, then it's time to fight. And no, I don't know whether I'm right or wrong, as I've said a great many times. But neither do you, which is why I refuse to go down your road of hatred.

The rest of your overly-long speech I can sum up in one brief sentence:

I understand your worry about those who would take away my freedom, but if you advocate silencing them then you are exactly the same as them. Perhaps you don't see it that way because you don't believe in domination by violence, and in that you are different from them, but to deny freedom is to destroy it, pure and simple

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I wonder what everyone's reaction would be if this were, say, a rundown KKK meeting building in Memphis across the street from the Lorraine Motel, and they decided they wanted to raze it and build newer, state of the art digs.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my reaction would be exactly the same. They have the same right to purchase property and erect a building as everyone else.

Remember Skokie?

[Skybird]

First, I must conclude that you are unable or unwilling to counter the inherent logic in Popper'S analysis, or that you do not care for freedom allowing it's own destruction by not defending freedom. that alone already says a lot about the rational inconstency of your understanding of freedom. It is idealism-driven, I think, but it ignores unwanted hard aspects of life in the real world.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Nothing at all. Does "using reason" include preemptive elimination of people just because they advocate my demise. Yes I'm convinced that some are capable and willing to bring that about, but reason dictates to me that I don't become them. Not all of them feel that way, and it's not my place to limit what people say.

I did not advocate the preemptive elimination of Muslims in Europe or America or New York. In fact I did not even talk of the people, I talked of the content of an ideology whose content you either carelessly ignore, or do not know. And this ideology explciitly seeks the destruction of that freedom of yours - both as a conception, and a practical living cindition that oyu enjoy. But you say:

I would defend it against those who would take it away. But not because you say they would take it away, or even because they say they would take it away. Only when they actually make the attempt do I have the right to prevent them. Otherwise I'm taking away the very freedoms I cherish.

which means that you are unaware of that they do not just say they want to take away your freeddom, but that Muslim organisations silently and by the use of deception, by "dawa" and "taquyia", try to foster the basis for Islam growing, influencing society, education and laws more and more, by raising false imporession about itk, giving it a sympathetic face, by hiding and lying about it's real brutal nature. islam lslam knows that it cannot take over Europpe or the US by the use of force, this was learned after several attempts of military conquest in Eruope, that failed. Now demography gets used, and cultural infiltration. Over the mponths and years I have quoted many Muslim politicians and spokesman and clerics and representatives of their major theological institutions who explicitly said that this is what they are doing. They dare to be so bluntly becasue they know there are so many usefulidiots in the West who mean it oh so well, that nobody will believe them anyway - a truth so hrsh cannot be true because such a harsh truth should not be true. So they risk nothing when telling us the truth. Or a smart guy like you comes along and says: they just tell they do like this, but that is not the same like actually doing it.

Needless to say that islamic scripture - which you need to know in order to know it, ain't that a surprise - also propagates the seeking of world dominance. In a theolgoical view of Islam, the uslim man is the goal of Got-wanted evolution, and is a natural inherent trend of human life unfolding. Islam is the goal of all human developement and nature anyway, this is what Allah has made nature to be like. So, from Islam'S perspective, Islam pressing by any means for the Islamisation of other places is nothing unnatural and thus nothing unethical becasue it only supports the natural drive of creation anyway. One is helping nature in what nature is doing anyway. And this relativises all violence or malice that possibly gets used in the process of taking over. Not to mention that in the quran you have passages were Muhammad not only authorises but mandatorily demands male Muslims to discriminate and supress infidels, and to even sacrifice their own life in order to bring peace to the world by killinf infidels (because their presence is threatening the house of peace=Islam). You must be aware, always, that Islam defines "being attacked" as "not submitting to Islam".

No, as soon as you kick me you relinquish your right for me not to hurt you. But saying you would like to kick me is not the same thing, and never can be.

See above. See Popper.

And you would destroy the very meaning of freedom by removing it from those who offend or frighten you. As I said, it's a fine line that must be walked carefully. Our rights are equal, in that I cannot maintain mine without maintaining yours.

