What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Incitement?

I realize that pointing out liberal hypocrisy is like shooting fish in a barrel, but sometimes I just can't resist. Here's one that keeps bugging me more and more apropos of the post below by my esteemed colleague Jeff Culbreath:

The supposed rationale for laws in Europe against "incitement to hatred" (under which six men were arrested recently in Northumbria) is that incitement to hatred is next door to incitement to violence. One of our leftist commentators has suggested that burning a Koran in the U.S. might be legitimately deemed illegal, First Amendment or no, on the grounds that it constitutes "incitement." And the notion of a tacit threat may be the rationale used for the arrest of a man in Michigan who burned a Koran and left it on the steps of a mosque.

In all of this there is a hyper-sensitivity toward acts that express a negative view of Islam or an insult to Islam that might be construed as threats or that might indirectly lead others to engage in violent behavior against the mascot group--in this case, Muslims. (By the same hypersensitive logic the Left wanted James Dobson's head for expressing the traditional moral view of homosexual acts on the grounds that he was responsible, somehow, for the death of Matthew Shepard.)

But in the UK itself Muslims can line the streets literally screaming threats against the Pope as he drives by and no one gets arrested.

If we say that direct incitement to violent acts, directly calling for such acts, and uttering threats against identifiable people should be illegal--a view not only endorsed by common sense but also completely compatible with even a strong interpretation of First Amendment rights--then this Muslim "demonstration" should be illegal even in the United States. But how much the more should such directly and blatantly threatening behavior be illegal in the UK where supposedly the laws show such tremendous concern for incitement to hatred as ostensibly an indirect form of incitement to violence?

Anyone who cannot see that the left works together with Islam is simply blind. It may be that sometimes the left works with Islam out of fear. At other times the cooperation may be calculated. But the cooperation is real. And this double standard is just one small indication thereof.

Comments (35)

Like I said before: this alliance between the left and Islam only makes sense on a spiritual level.
Both groups hate the Judeo/Christian God and his followers. Their alliance is Satanically inspired and enabled. The fact that there is no outrage even amongst the average populace - either to the left's antics or to Muslim threats proves (to me at least) that the veil is pulled over the eyes of all but the enlightened. It is strong deception and it will only continue to get worse.

Good post, Lydia. Don't hold your breath waiting for liberal collaborators to see the contradiction.

As for the motives of leftists in cooperating with Islam, there is also a common, intense hatred of the West that I think is sub-conscious and barely recognized. Chucky is probably right about the diabolical blindness involved.

Lydia and Jeff, have either of you ever heard of a book called "United In Hate" by Jamie Glazov? The book goes into great detail about how the Left's hatred toward the West makes them sympathetic toward Islam.

I'd not heard of it before, but having looked at it on Amazon, I would say that the thesis sounds like something that should be easily recognizable by anyone who reads the news. But I suppose that's giving too much credit to the news.

Am I the only one loopy enough to think that having a president cancel a traditional event with Muslims to attend a rival event with Christians would be seen as, ahem, incitement?

Kamilla

Steve, thanks, I haven't heard about it but I'll give it a look.

A fine post. You know how it is, if you have a common enemy it's only natural to gravitate to a like minded group. Though liberals[?] haven't yet taken to stoning people or removing noses there has developed a sympathetic affinity for people with long beards and bed sheets.
After all, what decent and sensitive person, misunderstood as he may be, wouldn't shout such bon mots as "death to the Pope", or "death to America", the last an especially tall order, but not looked upon unkindly by those Americans who lose sleep at night struggling to find new ways to distance themselves from the accursed normal people.

Of course you can be too bright & progressive and give the game away, as seems to be happening.
Net, somebody has to do the dirty work, hence you may regard our more excitable muslim brothers as the auxillary arm of a frustrated left, anxious to enter into a long awaited death throes and excited at the possibility.

"Security around St Peter’s Square remained tight as al-Qaeda militants in Iraq vowed to “conquer Rome”. The Mujahidin Shura Council, an umbrella group for Sunni Islamists, said in a statement: 'We tell the worshipper of the Cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated . . . May God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahidin'." (from 2006)

Seems there's a history here. This Pope has a bad habit of making silly yet inflammatory statements. Some Muslims take their religion way too seriously. As you post on a site on which many still have a beef with William of Ockham, perhaps you should cut our Muslim friends some slack as 2006 wasn't all that long ago.

