Part of being able to live in a free society is the ability to critize theories and ideas. Proir to the American Revoltion which was not only one of the few successful revolutions but also started the trend of monarchies getting overthrown, being able to speak your mind was something that very well could have gotton you exuctued. The concept of Islamophibia is a step back into these old dark days. Relgious theocracies are a form of facism and like many other similar movements, religon and twisted authoritarian ideologies are woven into this mind set.
When you look at the landscape of the world right now you can see a trend swaying. In the United States, while we don't have the same type of violence you see in other parts of the world you can see the ground work being laid for this. Granted it's not everyone of faith who falls into this category but the same can be said of the rise of Nazism or Satlinism. At first people tend to not criticize movements or ideology until it is too late.
When you look at what Ben Affleck did on that show, it wasn't the behavoir of a well educted enlightened person, it was that of a propaganda hound. The free exchange of ideas which is what the first amendment of the consition is all about means letting the other side state their points. I myself find many of the ideas put forth by the more conservitive factions to be juevilline and ill concieved, but I don't think they should change their views based on the way I think.
When you look at the pratices of these parts of the world it shouldn't take much to understand that we are not on the same page and are in fact at odds with their system. When someone in western culuture writes an offensive book or makes an offensive movie we don't issue hits against them or lynch them in the street. We don't require our woman to be nothing more than servants. We don't put homosexuals to death because they chose to love somone or be with someone they care about. Western society is based on the concepts of the enlightenment. The last time the Muslim world was in a golden age was centuries ago. Since than it has been brutal dictor or ruler who governs his people with an iron fist.
Even tho the vast majority of Muslims are not in the grouping, why should we keep quite on these crimes against humanity? If you have a holy cleric issuing a hit against an author and he is siting a holy book shouldn't we than take a look at that book to understand where he is coming from? I opposed the war in Iraq not because I believed the fairy tale Michael Moore and other liberals but forth of Saddam being this great leader but because I didn't trust Bush and the group of criminals that made up his cabinet. You can not destroy fascism by using fascist methods, you only breed more of it.
With Ben Affleck, for someone who claims to be a liberal he doesn't show that he stands for liberal princaples. It's not enough to say you support equal rights for women, workers, and religous beliefs. You have to be willing to take a stand agaainst those seeking to erode those principles. When you see a state rising regarless of the belief that stands against those you should be obliged to speak out against it. Every holy book has parts in them that goes against liberal beliefs, the difference is at the moment the enemy of this happens to fall into the Islamic Facist category. In the future it very well could change but having that mentality is going to do anything against this dangerous idealogy. Yes the vast majority of muslims just want to be able to live a good life, but like with christanity the belief system not only gives the right away for opression but has lead to numerous fatilites through out the world.
The easiest way to explain this is to look at how Stalin took over Russia. Before the rise of communism there existed two different belief systems in the country. The first was the Orthodox church, the second was the cult of the Tsar or the Monarchy religion. Kings and rulers held their power because of the belief that they where descendants of a higher power. People basically trusted and worshiped their leaders because of this. While the ruler may not of been a full replacement of "god" they where held in the same category. Stalin took these current standing beliefs and re-branded them with communism. In the Islamic world you can see the same thing playing out now. IS (Islamic State) started an Islamic caliph where these fighters see their leader in the same light that catholics see the Pope. There is a culture of servitude built into these belief systems and if coexistence is ever going to be a reality we have to be able to recognize this and do away with this archaic mentality. The notion of the vast majority don't believe this doesn't make anyone safer and doesn't spread the ideas of equality. September 11 which started two wars and killed a large number of civilians was done by a small number of people. The fact that the vast majority didn't agree with them didn't stop them from attacking. For the fear of offending someone should we allow this kind of crimes to continue?
Ben Affleck while he may have good intentions, he isn't representing the notions of free speech and one could argue he is indirectly showing support for these oppressive governmental systems. Islamaphobia is a term used by people who prefer to walk on egg shells instead of being honest. While we may live on the same planet we do not live in the same world as these fascist do. Spend five minutes listening to what these holy men say and they will put down their goals in simple terms. To ignore their own words is foolish. They do not hold the same values that we do and many of these extreme groups are not like the Taliban in the sense that they are only concerned with their own part of the world. If we stop criticizing these minority groups they will continue to grow in power. Most of the extremist fighters out there are illiterate and uneducated, the follow these corrupt people because there is very few people willing to say that they are full of shit. What Sam Harries was trying to say was not only true but it was an exercise in free speech. Affleck while trying to play the role of savior of multiculturalism in reality, was really playing the role of Joesph Gobbels. He was using half truths and the smoke screen of political correctness to deny someone the right to dissent and took what could have and should have been a good debate into another show you find on Fox News.
No comments:
Post a Comment