The need to knock Islam (repeat) 17

This post,  first published on September 3, 2011, needs to be repeated from time to time, and this is one of those times.

It could be retitled The need to knock religion

The greatness of the West began with doubting. The idea that every belief, every assumption, should be critically examined started the might of Europe. When those old Greek thinkers who founded our civilization learnt and taught that no one has a monopoly of truth or ever will have, they launched the intellectual adventure that has carried the human race – not without a long interval in the doldrums – literally to the skies.

Socrates taught the utility of suspicion. He is reputed to have said, “The highest form of human excellence is to question oneself and others.” He was not, however, the first to use doubt for discovery. Thales of Miletos, who was born 155 years before Socrates, dared to doubt that religion’s explanatory tales about how the world came to be as it is were to be trusted, and he began exploring natural phenomena in a way that we recognize as scientific. He is often called the Father of Science. With him and his contemporary, Anaximander, who argued with him by advancing alternative ideas, came the notion – for the first time as far as we know – that reason could fathom and describe how the universe worked.

Science is one of the main achievements of the West, but it is not the only product of constructive doubt that made for its greatness. Doubt as a habit of mind or tradition of thinking meant that new, foreign, even counter-intuitive ideas were not dismissed. Europe, before and after it stagnated in the doldrums of the long Catholic Christian night (and even to some extent during those dark centuries), was hospitable to ideas wherever they came from.

Totally opposed to this intellectual openness were the churches with their dogma. Those who claim that the achievements of our civilization are to be credited to Christianity (or in the currently fashionable phrase to “the Judeo-Christian tradition”) have a hard case to make. It was the rediscovery of the Greek legacy in the Renaissance in the teeth of Christian dogmatism, and the new freedom from religious persecution exploited by the philosophers of the Enlightenment that re-launched the West on its intellectual progress, to become the world’s nursery of innovation and its chief factory of ideas.

Our civilization cannot survive without this openness. Critical examination is the breath that keeps it alive. But it is in danger of suffocation. It is more threatened now than it has been for the last four hundred years by dogmatisms: Marxism, environmentalism, religion – above all Islam which absolutely forbids criticism.

The Founding Fathers of the United States perfectly understood the necessity for an open market of ideas. Every citizen of the republic, they laid down, must be free to declare his beliefs, to argue his case, to speak his mind, to examine ideas as publicly as he chose without fear of being silenced.

No longer?

This warning comes from Nina Shea, writing in the National Review:

An unprecedented collaboration between the Obama administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formerly called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) to combat “Islamophobia” may soon result in the delegitimization of freedom of expression as a human right.

The administration is taking the lead in an international effort to “implement” a U.N. resolution against religious “stereotyping,” specifically as applied to Islam. To be sure, it argues that the effort should not result in free-speech curbs. However, its partners in the collaboration, the 56 member states of the OIC, have no such qualms. Many of them police private speech through Islamic blasphemy laws and the OIC has long worked to see such codes applied universally. Under Muslim pressure, Western Europe now has laws against religious hate speech that serve as proxies for Islamic blasphemy codes.

Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and “negative profiling” but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against “defamation of religions,” which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms.

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Citing a need to “move to implementation” of Resolution 16/18, the Obama administration has inexplicably [not if Obama’s Islamophilia is remembered – ed] decided to launch a major international effort against Islamophobia in partnership with the Saudi-based OIC. This is being voluntarily assumed at American expense, outside the U.N. framework, and is not required by the resolution itself.

On July 15, a few days after the Norway massacre, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul on religious intolerance. It was there that she announced the initiative, inviting the OIC member-states’ foreign ministers and representatives to the inaugural meeting of the effort that the U.S. government would host this fall in Washington. She envisions it as the first in a series of meetings to decide how best to implement Resolution 16/18.

In making the announcement, Clinton was firm in asserting that the U.S. does not want to see speech restrictions: “The resolution calls upon states to ‘counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate . . . but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.’” (This is the First Amendment standard set forth in the 1969 Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio.)

With the United States providing this new world stage for presenting grievances of “Islamophobia” against the West, the OIC rallied around the initiative as the propaganda windfall that it is. It promptly reasserted its demands for global blasphemy laws, once again sounding the call of its failed U.N. campaign for international laws against the so-called defamation of Islam. It has made plain its aim to use the upcoming conference to further pressure Western governments to regulate speech on behalf of Islam.