You do not care one bit for the question whether the other is maintainign your rights in order to maitain his own. That is the problöem with your thinking: you ignore, compeltely, the aggressoive nature of this ideology and that it does not care one bit for your noble interpretation of islam. Your nobless depends on the opther answering it on equal terms. It equals to the necessity in war, that the kilitary enemy, olike oneself, is willing to obey the Hague Landwarfare convention. But Islam does not reocgnise this Convention, neither do those fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan and Nigeria, somalia and Malaysia. And for the army fighting against them and trying to ovbey the Hague Cionvention oneself, this is a biog problem that necessarily must lead to its own defeat. You can now idelaistically again argue in absputes and say "we must nevertheless ensure victor AND obey the convention", but you demand the impossible, and your absolute by which you argue are not worth much - by refering to them you make sure that they do not get implemented even in parts.

Same it is with freedom and tolerance, as I said, and as Popper said: if you will Islamic idelogy the freedom to spread and to grow in your place, it will abuse this freedom to reach a critical mass byiond which it then can destroy freedom and replace it with Islam and Shariah law in full. You may doubt this, if you do not know islam. But then your doubt is basing on lacking education only. Ane ducatio that, I admit, public debators and Islamic lobbyists try to prevent as best as they can, and censor and manipulate as best as they can. Islam in the West does not need to be violent and martial - why should it if the Western soeities all by themselves willingly fall for it, allow to get manipulated, and believe in every half-truth and even straight lies, refusing to listen to its own long academic tradition of oriental studies and examination of Islam? The US and europe is falling into islam'S hands, slowly, but with constant pace. t will take another generation or two or three - it doesn't matter - that it will happen has been promised in Islam since one millenia - what matters another couple of decades, then?

The freedom you will to Islam - gets used to erode the fundament of your precious freedom from within.and you refuse to do anything about that. you even refuse to understand your enemy. And as an ex-soldier you shoild know that this is the worst mistake one can make in a conflict.

No, I will defend the right of anyone to say what they believe. If they attempt to put that belief into practice, then it's time to fight. And no, I don't know whether I'm right or wrong, as I've said a great many times. But neither do you, which is why I refuse to go down your road of hatred.

Wrong, I know whether I am right or wrong in my assessement of Islam, at least I know it a hiundred times better than you do. That is becasue I spend quite long time to study and to read it - and years ago I had books defending Islam as well as those seeing it more objective and realistically, basing on it's history and on analysis of it's scripture. Like many islamophiles, you call islami-critical assessements a symptom of "hate" (and somewhere above I think you also mentioned "fear") becasue of your own lacking understanding of islam, and you then imply that others miust know as little about it as you do. Well, that is your problem, and yours alone.

The rest of your overly-long speech I can sum up in one brief sentence:

I understand your worry about those who would take away my freedom, but if you advocate silencing them then you are exactly the same as them.

That compares to saying "fighting against the Nazis made the Allies the same like the Nazis".

Perhaps you don't see it that way because you don't believe in domination by violence,

I beolieve in that - that'S why I am so unforgivingly opposing to Islam.

and in that you are different from them, but to deny freedom is to destroy it, pure and simple

Again: argue that with Popper. He already has proven that you are wrong. You demand a freedom in terms of an unconditional absolute - and this is what makes YOU destroying freedom, not them. In the end, this islamic enemy of freedom is just what it is, like a scorpion has a sting and a snake has poisenous teeth. It is you refusing to pull your arm out of their reach or refusing to get them out of the house so that they cannot do harm to your family. And that is, saiyng that in all politeness, simply totally stupid.


And to soembody else in the above discussions you said that Bietnam made you relaise that you were fighting for freedom. I took that as a comment on that you were taught your understanding of freedom by fighting in Vietnam. to this, I only give again this quote on freedom, which I already have given in a short excerpt on page 1:

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. Poland fought for freedom as no other country did. The Czech nation was prepared to fight for its freedom in 1938; it was not lack of courage that sealed its fate. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — the work of young people with nothing to lose but their chains — triumphed and then ended in failure. ... Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.
(...)
Although I consider our political world to be the best of which we have any historical knowledge, we should beware of attributing this fact to democracy or to freedom. Freedom is not a supplier who delivers goods to our door. Democracy does not ensure that anything is accomplished — certainly not an economic miracle. It is wrong and dangerous to extol freedom by telling people that they will certainly be all right once they are free. How someone fares in life is largely a matter of luck or grace, and to a comparatively small degree perhaps also of competence, diligence, and other virtues. The most we can say of democracy or freedom is that they give our personal abilities a little more influence on our well-being.

