The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Losing the War

March 1st, 2009 by Chuck · 8 Comments · Foreign Affairs

Evidently there exists a non-binding resolution at the UN that urges member countries to pass laws restricting FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  The particular object of this restriction is the criticism of religion, so-called blasphemy, with the main impetus behind it coming from Islamic countries, who don’t like Islam to be criticized. 

That such a non-binding resolution is on the books at the UN is sufficient reason to kick that organization out of Amerrica and into some Islamic totalitarian country, where it belongs.  But the Islamic countries are now pressing to make this into a Binding Resolution.  If America were to allow that to happen, I submit that we will have lost the war we are fumbling our way through at present.  Imagine, half way through WWII, the Axis Powers proposed a law forbidding criticism of totalitarianism, and the Allies accepted it.  What then would we have been fighting for?

What are we fighting for now, if there is nothing to criticize in the Religion of Peace, Islam?

I don’t see any chance that America will allow this totalitarian edict to pass in the UN.  But the fact that we have anything to do with the countries pushing it is so grotesque a circumstance, that one is forced to be ready for anything to happen, even to the abolishment of the First Amendment.

This story was brought to my attention at Little Green Footballs, where there is a video of Christopher Hitchens defending the First Amendment on the Lou Dobbs show against the Islamic Totalitarians.

(Edited to add the Axis Powers comparison.)

8 Comments so far ↓

  • madmax

    The European Left is sprinting towards censorship. I wonder how far behind the American Left can be.

    I would not be surprised if our Leftist Congress tried to implement some “hate speech” measures here. I actually hope they do try because I don’t think they will succeed and in the process it may serve to make Obama and the Pelosi Congress very unpopular with everybody but the committed Left which is what I want.

    Also, LGF is really a good blog. Charles Johnson is not an Objectivist but he is definitely not a religious conservative. He is fighting against Islam but from a secular, pro-liberty foundation. I’ve been impressed with him especially now that I see that he is being attacked by the more Christian conservatives. This sadly includes Robert Spencer as of late.

  • Myrhaf

    A post at Democratic Underground read today:

    “If Obama doesn’t find time in his agenda to exercise some control over the media it will literally be his undoing. Time for the Fairness Doctrine. Now.”

    The left is worried that we have too much freedom of speech.

  • Myrhaf

    If you’ve ever wondered how a people can give up their freedom, that DU quote above is evidence. The left does not want freedom. They want state control.

    This is why Rush Limbaugh was wrong in his speech to CPAC when he said that humans naturally yearn for freedom. Some humans yearn for freedom; some humans fly airplanes into buildings.

  • Galileo Blogs

    When I read the statement Myrhaf quotes from the Democratic Underground, a memory came to me of an incident when I was in college (in the early 1980s). I had formed an atheist club on campus and we were sponsoring a speech on campus entitled, “Creationism: The Voice of the Dark Ages.”

    We plastered the campus with posters but there were many places where people ripped down our posters as many as 6 or 7 times. We kept putting them back up. Everyone on campus knew about our speech despite the efforts of some to silence us.

    I caught one of these people red-handed. He was a surly member of one of the local fundamentalist Christian groups.

    All of this led to my writing a letter to the campus newspaper asking the question, “If the Christians are so sure of their views, why do they have to rip down our posters. If their views are true, surely the light of reason will reveal that.” As soon as I wrote that line, it hit me that their method is not one of reason. Therefore, the only recourse they have to defend their views is the forceful suppression of reason.

    That brings me to the quote from the Democratic Underground. Those Democrats have abandoned reason, thus we see their call for the forceful suppression of their opposition. Their willingness to censor is disturbing, and the reason for it is even more disturbing.

  • L-C

    That is true, and moral relativism also plays a part. Leftists don’t view freedom and rights as fundamentally good things.

    To them, freedom is like a circle. Go too far and you’ll wind up at the other end.

    To them, rights are a matter of privileges granted by the government, to the detriment of others. A war.

    The rejection of the notion of free will is another reason for them to limit the freedom of speech. If someone by their mere words compel others (“incite”) to perform acts of violence, then surely such speech can and should be banned.

    And as always, one operates either by reason or by force. Some, unable to counter your logical argument, will call on subjectivism to declare the very concept of objective truth as such invalid, and back away from the debate.

    That’s not good enough in politics, and so force becomes the only option Left.

  • Jim May

    Whether the road is Christian, Islamic or Leftist, their end is the same.

  • Bill Brown

    Here’s Hitchens essay on the subject. As much as I’m against Christianity’s entrance into the public sphere, I think an Islamicization would be so much worse. It’s happening in England and they (so regrettably) seem to be a leading indicator of where we’re heading.

  • EdMcGon

    If my choice is between freedom of speech with anarchy, or suppressed speech in a totalitarian state, then I will choose the anarchy.

    The inherent problem with the European worldview on the topic is they view multiculturalism as more important than freedom of speech.

    I recently got into a discussion about Islam with a Brit online. Even though he was not a Muslim (in fact he was atheist), he defended their views with the usual multicultural claptrap. When presented with the facts of what Muslims do when they are in charge of a country (things like executing women for getting raped), he had no response, other than to zombie-like repeat his multicultural lessons.

    While I am more than willing to give any culture the benefit of the doubt until I learn more about it, no culture deserves unlimited carte blanche. There comes a point where we need to look at any culture under our own judgment of absolute right and wrong. When they fail, THAT is when freedom of speech is most important. Without freedom of speech, these evil ideologies go unchallenged. If we happen to be wrong in our own personal views, freedom of speech is equally important to those who would show us the error of our ways.