I couldn't understand much of the chanting but I did catch a bit about the Pope deserving capital punishment and another about perseverance and head chopping. The crowd itself was peaceable though raucous and way too scruffy for my taste but I neither saw nor heard anything illegal. Help me out if I missed something.

This is another of the Pope's excursions into history.

"He said: "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live."

"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Sort of dumb and offensive, no? Anyway, reading the Pope's statements and watching the video Jeff posted led me to ponder Oscar Wilde's evaluation of fox hunting.

"I realize that pointing out liberal hypocrisy is like shooting IMAGINARY fish in aN EMPTY barrel," (corrected for accuracy

You ignore, of course, that two of the three "liberal commentors" in the referenced thread allowed that Koran burning was protected speech in most circumstances.

Perhaps John Lennon had the right take on all this.


The "watch your back" chants and the "burn, Benedict, burn," taken together with the statement that those who insult the Prophet (clearly meant to include the Pope) deserve capital punishment could fall _well_ within existing laws in most jurisdictions according to which verbal threats against individuals are a form of assault. If I sent a letter to an abortionist telling him he'd better "watch his back" or if I led a bunch of anti-abortion protesters in chanting "Dr. Jones, watch your back, the army of God is coming back" or whatever outside his clinic, you'd better believe there would be serious consideration of and probably actual arrest for uttering threats, probably and/or federal prison time under FACE. I know of one young man who spent five years in the federal pen for writing a letter to a local abortionist that included the phrase "watch your back."

This Pope has a bad habit of making silly yet inflammatory statements.

The Regensburg address by Pope Benedict was not silly, so at least one of his statements was not silly, but still inflammatory. I don't think characterizing the Pope as one who makes silly statements can be easily justified. His statements are, generally, sober statements that happened to not be received in a spirit of charity by some of his listeners. Too bad.

The Chicken

al, careful, don't give yourself away here.


The thing about this incitement debate is that so many ignore the appropriateness of the incited behavior.

For instance, the burning of a Koran incites Muslims - that's a given. An appropriate response by those who have been incited would be say, to burn the holy book of the other side - the Bible, to march in peaceful protest, or to picket outside the Koran burner's home or place of work. What is NOT appropriate is to issue death threats, to attack or kill people, or to destroy property.

Somehow the inappropriate reactions get glossed over though and the debate focuses on the inciter.

What's next - a ban on championship games in sports due to the violent reactions "incited" by such things?

Actually, if people are even trying to do it right, they will use the term "incitement" to mean "inciting people who agree with you to attack someone you are both opposed to." So, for example, if somebody yells to a crowd, "Let's go and kill some Muslims," _that's_ incitement in the usual original meaning of the word.

"What is NOT appropriate is to issue death threats, to attack or kill people, or to destroy property."

I would agree, however, and just for some perspective, let us review the record,

"According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been at least 9 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 179 incidents of assault or battery, and 5 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. And since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 175 arsons, 96 attempted bombings or arsons, 692 bomb threats, 1993 incidents of trespassing, 1400 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")"

The universe of "religions of peace" is a small one indeed.

Lydia, do you have a copy of the letter that got your friend a fiver? I find it hard to believe that "watch your back" was what got him charged and convicted.

MSNBC had a program on the role of Ratzinger in dealing with the priests involved with sexually abusing kids. Lots of folks seem to have a problem with this pope. Perhaps our scruffy chanters were just giving a friendly warning rather then issuing a threat.

On the call for capital punishment, is that any different that the recent commenter on this site who longed for the days of the Inquisition. Just as we have our Christian and Muslim terrorists so do we have adherents of both faiths who would use the power of the state to enforce their beliefs.

Al how is it that you know that all or most of the people listed as commiting those acts in your quote are Christians (as your obviously implying). You seem to be making the same kind of leap or presumption, based on non-specific evidence, that you frequently criticize others for.

http://www.armyofgod.com/

If one wishes to compare, this is from the site Jeff referenced in his post.

"16th September 2010, ushered in a new chapter in the bitter crusade against Islam and Muslims as Pope Benedict XVI, began his malicious and self-absorbed campaign in the United Kingdom. In the last 24 hours the Pope’s pompous inauguration has swelled on to TV screens, and made apparent for everyone living in Britain (and indeed across the world), the apathy of the Vatican towards tyrannical regimes and their despotic rulers.