I understand your worry about those who would take away my freedom, but if you advocate silencing them then you are exactly the same as them.

First, I must conclude that you are unable or unwilling to counter the inherent logic in Popper'S analysis

Sky doesn't realise he has become the very thing his philosopher friend warns of

Again: argue that with Popper. He already has proven that you are wrong.

Wow.

I did not advocate the preemptive elimination of Muslims in Europe or America or New York.

Yet Sky always talks of how they must be got rid of and how decadent europe is too rotten to do it and the need for new strong leaders who are not part of a global muslim conspiracy so are willing to take the "right" descision to bring a final resolution to fight the invading horde.
Which is why he sounds so like the neo nazis he says he protests with but doesn't like protesting with

[joegrundman]

I think that the name "Cordoba Initiative" is worthy of examination. For i think it is a carefully chosen name that can mean different things depending on your initial position.

I dare say many may be unaware that Cordoba is a city in Spain, and for them the name is meaningless, but at least the phonemes don't seem alien, and thus more friendly and benign than eg. Huzb ut Tahir or some such..

Many more may be unaware that Cordoba was a thriving city in Muslim-controlled Spain in the medieval period. For them, the name is similarly less threatening, although perhaps mystifying why they may choose to call themselves after a Spanish city.

There was a time in the medieval period when Muslim society was at the forefront of human civilization, and none exemplified this more so than the city of Cordoba. Averroes was from Cordoba at that period and he had a significant philosophical impact on the wider world. Muslim Spain in the early - mid medieval period is considered a kind of golden age among many Muslims, an era of prosperity, development, and tolerance (although the nature of tolerance is of course disputed today).

So for people cognizant of this, and as the Cordoba Initiative website makes plain, the allusion here is to a semi-mythical era of religious harmony and enlightenment under Muslim rule. Emphasis, i think, on a hopeful era of religious tolerance, coupled with lovely architecture and philosophical, scientific, artistic and economic advancements. (And to complete the image, the scenery and climate are fantastic too)

Yet, even so, it is clear that they are harking back to a perceived golden age of muslim domination, where everyone's a winner. Furthermore, it is still a sore point among some (reference AQs repeated calls for a re-reconquest of Spain) that the Catholics eventually reconquered Spain, and in the narrative, permanently destroyed the greatness that al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) had achieved. So for these the name is implicitly saying it was all better for everyone under enlightened Muslim rule, and so it could be again in a rebuilding of a new Cordoba.

[Skybird]

Yes, Joe, and to add a bit to what you said:

The era of islam in Spain gets mystified in that while there was a stalemate in Spain after the Muslim armies were thrown back in the heart of France, this stalemate still was the dead end of a state of war between Christian and muslim kingdoms. And it even was the case that occasionally Chriszians kingdoms helped out in regional clashes between muslim regions - becaseu that ws the price to keep them from uniting again, forming a no longer sctatered but united front against the Christianbs kingdoms again.

