"In my previous article, I suggested that Senator Obama's attraction to Black liberation theology is fair game in the general election campaign."

Whether fair game or not, it will be central on the battleground. I think his religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are really a sideshow to what should be the main issue of whether Obama is qualified to be President. When I first heard he'd decided to run, I thought, "Noooo, not now! Wait four years!" With desperately little national experience under his belt, I felt he'd quickly get mown down by the Hillary Express.

He's surprised me by not tanking early on and becoming just another footnote in the history of African-American presidential candidacies. He can certainly talk a good game, but so far that's mostly all he's needed to do. Hopefully now that the world's longest job interview is over, he can get down to the nitty-gritty of convincing the American public that he can perform the office better than Macca.

DD,

Mr. Miller has picked up on the truth of the matter - your country faces a huge moral crisis, a crisis that you appear willing to close you eyes to just as do most of the fools political commentators out there. Black Liberation theology is a nice distraction from the cold reality of real moral choices, and from facing up to them - which Americans are refusing to do, from what I can see.

And Mr. Miller has picked up on the seriousness of that moral crisis. The four thousand American soldiers lost in Iraq, even though most were lost in vain, for a war that has little meaning or gain except for plutocrats in the States, is just the opening salvo of something far far worse.

We in Israel are having these choices shoved down our throats. But that's our problem.

Given that this is primarily an American site - and you Americans don't really care about the world, for all of your pretense to the contrary - it is appropriate that an ex-pat bring you the bad news.

It is appropriate also that his message seems restrained. But do examine that poem at the beginning of this article, and for whom it was written - and then examine the poem that has made Yeats immortal "The Second Coming".

Here's the question. Is Black Liberation Theology really all that much different from radical Islam?

Dave

Dave: in a word, yes.

I'd reckon it's so different, the comparison is a nonsense.

...as they both are based on the worship of Sophia's mad offspring I'd say that they are pretty similar

Maybe all this brouhaha over religion in the 2008 election will finally bring an end to religion in politics. Most politicians just suck up to a religion because it was a safe way to appeal to churchgoers. That worked pretty good when almost everyone was some kind of mild-mannered protestant, like methodist, or whatever. But now religion is not so simple and homogeneous, so by stating a religion one takes a chance of outraging some religionists.

It's no longer safe for a politician to decalim on his superstitious beliefs, which may be just a ruse anyhow as most politicians really seem to be secular; there ethics are formed by power and money.

When it's no longer safe to embrace a religion then the notion of religion itself becomes suspect.

Ruvy,

I find Yeats difficult, but as I understand The Second Coming he was talking an event not unlike that envisioned by Mr. Ahmadinejad. Yeats seemed to be unhappy about it, while Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to think it will be great and glorious.

And so, while "all the dogs of Europe bark and intellectual disgrace stares from every human face," we sit around fussing about how Senator Clinton screwed her party or how she got screwed by it and how high gasoline prices may go.

Oh well. Is it too early for a beer?

"Mr. Miller"

I just noticed in re-reading the first sentence of my comment #6 that I am suffering from Preposition Deficiency Anemia. It is not my fault; I am a victim.

Dan

...as are we all...

Politicians won't stop professing their faith, they'll just tell their constituents that they're not attending services because it's to expensive to load the family in the SUV and drive to church...

Dan,

Maybe you remember me telling you I had an article in the hopper. Well, it finally was released in the culture section, Changing Focus from the World of Lies to the World of Truth.

As I said this deals with moral questions, but there is plenty here for you to argue with.

Dave - Black liberation theology is a lot like the Nation of Islam. Both are offshoots of their original religions (Christianity and Islam) which combined with black nationalism.

I wrote something recently about C.S. Lewis, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. In The Screwtape Letters, Lewis wrote about how Christianity can be devalued if it becomes "Christianity and". When Christianity becomes the means to an end, or one objective on a list, it becomes weakened. It's a tough thing, being a church with a soup kitchen and not a soup kitchen with a church.