As Pope Benedict XVI continues to sanctify secularism en masse and scatter his poisonous creed to the people, we are reminded of the gravity of his visit and the need for Muslims to rise and account the crimes of this very wicked man; the Pope’s habit for sacrilegious speech, poignantly became manifest on 12th September 2006, where he cunningly proceeded to endorse the slander of our beloved Messenger Muhammad (saw), through calculated comments deliberately intended to malign the Deen of Al-Islam.

With the world divided into two distinct camps, it is clear to see whose side Pope Benedict XVI is on, and as he continues to jovially meet the most evil of tyrants, including George W Bush and Tony Blair, it appears to reinforce the premise that he is nothing more than the devils advocate.

In light of this, Muslims Against Crusades, have decided to instigate a forceful demonstration, to send a chilling reminder to the Pope – that we as Muslims have not forgotten him. His foul remarks against Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his continued blasphemy against Allah (SWT) will soon be accounted. The repercussions of befriending brutal dictators can never be erased by empty words attempting to suggest the contrary, for indeed actions speak louder than words.

We sincerely advise Pope Benedict XVI that if he truly wishes to be saved from the Day of Great Trial, to give up his polytheistic position and repent for his crimes, and moreover to accept the Qur’an, and ultimately the finality of the Messenger Muhammad (saw)."

On the call for capital punishment, is that any different that the recent commenter on this site who longed for the days of the Inquisition.

In the context, yes, it certainly is. The context directed the remark against a particular person, to whom they have said, on their web site, they wish to issue a "chilling" reminder. Moreover, the context included other threatening chants, such as "Burn, burn Benedict" and "Benedict, watch your back, Islam is coming back."

The person who got the "fiver" was a friend of a friend, so no, I don't have a copy of the letter. That was what she reported as the content of the threatening remark in the letter. Again, there is no doubt at all that if such chants were directed by a screaming crowd against an abortionist, by name, in his physical vicinity, they would and could be treated as threats in law. And I would agree with that decision, actually.

As usual, Al, you are the master of making no distinctions. Vide the fact that you can deliberately conflate general remarks with remarks directed at specific individuals, by name.

I also think it's interesting that you can quote _further_ implied threats ("his foul remarks will soon be accounted," "we wish to issue a chilling reminder that we as Muslims have not forgotten him") as if this somehow helped the "No illegal remarks here, boss," side of the argument.

Truly, Al, you're one blind dude.

I tell you what, Al. If you say something that makes Christians angry, and a crowd gathers outside your house or along the route where you are driving shouting, "Burn, Al, burn" and "Al, you better watch your back, the soldiers of Christ are coming back," yelling through a megaphone about how people who have done what you have done "deserve capital punishment," and if the very same group puts up on its web site the statement that they want to send Al a "chilling reminder" that they "haven't forgotten you" and that your "foul words" will be "brought to account"...

I promise to advocate having them arrested under all applicable laws against making death threats.

But it has to be _that_, not some half-baked pseudo-parallel you dream up. But that, yeah. That's threats. And that's illegal. And that's what they have done vis a vis the Pope.

Both groups hate the Judeo/Christian God and his followers.

Exactly. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Al: I would agree, however, and just for some perspective, let us review the record
Just so we're clear Al, you're agreeing that death threats and violence are bad and should be condemned and you're also agreeing that the behavior that incites that - like the performing of abortions or the burning of a Koran (so long as it's legal) - should be protected?

Yes?

Chucky, I'm just pointing out that they are protected; my agreement isn't needed, it is what it is. Should they be protected? Tell me how you prohibit Koran burning (or flag burning and the like) and keep a meaningful Firat Amendment? Tell me how you create an effective anti-abortion law that doesn't commodify women, isn't class based, and maintains current notions of a free society?

Lydia, I was referring to George R's formula for returning Christianity to its glory days by empowering Christians to put their neighbors to torment and set them alight. I don't take the street demonstration as a specific threat to the pope because the pope-in-a-bottle drove right past them and they merely continued their little photo op. The authorities calculated no threat from this group as they only had a few bobbies out and they were sufficient so their calculation was correct.

Your inability to go beyond your rage is merely the flip side of the rage of the protesters. My read on this is that cultural conservatives regardless of which sky god they worship take themselves way too seriously and that is the direction I took.

BTW, trials are a matter of public record so you wouldn't be violating anyones privacy. I would be interested in looking up the specifics of your friend of a friend's case as I don't see anyone getting five years if "watch your back" was all he did.

