?

Log in

No account? Create an account

I know why we aren't defending Denmark - Journal of Omnifarious

Feb. 23rd, 2006

08:05 am - I know why we aren't defending Denmark

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

In response to this most excellent article: Stand up for Denmark! I would like to say that my personal feeling as to why we aren't is that the current administration would very much like to be able to create that kind of violence here over perceived insults to Christiantiy. So, promoting the idea that we shouldn't hold Islam accountable for the stupid violence inspired by so many of the authority figures who claim allegiance to this religion fits in well with the plan.

Current Mood: [mood icon] cynical

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:klicrai
Date:March 29th, 2006 08:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't think that's it at all. I think it's more likely that this administration wants the American people to accept that there are very good reasons for the government to impose limits on free speech. Over and over again on NPR I heard officials saying the same thing: "With freedom (of speech) comes responsibility", implying that we have a responsibility to not say certain things. We're not standing up for Denmark because our country wants us to believe that Denmark is getting what it deserved.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:March 29th, 2006 02:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)

I think that's just an extension and expansion of what I said instead of a contradiction or alternative. :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:klicrai
Date:March 29th, 2006 08:42 pm (UTC)

If you say so...

(Link)
I understood your opinion to be that Bush is refusing to make a stand on the Denmark issue in order to promote a culture of violence against those who oppose Christianity. Was I wrong?

If not, then I don't think that's the case. I think we'd see continued enforcement of the freedom to oppose Christianity. Too radical a shift in policy would be noted and resisted by a wide swath of the country and Bush's handlers are better than that. Look at how skillfully they made a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of most Americans. Bush is a bumbling idiot, but his handlers give me the jeebies.

What Bush (or his handlers) want is for him to become an American dictator. The first step toward that is to have all effective attacks on his government labelled as "irresponsible". He's used exactly that word in response to criticism before. By doing nothing about the situation in Denmark we get to see exactly what happens to those who use "irresponsible" speech. It's creepy as hell.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:March 29th, 2006 09:14 pm (UTC)

Re: If you say so...

(Link)

The Chinese also use the word 'irresponsible' to describe criticism of their government.

Restriction of the freedom to oppose christianity is ultimately promoting a culture of violence against those who would do it. Whether that is state sanctioned or mob violence doesn't matter much.

But, as I understand it, you are saying the Bush isn't trying to take that step right now. He's just trying to lay a foundation for it later, and trying to instill fear in people to make them censor themselves once he starts dropping hints that he considers those kinds of attacks irresponsible.

Is that right?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:klicrai
Date:March 29th, 2006 10:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Really? I'm not surprised. China is one of those countries where I thankful to have not been born.

Correct. I think he's laying the foundation to do whatever the hell he wants, but whether or not he ends up promoting Christianity that hard remains to be seen. Honestly, I'm skeptical as to the strength of his convictions on that point. The Christians are a huge, easily manipulated voting bloc, but that dosn't mean he'd squandar his dictatorship powers pushing their agenda.

He'll keep giving them money and paying lip service that borders on outright fellatio, to be shure, but it won't be in his best intrests to restrict speech opposing Christianity. Promoting a culture of violence against non-Christians would have significant negative reprecussions on him because non-Christians are also a large voting bloc, and many of them are closely tied to his fanatical base. There just isn't enough payoff. Unfortunately, I think that gays are far more likely to be the next scapegoats. Assuming he can't keep the country distracted by involving us in war after war after war.

Honestly, what I think is going on is exactly what Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in 1961. He said: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Bush's handlers *are* the military-industrial complex. It's creepifying, and I don't know what we can do about it. They have their fingers in both party's pies, after all. If we as a people could learn to vote something other than Democrat or Republican there might be a chance, but as it is I forsee dark days ahead.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)