There are traces of "religion and" in Christianity and Islam. (Digression is bound to happen in any human endeavor, even message boards.) But liberation theology and the Nation of Islam actually fuse their religious message and their racial agenda. Black liberation theology isn't Christianity and Race, it's racial Christianity. Christ's message is about race (as is Mohammed's according to the Nation of Islam).

I'm a Catholic, and I've heard plenty of sermons about the evils of racism. We support many a soup kitchen. But every week we say the Nicene Creed which is an articulation of the basic tenets of our faith. You look at Trinity UCC's website, and you see a set of political/religious beliefs. There's the difference.

Baronius -- If he were alive, where would Dr. Martin Luther King be worshipping this Sunday? I'm thinking he might choose an inter-racial non-denominational church like Paul Sheppard's where an attempt is made to ease tension between the races. Maybe he'd even stoop to help y'all heretical Catholics at the soup kitchen once a month. ;)

Dan Miller, help me please as my sarcasm-meter is a little off lately. Was this Churchill found his discussions with Stalin quite helpful in getting a sense of the man's character and what he was about. meant to be sarcastic? It didn't appear so in context, but didn't Stalin show his true character when he forced starvation in Ukraine in 1932? Duranty and the "owned" media, more than lack of "talks," was probably what kept the US in the dark about that particular aspect of "Uncle Joe's" personality. Didn't Stalin show his true character within about ten minutes of Yalta with the onset of the Cold War?

I'm not meaning to discount the value of talks, not even with the leaders of the countries who seem to pose the biggest threat to us. The problem with these talks is not the talks themselves, but the fact that they always seem to result in the US getting involved in "foreign entaglements" militarily with people who can't be trusted. Not since before world war II (if you consider at Eastern bloc countries) have these entanglements ever seemed to provide even short-term benefits for the US or those foreign nations we tried to help.

What if the pre-WWII talks had resulted in revoking the burden on Germany to make unreasonable reparations for WWI? Would England or Poland have been threatened? Economic crisis does funny things to a person's sense of right and wrong. Hitler wouldn't have had nearly the following he did had the WWI victors been conscious of the need to avert economic disaster in Germany.

I submit that the only kind of talks that will make real head-way in bringing peace to the world are two-sided talks--where BOTH sides are truly willing to compromise and admit guilt. Come on now, you know how horrified we in the US are at the thought of being forced to wear burquas, or of forcing to submit to other aspects of Sharia law. Run with that. Now imagine you belong to a very moralistic culture and the West starts getting the local population hooked on porn films, supplies alternate models virtue like Britney Spears to your teenagers, Western-based health organizations come in and start aggressively promoting abortion? Wouldn't that feel like an invasion? Wouldn't you be angry and threatened? What if the rocks and insults throwing contests between your local teens and Israeli soldiers were escalated by the provision (to BOTH sides) of automatic weapons and training? What if your country had been subjected to economic sanctions such as the one imposed on Iraq and you'd watched your nation's children die as a result? What business did the US have doing those things?

My foreign policy views are regarded as dreadfully simple-minded around here, and believe me they are, but maybe my ignorance of trees allows me to see the forest. The owner of a Rube Goldberg type of device to carve apples might boast of his team of highly skilled apple-device maintenance analysts. Someone with a regular old paring knife doesn't even need a whetstone.

What church did Churchill belong to? Did he go around prating about god blessing everything?

In a few years religion in USA politics will be as unimportant as it is in European politics.

Nobody will care.

That's incredibly optimistic, bliffle, but I hope you're right.