Al: Tell me how you create an effective anti-abortion law that doesn't commodify women, isn't class based, and maintains current notions of a free society?
Tell me how you create an effective anti-anything law that doesn't commodify people, isn't class based, and maintains current notions of a free society?

"Tell me how you create an effective anti-anything law that doesn't commodify people, isn't class based, and maintains current notions of a free society?"

If your point is that wealth carries advantages with it, well, duh. But, I am the soul of patience. Laws against abortion are of the same class as those that forbid both the rich and poor to sleep under bridges. They are inherently class based. Lawmakers will never pass laws that would effectively keep themselves, their wives, sisters, daughters, or mistresses from having access to an abortion should they ever need one. They may pass laws that put the poor and the rural at considerable disadvantage and even laws that inconvenience the general population, but that makes my point.

Okay, this isn't going to turn into a debate about abortion. To me, laws against abortion are like laws in corrupt countries that forbid both rich and poor to kill their wives, even if the rich still have access to hit men and the wherewithal to bribe the prosecutor. The problem in other words, is not with the existence of the law.

But my views on the slaughter of the unborn are well-known already and aren't what this thread is about.

Tell me how you prohibit Koran burning (or flag burning and the like) and keep a meaningful First Amendment?

Easy. By leaving the matter to the states. Let some prohibit it and others permit it. Or even let some wild barbarous states encourage it!

Oh, but I forgot, we're not talking about the meaning of the First Amendment; we are talking about the First Amendment as a vehicle for Open Society Liberalism. The actual text and jurisprudence up until about 1950 is reduced to a stalking horse for re-fighting the disputes between John Stewart Mill and James Fitzjames Stephens.

The Court has made nonsense of the First Amendment by its anachronistic impostures. So my question to you is, Tell me how you make out a meaningful First Amendment at all? If I go out into my library and read up in my several collections of primary documents from the Founding era, on precisely the subject of freedom of expression and (always the shadowy doppelganger) the law of sedition, according to Al and his fellows it is all worthless because Mr. Justice Hugo Black said it is?

Now, of course the First Amendment is not alone among constitutional texts in having been rendered into gibberish and nonsense by Supreme Court imposition, but perhaps no single clause has been so tortured from clear meaning and history as it. Al's bluster about certainty -- "I'm just pointing out that they are protected; my agreement isn't needed, it is what it is" -- is just that, buffoonish bluster. Whatever he might have in mind, the next case might well go differently. Functionally the Amendment has whatever meaning any given Supreme Court says it has.

[Incidentally, given that we can hardly know what the Court will do next -- protect porn and (as dear Justice Breher, in a moment of starling candor, recent intimated) forbid Koran burnings; treat fictitious corporate persons as more real and free than men; throw smaller property-holders off their land; zig and zag on capital punishment, abortion, church-state relations -- I find much more fruitful to talk about policy and principle according to our own lights. Thus I propose proscribing certain Islamic doctrines because I think it just and wise, and on my reading well within the constitutional tradition of this republic, which has emphatically not scrupled to proscribe doctrines in the past. What any potential Supreme Court would think of such legislation is not a question I am going to concern myself with.]

"But my views on the slaughter of the unborn are well-known already and aren't what this thread is about."

Understood and understood but Chucky asked and I answered. I will leave things at pointing out that you miss my point. Laws against wife killing don't have built into them an advantage for the rich. Any marginal advantage is only the nature of things and more so under corrupt governance. After all it is as easy for a poor man to find his wife inconvenient as it is for a rich man. However, some laws by their nature and in their very application burden some more than others. That is why some countries calculate traffic fines as a percentage of income instead a flat amount.

"Functionally the Amendment has whatever meaning any given Supreme Court says it has."

And as that is all I said I welcome you to my world of "buffoonish bluster". (At least you didn't imagine my death)

Well, I don't think you take from it what I take from it. I take from it that despite all the recent accretions by judicial usurpation, our system is still a republican system where sovereignty is lodged in the majority acting through its duly-elected representatives. I figure that any majority (we are much nearer to it today that we were when I first proposed the legislation) capable of effecting a Jihad-sedition law will be capable of overawing the Court and also effecting the law's enforcement.

In other words, our basic dispute is thrown open for all to see again: I favor rule by the many; you favor rule by the few.

"I take from it that despite all the recent accretions by judicial usurpation, our system is still a republican system where sovereignty is lodged in the majority acting through its duly-elected representatives."