In Cordoba, which orginally was Christian with a huge Jewish population too, indeed there was cultural blossomiung in that welath and cultural education and science were spreading to some remarkable degree, for the standards of that time. However: it is also a fact that Christains and Jews lived as second class citizens and were object of systemtic discirmination. They were banned from higher social classes and jobs with the exception of some Jewish doctors which were accepted to be experts in their field by muslim leaderhship. legal protection of Christians of Jews was such that when Muslim kids stoned to death a Jew for fun, they would have gotten away witzh it, and under the reign of some leaders, murder of chroiszians and Jews was not considered a crime. the often rferred to saving of Greek scripotures by muslim leaders also gets misinteroreted. Fact is that the Muslims accepted the presence of the already submissive christikans and Jews, becaseu they maintained superior trade relation and a rich cultural heritage - from which the muslim society also massively benefitted. It was better to let them live and take the profit of their presence, then to kill them or to drive them away. It were the Jews asking the Muslims whether or not they would be allowedc to copy in writing old greek scriptures that further contributed to the scientifc and cultural blossoming of Cordoba, while these documents were put at risk and to a huge part were destroyed in their orfinal places. The Muslim leaders allowed this, and let the Jews do the work, and the Chrostians, becaseu they saw that their own society also would benefit from the knowledge hidden in these scriptures. To claim, like islam does, that Islam contributed to western culture by essentially saving much of it's most basic philosphical Greek heritage in Cordoba, is an absurd overstatement and in fact a distortion of history. Alöso is it not true, that the soceity of Cordoba was peaceful and baöanced and fair. As I said, Jews and Chrioszians were secodn class citizens with massively reduced legal rights, and they were object of opression and discrimination, like ordered in the Quran. In the seocnd half of the Cordoba era, when the Almohades had taken over the control in Spain, they became the target of frequent progroms and genocides when the Almohades focussed on the Quranic demands in greater completeness and wanted to purifymuslim society from the infestation with the infidel's contribution to the culture in cordoba.

The era in Cordoba was as much an era of mutal respect and tolerance and peaceful coexistence as was the paradise ghetto in Warsaw a "paradise". For Islam, of course it was a great arrangement. Understamdable that they praise it so much. But as long as you are no Muslim you hardly would have liked to live in that arrangement, infidel that you are.

Telling this by mind basing on several different books on Islamic history.

Yes, Joe, and to add a bit to what you said:

Yet avoiding entirely any history that doesn't fit Skys little phobias.

It were the Jews asking the Muslims whether or not they would be allowedc to copy in writing old greek scriptures

Compared to the get out now decrees they faced from the civilised europeans or the convert or die mentality of the reconquista...or quite funnily the convert and die as conversion saved your soul before you had to die for being a horrible Jew or Muslim in the first place.

Telling this by mind basing on several different books on Islamic history.

Telling this as fits your mind as in finding crap that fits your views....like black people ruining soccer
By your words you are known and by the neo nazis you have on your protests you are associated. No amount of referal to well known philosophers can change that or claims about "rational" papers as the old Nazis had exactly the same bloody arguements as the neo nazis whose views by his own admission Sky espouses.

[joegrundman]

Well, to nitpick a little, when you say Cordoba was originally Christian, what you really mean is that it was previously Christian, a fact acknowledged in the name reconquista.

The city itself was named by the Carthaginians, as with so many Spanish coastal cities, before this world of ours was blessed with either Christianity or Islam.

As for the issue of tolerance, obviously Muslims like to talk up the level of tolerance, and for many people today they like to point out its probable/possible limitations.

It is rarely wise to judge the past by the standards of today, but it is still worth noting that significant numbers of Jews, and even Christians, found life tolerable enough living in medieval Muslim Spain, Egypt and North Africa. Perhaps more so than was the case for Muslims and Jews living in medieval Christendom. They didn't vote with their feet and those Jews living in the Muslim dominated areas were still there in numbers until the establishment of Israel. At which point, they largely left for Israel and elsewhere.

I put it to you that this indicates that for most of the pre-modern period, for Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule, life was at least not significantly worse than other options available at the time.

I put it to you that this indicates that for most of the pre-modern period, Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule was at least not significantly worse than other options available at the time.

Stop right now, Muslims are evil , they have always been evil.
The modern pair of fundamentalist schools with extremist views on the interpretation of scripture are the only true versions and they are the only versions to have ever existed. Anyone today or throughout history who isn't or wasn't of one of those modern schools never was and never could be a Muslim as there is only extremist interpretations as the koran is written in such a manner that it is black and white and there cannot have been 1500 years of theoogical debate about what the words really mean.......the gospel according to Skybird

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I can't speak for anyone else, but my reaction would be exactly the same. They have the same right to purchase property and erect a building as everyone else.

Remember Skokie?

First off, I don't see this "right" you're referring to. By that notion, please explain to me how communities consistantly block Walmarts from building.

Secondly, what WOULD you find too inappropriate? How about a group which advocates violence and subversion of the US Constitution? What if, say, neo-nazis wanted to build a facility for militant training? Or what if they wanted a laboratory for bio weapons research?