What church did Stalin belong to? I hope in a few years two of the adherents of Stalin's religion will have attention spans exceeding the length of time it takes to read past the first paragraph. :P

Biffle,

Churchill more than likely belonged to the Church of England. I don't think he was all that religious, and I haven't seen any indication in his writings that he was. I'm reasonably sure, however, that the words "God bless. . ." whatever did on occasion escape his lips. Hell, many people say it when someone sneezes; not because they believe that the soul departs the body during a sneeze and that the expression keeps the devil from entering, but just because it is the customary thing to say. I suspect it is more cultural than anything else. Even I occasionally say to a Panamanian (typically Roman Catholic), "Via con dios." It has a literal meaning, "go with God," and a cultural meaning, something along the lines of "have a safe journey." Occasionally, when there has been too much rain, and it stops, I will roll my eyes at the sky and say, "gracias a dios."

As to whether religion will disappear eventually from U.S. politics, it may well, and that will probably, on balance, be a good thing. What should not disappear, however, is inquiry into the secular opinions of candidates, regardless of whether those opinions are cloaked in a religious costume. I would find it rather sad if we were to vote for a candidate who held to the view that infidels should be murdered or that raped women should be stoned. Whether one deems these religious or secular views doesn't much matter to me. I find them perverse, and would not vote for any candidate who held them. Nor, I suspect, would you.

Dan

I don't see any signs that America is losing its religiosity.

Irene,

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I really do think that Churchill's (and Roosevelt's) contacts with Stalin, via both multiple telegrams and a few personal meetings, did give Churchill (and Roosevelt) a better understanding of Stalin than either would otherwise have had. Keep in mind that the U.S.S.R. was viewed by many in the U.S., England and elsewhere as a noble effort to ameliorate the perceived evils of capitalism. This view persisted even after the war. Had it not been for Stalin's efforts on the eastern front, which kept a whole lot of German troops occupied and thus away from the western front, Hitler's Germany would almost certainly have won the war, with disastrous consequences for the rest of us. Sometimes, it is unfortunately necessary to rise above principle and deal with bad people.

Through their contacts with Stalin, both Churchill and Roosevelt learned quite about him as a person -- a highly intelligent, stubborn, and ruthless jerk. They knew what was going on. The despicable depredations of the U.S.S.R. in the prison camps of the Katyn Forest, where more than twenty thousand Polish prisoners of war were murdered in 1940, including a large number of very young cadets, were very well known to them. Even the International Red Cross refused to investigate. There were many other very, very bad things. The Allies simply needed the U.S.S.R. and could not do anything about them. We continued to make valiant efforts and sacrificed many lives and ships to continue to supply the U.S.S.R. with the materials of war needed to keep the Germans occupied and away from the eastern front.

Had Churchill not become intimately familiar with Stalin and his methods, would he have delivered his Fulton, Missouri "Iron Curtain" speech? I don't know, but my guess is that he might not have deemed it necessary or even fitting.

I agree, and I suspect that most people in retrospect do as well, that the Treaty of Versailles was a bad thing. The reparations imposed on Germany were staggering, and certainly catalyzed World War II. One can possibly blame the whole thing on the French, but that wouldn't be entirely fair. Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt wanted anything to do with a similar approach following World War II, and a very different tack was taken.

I also agree that efforts to impose our cultural mores on other cultures are often a bad thing. Hell, I find many of them totally disgusting myself. However, I'm not sure that we make much of a concerted effort to impose them, and suspect that they, like peanuts, are simply irresistible. I recall being in an internet cafe in Panama City one day, and seeing half a dozen young men in Moslem garb gathered around a computer watching pornographic videos. Nobody forced them to do so; they just wanted to. Our television shows, our pop tarts, many of our glossy magazines and the like provide what I hope is a very distorted view of life in the U.S.

I also agree that sanctions often don't do much good. Rather than impose sanctions on Cuba, we should have "hugged them to death." Sanctions frequently provide dictators more power, rather than less, because they give them an excuse for their own poor performance. Read Bremmer's J Curve if you haven't already done so. Sanctions tend to retard the societies on which they are imposed from becoming open to ideas other than their own. To the extent that there is dissent in Iran, it is due more to an almost irresistible invasion of foreign notions, some good, some bad, than to anything else. The internet is a great tool for encouraging openness, and it is extraordinarily difficult to quench it. Sanctions also cause quite a lot of suffering among those whose main concern is to avoid starvation, and hardly any suffering at all among the bad guys. I do think that when the sanctions against North Korea finally reduced the availability of luxury goods to Great Leader Kim Jong Pil and his buddies, it did quite a bit of good.