Come on Paul, that was never our system and couldn't have been considering the hard-wired elements of our Constitution. Judge-made law and judicial review have been around since before the beginning. "Principled" attacks on "judicial activism" are nothing other than another way of saying "I don't like the decisions". The most damaging item you referenced was the result of a footnote by a conservative justice in the 19th century.

We will never have a majoritarian system as long as we have a Senate and an Electoral College and those are unlikely to change ever. Currently Senators representing less than 40% of the population can thwart the will of the majority (if one counts only those who elected those Senators - if i lived in say, Nebraska, there is no way that I would consider myself represented by either of those guys). A person living in Wyoming has 70 or 80 times the voting power of myseld or Jeff C.

Yet another example why the few/many thing is meaningless.

Wrong.

The American system is and has been a majoritarian one, though it only countenances majorities of a particular kind: long-lasting and multi-layered ones. So mostly the governing majority, the general will, is reflected in a negative on proposed innovations. Only rarely does it rouse itself for positive legislation of a major kind.

"...countenances majorities of a particular kind"

In my universe majority equals 50% +1, In yours it seems to involve some mumbo-jumbo with this thing called a "general will". Sorry, I like my reality-based universe in which I don't have to torture simple concepts. The hard wired part of the Constitution involved compromises that had nothing to do with this "general will" and everything to do with hard-ball politics. That is why Madison's design had broken down by 1800.

The simple reality is that a minority of states with a minority of humans (lots of acres, trees, cows though) whose lives are largely divorced from those of the majority can send to DC politicians who could care less about the common good.

Your negative comes from a minority, learn to count.

Just came on this. What does this have to do with any rational concept of majority or general will?

"Most people know that the Senate can't do much of anything these days unless it can muster the votes to break a filibuster. What fewer people know is that the Senate also depends on unanimous consent for its non-controversial functions. And as the name implies, unanimous consent requires, well, unanimity. One senator can bring the whole thing down -- or at least make it take a while. As Ian Millhiser says, "it may only take 60 votes to get something accomplished in the Senate, but it takes 100 votes to do so quickly." And the Senate does not have nearly enough time to do everything slowly. If it can't function through unanimous-consent agreements most of the time, it can't function."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/the_senate_as_a_collective_act.html

Oh, and I just saw Jim DeMint personally (and in the name of his minority caucus) hold up the investigation of the Gulf oil spill in the Senate. Do you honestly believe that the majority of the American people don't want to find out who and what were responsible for the disaster?

~~The simple reality is that a minority of states with a minority of humans (lots of acres, trees, cows though) whose lives are largely divorced from those of the majority can send to DC politicians who could care less about the common good.~~

And this cuts the other way as well. The last election was decided largely by urbanites (forget the red state/blue state division -- check it out county by county) who sent to DC politicians who don't give a rodent's hind-end about what happens between NY and LA, except for those little outposts of liberal urbanism that happen to lie in between (there's a reason the rest is called 'flyover country'). Voters who live outside the urban centers need to have a say against the concentration of wealth and power that accumulates in the cities. After all, they tend not to want the whole flippin' country turning into Detroit.

In my universe majority equals 50% +1, In yours it seems to involve some mumbo-jumbo with this thing called a "general will".

Translation: "can't talk political science! don't even wanna!"

Seriously though, al: The American political tradition permits far more subtlety and sophistication on the subject of the "deliberate sense" of the people, as Publius puts it, which is a variation on majority rule, than you in your liberal wisdom will allow. Why the narrowing of the conversation?

The whole idea of cultivating majorities secured against what is worst in the democratic form, of building a frame of government by which self-government is established but in a structure that will guard against it excesses -- all this is apparently obscure to you.

Such dullness to the texture and argument of our own native tradition is why I have such profound mistrust for the liberal's programme and preachment.

As for the details of individual congresses and legislative battles -- this tells us little of the America tradition itself, which waxes and wanes, shifts some, adjusts, and generally takes on a Burkean character. Right now the governing coalition has been ramming unpopular legislation down folks' throats; the rebuke is coming; what will come next is anyone's guess.

Al: Lawmakers will never pass laws that would effectively keep themselves, their wives, sisters, daughters, or mistresses from having access to an abortion should they ever need one.
I don't think you understand the pro-life mindset. You seem to be under the assumption that pro-life lawmakers are only pro-life when it's expedient. If they view abortion as the murder of innocent human beings they most certainly will pass such laws - especially if it keeps someone they love from committing such an act.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.