Is there anything you wouldn't allow?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

What if, say, neo-nazis wanted to build a facility for militant training? Or what if they wanted a laboratory for bio weapons research?

Is there anything you wouldn't allow?

You went down that slippery slope quick.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

First, I must conclude that you are unable or unwilling to counter the inherent logic in Popper'S analysis, or that you do not care for freedom allowing it's own destruction by not defending freedom. that alone already says a lot about the rational inconstency of your understanding of freedom. It is idealism-driven, I think, but it ignores unwanted hard aspects of life in the real world.

Or perhaps what you see as "inherent logic" is only logical to you. Like all 'true believers' you have a sacred scripture and it 'proves' you are right.

I did not advocate the preemptive elimination of Muslims in Europe or America or New York.

Then what exactly do you advocate? Please tell us your solution, in plain language, not what the problem is (believe it or not I not only understand but I actually agree with you that they are dangerous). Saying that they are dangerous solves nothing. What do you want us to do about it?

The freedom you will to Islam - gets used to erode the fundament of your precious freedom from within.and you refuse to do anything about that. you even refuse to understand your enemy. And as an ex-soldier you shoild know that this is the worst mistake one can make in a conflict.

But what do you want us to actually do about it? I do understand. What you fail to see is what I pointed out - that you walk a very fine line when you want to fight those who would take away freedom by taking away the freedom yourself.

Wrong, I know whether I am right or wrong in my assessement of Islam, at least I know it a hiundred times better than you do.

I'm sure you do, but where you are wrong is in the lack of understanding of just how dangerous your own argument is. You don't defeat your enemy by becoming him.

Like many islamophiles,

Ah, now you're getting personal. Where did I ever say I supported Islam, or even liked it? I disagree with the belief, and the extremists do indeed scare me. This is about building a building, and the freedom to do so. Stick to the subject, please.

you call islami-critical assessements a symptom of "hate" (and somewhere above I think you also mentioned "fear") becasue of your own lacking understanding of islam, and you then imply that others miust know as little about it as you do. Well, that is your problem, and yours alone.

No, I called your ongoing extremist ranting "hate", and nothing else. I agree that they are dangerous, and I agree that we must keep an eye on them. But you apparently don't see how frightening your own diatribes can be sometimes.

That compares to saying "fighting against the Nazis made the Allies the same like the Nazis".

As opposed to fighting the Nazis before they actually did anything.

Again, exactly what do you advocate we do?

Again: argue that with Popper. He already has proven that you are wrong.

Only in your own mind.

You demand a freedom in terms of an unconditional absolute - and this is what makes YOU destroying freedom, not them.

How so? I support freedom of speech. They can say what they want, and do what they want as long as they don't break any laws.

You keep talking, but you haven't yet said one particular thing: WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?

And to soembody else in the above discussions you said that Bietnam made you relaise that you were fighting for freedom. I took that as a comment on that you were taught your understanding of freedom by fighting in Vietnam.

Then you took it completely wrong. I simply came to recognize that the right to protest against your own country when you believe it is wrong is one of the greatest rights we have. Dissent is vital to a free society, and any attempt to quell that dissent, even in the name of patriotism, goes against everything America stands for.

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. Poland fought for freedom as no other country did. The Czech nation was prepared to fight for its freedom in 1938; it was not lack of courage that sealed its fate. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — the work of young people with nothing to lose but their chains — triumphed and then ended in failure. ... Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.
(...)
Although I consider our political world to be the best of which we have any historical knowledge, we should beware of attributing this fact to democracy or to freedom. Freedom is not a supplier who delivers goods to our door. Democracy does not ensure that anything is accomplished — certainly not an economic miracle. It is wrong and dangerous to extol freedom by telling people that they will certainly be all right once they are free. How someone fares in life is largely a matter of luck or grace, and to a comparatively small degree perhaps also of competence, diligence, and other virtues. The most we can say of democracy or freedom is that they give our personal abilities a little more influence on our well-being.

Nice quote. Please show one thing I have said that disagrees with it. And please show one thing in that quote that justifies your desire to deny freedom in order to preserve it.