Having said all of this, I don't think we can assume that all cultures are OK, and that we can all get along by showing good will and tolerance. The Islamic world, to the extent that it threatens us, remains rooted in a very violent time long past; many of the impulses which drove the Crusades about a millennium ago are still very active and very dangerous. They now have modern technology, and are quickly learning how to use it. If we could simply throw a force field around the region and wish them the best of luck in killing each other, that would be nice. We can't do that.

The thrust of the article was that we can't ignore the problem and assume that they are just like us. They aren't, and the sooner our leaders recognize this, via whatever personal contacts and whatever other means are possible, the better.

I think I have rambled on quite long enough.

Dan

Irene,

As I recall, Stalin attended a Russian Orthodox seminary and trained as a priest in that religion. All in all, it would probably have been a good thing had he continued in that pursuit. But then, without Stalin, the Allies might have been defeated by Hitler's Germany, not a good thing.

Dan

Europe, in the long run, is finished.

With fertility rates in Europe at about 1.4 overall (the zero-growth replacement rate is 2.1), they will soon be unable to afford their generous socialist welfare state. More young workers will be needed to pay the requisite taxes. These young workers are not "being made" by the indigenous population, so governments will be forced to rely upon ever-increasing levels of immigration.

Europe receives most of its immigration from North Africa, the Middle East (Turkey in particular) and South Asia (Pakistan in particular). These countries are predominately (almost exclusively) Muslim.

Muslims in Europe have a much higher fertility rate than indigenous Europeans (roughly triple the rate, around 4.0). And Muslims already comprise between 5-10 percent of the populations of several European countries.

Oh, and they don't seem to be assimilating into the secular culture of Europe very well.

So. Indigenous (non-Muslim) Europeans are shrinking in aggregate numbers every year. Muslim Europeans are growing in numbers every year. Massive immigration from Muslim nations continues. Assimilation into the "dominant" culture is not occurring. Add all that together, and you have a future Europe (50-100 years from now) in which Islam is the majority religion, sharia law is in effect in a great number of jurisdictions, much of the "social progress" (legalized abortion, gay marriage, etc.) of Europe has been reversed, and most of the hallmarks of Western civilization are scrapped.

Good secular humanist atheist socialist Europeans may not realize it, but they are sterilizing/aborting themselves into a self-imposed genocide. The Dark Ages will be making a comeback in our grandchildrens' lifetimes, I'm afraid.

Hopefully I'm being unnecessarily pessimistic. But if you crunch the demographic numbers, it's hard to come to a different conclusion.

"I don't see any signs that America is losing its religiosity."

Agreed. Especially since the USA continues to receive hundreds of thousands of immigrants (mostly illegal) from devoutly-religious (and Catholic) Mexico every year. These folks are unlikely to become atheists anytime soon. (Especially since higher education is pretty strongly correlated with secular attitudes, and only a tiny percentage of Mexican immigrants attend school past 12th grade.)

Also, the fertility rate for the Mexican immigrants is significantly higher than that of the more secular gringos. If anything, the United States might be in for another Great Awakening, although this time of the Roman Catholic variety.

And I, as an agnostic gringo, don't have a problem with that. I just wish they'd come here legally and learn the English language.

RJ,

If you haven't already done so, read America Alone, by Mark Steyn.

You guys are approaching the big problem. As I said a lot earlier, Dan was restrained.

To give you an idea - it's not just the Moslems who watch the porno in the internet café. What about kids who pick it up on the computer, or about the folks who watch it at work or at home when they think nobody can see?

The stuff does have an influence on people - a strong one.

What about the cheating going on in classrooms. It appears normal to chat on tests these days, not abnormal. This has consequences later with plagiarizing and stealing intellectual property.