The aim of the OIC is to criminalize criticism of Islam, though it might go along with banning the criticism of religion in general as an interim step. It will reserve to itself the right to condemn all other religions and beliefs, but allege that any criticism of Islam is incitement to violence – and call angry crowds on to the streets to prove it. 

Islam is now the major threat to the West. Its ideas are the very opposite of those on which the USA was founded. It is an ideology of intolerance and cruelty. It forbids the free expression of thought. By its very nature, even if it were not now on a mission of world conquest (which it is), it is the enemy of the West.

The best way to defeat it is by criticizing it, constantly and persistently, in speech and writing, on the big screen and the small screen, in the schools and academies, in all the media of information and comment, in national and international assemblies.

If the weapon of words is forbidden, the only alternative will be guns. 

  • Just as our leaders endlessly repeat falsehoods such as the ‘Nothing to do with Islam’ line, it is essential for us to endlessly repeat the truth. There is a good description of the techniques of political correctness – suppression and saturation here:

    I have quickly lost all fear of repeating myself in this struggle. Islam is not a race. Islam is not a race.

    I have written on the same general theme as your article this week:

    • The redgreenalliance,com article is very good, very interesting. Thanks for the link. I’ll go there again.

      One must indeed repeat and repeat and repeat.

      I call the “clash” one of civilization and barbarism.

      There is now an Islamic army which is engaged in war on the West. We need to defeat that army, thoroughly and soon. I’m looking to Trump to do it. An obliterating defeat would send a shockwave through Islam that would stop its violent activity for a very long time (though it’s colonization through the womb, and its proselytizing would probably continue).

      In my long experience with what deters Muslim terrorists, I found that violent retaliation does it best. Gaddafi stopped all terrorist activity for years after Libya was bombed in retaliation for Lockabie. There is always a pause in attacks on Israel after the IDF hits back hard. The West is militarily – as well as economically and intellectually – much stronger that Islam. All that’s lacking to put an end to the jihad is the will to do it.

      Perhaps Trump has the will.

      • liz

        Yes, the best way to deal with barbarians is simply common sense – you meet their force with superior force, and keep them at a manageable level with more of it. People who behave like savage animals must be treated as such. They certainly can’t be reasoned with or trusted.

      • “I call the “clash” one of civilization and barbarism.”

        Indeed, that was my little joke with the quotation marks in the title.

        Of course the Islamic State can be defeated very easily militarily, I don’t even think about that. The real problem is the demographic one.

  • Pingback: The Atheist Conservative: » End of free speech on the social media?()

  • Kevin VandeWettering

    The largest concentration of Muslims is Indonesia. I don’t recall anyone having any problem with that. The problem is not Islam. The problem is people radicalized by war. All the silicon companies around here mean I’ve got Muslim neighbors. They’re no problem. They’re from Indonesia, Egypt and India. It’s not a problem.

    The enemy is not Islam. It’s the cockeyed leftist ideas about multiculturalism that are the problem. It’s not Islam that is the problem. It’s pretty obvious that the problem is progressives that everybody should view with disgust.

    Progressives are what Muslims hate about us in the first place. In that, I join them.

    I think it’s pretty funny. Jillian, you’re pretty amusing. You want to speak against Islam when most atheists are just a bunch of progressives using atheism to mitigate the consequences of being sexually promiscuous drug addicts.

    Religion bad! DMT good. God isn’t real. Don’t Bogart that joint.

  • liz

    Thanks for reposting this – it was urgent then and has only gotten worse since.
    Reading it in the light of all that’s happened in the intervening years brings into even sharper focus the absolute treason that our President is collaborating in.

    • Frank

      Treason is the correct word.

  • Frank

    Two videos worth watching.
    Islamic cultural terrorism – Pat Condell (EXCELLENT!)

    Name the poison – Pat Condell (addendum to above)

    • Thanks for these, Frank, but we did actually post them in 2011.

      They would stand posting again, of course. But I think he’ll be making new ones soon.

      • Frank

        Yes he has new ones but these two got right to the real problem and they fit with your repost too. 🙂

    • liz

      Yes, excellent! As “spot-on” today as when he recorded them.