Your society does not have the guts to deal with the threat of Wahhabi terror, much less name it for what it is; it hasn't the guts to say that certain things are right and certain things are wrong; it doesn't have the guts to insist on a certain moral code that applies to all of its participants; it exports this moral cowardice world wide.

Yesterday, Barack Obama made one hell of a stump speech before AIPAC, a speech where he said all of the right things. He had the Jewish audience applauding all the way. They'll vote for him because they believe him. I'll vote for him because I don't believe a word he said.

At bottom, his candidacy will be not about change but about affirming America's moral cowardice while attempting to deal with racism.

No you didn't ramble on for too long, Dan. I appreciate hearing your views on my views on your views.

I had also heard Stalin had tried his hand at poetry. What a different world we might have had now, if Stalin had remained permanently with his head in the clouds, a poetry-writing Orthodox priest.

Maybe some of today's violent Islamic revolutionists will have turn-abouts like that, too, only in the opposite direction. Relief may come from unexpected quarters.

Not that I suggest we neglect building up a strong defense because we're hoping such a transformation will occur...but...

...I guess I'll leave it with "speak softly and from the heart and introspectively, and carry a big stick just in case." Don't brandish the stick. Be willing to listen and make getting through to the other side on the basis of reason and decency the priority. That way, we might have Muslim ALLIES (rahter than enemies) in any future (and yes--probably LOOOONG overdue) confrontation with the Wahabis.

At one time and place (wasn't it in North Africa?) Christians and Muslims lived together peacefully--traded goods and ideas--I think this is how the western world learned about algebra, the invention of a Muslim. I imagine atheists would have been considered full and citizens in that climate, too.

Part of your big problem is welshing out on debts (for whatever reason). I got this ad in the e-mail. The emphases are mine....

Experienced skip tracers sought for new call center in Jerusalem area. Experienced preferred. Native English speaker. Computer savvy. Please send your CV to the above email address....

These people are not chasing down Israelis - the market for English speaking Israelis to chase down who have welshed on debts just isn't big enough to make a profitable business, if you know what I mean....

So the next time you get a call from someone trying to get you to pay money you owe, remember they may be working from the Holy Land....

#23:

Clavos,

I have. It was ... eye-opening.

Steyn's book is also likely about to be essentially banned in Canada. Apparently some Muslim students complained that it was "hate speech," and some Orwellian "human rights commission" is currently hearing a case about it.

The "human rights commission" in question has a "conviction" rate of roughly 100%.

Here's a relevant quote from a Canadian ... ahem ... "Human Rights" investigator named Dean Steacy:

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

Nice... :-/

"...and some Orwellian 'human rights commission'..."

Please, if you right-wingers get nothing else right. Don't presume to claim George Orwell as your mascot. You have no clue what Orwell's work's spoke of if you do.

And don't make me "make you read something". Just go look up Orwell on wikepedia or something before you make an @ss of yourself.

Orwell was a socialist who exposed the horrors of left-wing totalitarianism.

I never claimed he was conservative. Just honest and insightful.

...or after if you prefer.

Do they really let people into Grad School who can't even read wikepedia?

Apparently, they do. Why am I not surprised?

Ah I wouldn't worry, RJ pretty much thinks everyone's a socialist.

It goes to show how wonderful capitalism is. If you have enough money you can go to grad school or even become president. No need for intelligence.

LOL Jordan, Orwell pretty much WAS a socialist!

Which is why I claim he is not a right-wing mascot. The right automatically disclaims socialism (in any form). Which is why it is funny to see someone on the right claiming a great thinker as an example of their own philosophy when, in fact, he had not much in common with it.

I know. I was thinking "joke" first, everything else second.

Sorry :-(

haha, I get livid, when I shouldn't bother. Luckily I have low blood pressure.

Jordan,

I just chalk it up to my experience that most people on the right don't have the attention span that actual reading or research requires.

They think things like George Orwell expresses their beliefs because they read the back cover and it seems like a fit. Maybe they read the first paragraph of a review. Or--the title?

Being a socialist, I end up noticing.

"Orwell was a socialist who exposed the horrors of left-wing totalitarianism."

Fixed it for you, RJ.

What Orwell is best known for, of course, is 1984, his dystopian novel, which, anyone knows who has read it, is apolitical in terms of real world political philosophies.

The book explores the horrors of an authoritarian society, which is not identifiably akin to any of the major political philosophies in existence in the 1940s, when Orwell wrote it, although the system described in the book, Ingsoc, an abbreviation for "English Socialism;" was at that time, Orwell's preferred social philosophy.

Orwell also wrote Animal Farm, another screed against totalitarianism; in this case, the Stalinist Soviet version.

Orwell's books, along with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, published a few years earlier in the 1930s, and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 (1950s) are among the best known examples of the dystopian genre written in English.

All are widely taught to American high school and college students.

"RJ pretty much thinks everyone's a socialist."

Apparently, so does Jeff Greenfield:

Orwell's 1937 book The Road to Wigan Pier is an account of his travels to England's industrial North, to the towns of Barnsley, Sheffield, and Wigan. Orwell--once a scholarship student at Eton--wrote of everything from conditions in the coal mines to the homes, diets, and health of desperately poor miners. He himself was a socialist who could also turn a critical eye on the British left, and in the middle of the book, he devoted a chapter to the failure of socialism to gain a foothold among the very citizens who would have seemed to benefit most from its rise. Substitute liberal or progressive for socialist, and the text often reads as though Orwell were covering American politics today.

Thank you Dr.D.

Clav, a fair assessment, keeping in mind that regardless of what one believes one can ascertain from the books themselves, Orwell was a socialist and has stated that his writings were against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.

More:

In December 1936, Orwell went to Spain as a fighter for the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War that was provoked by Francisco Franco's Fascist uprising. In conversation with Philip Mairet, editor of New English Weekly, Orwell said: 'This fascism . . . somebody's got to stop it'. [6] To Orwell, liberty and democracy went together, guaranteeing, among other things, the freedom of the artist; the present capitalist civilization was corrupt, but fascism would be morally calamitous.

John McNair (1887-1968), quotes him: 'He then said that this [writing a book] was quite secondary, and [that] his main reason for coming was to fight against Fascism'. Orwell went alone; his wife, Eileen, joined him later. He joined the Independent Labour Party contingent, which consisted of some twenty-five Britons who had joined the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM - Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista), a revolutionary communist party. The POUM, and the radical wing of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT (Catalonia's dominant left-wing force), believed General Franco could be defeated only if the Republic's working class overthrew capitalism -- a position at fundamental odds with the Spanish Communist Party, and its allies, which (backed by Soviet arms and aid) argued for a coalition with the bourgeois parties to defeat the fascist Nationalists. After July 1936 there was profound social revolution in Catalonia, Aragón, and wherever the CNT was strong, an egalitarian spirit sympathetically described in Homage to Catalonia.

Fortuitously, Orwell joined the POUM, rather than the Communist International Brigades, but his experiences -- especially his and Eileen's narrow escape during a Communist purge in Barcelona in June 1937 -- much increased his sympathies for the POUM, making him a life-long anti-Stalinist and firm believer in what he termed Democratic Socialism, socialism with free debate and free elections.

I mean, really. Do I need to go on?

Isn't the fact that Orwell was a socialist pretty much common knowledge?

People on the Right quote Orwell and cites his writings so often not because we falsely believe he was a libertarian or a conservative.

Quite to the contrary, we quote and cite him because he was a "progressive" whose eyes were open enough to see the totalitarian nature of the far-left.

If Mark Steyn's best-selling book "America Alone" ends up banned in Canada as "hate speech" according to a "human rights commission" comprised of unelected leftists, any and all mentions of Orwell's writings are perfectly relevant.

If Mark Steyn's best-selling book "America Alone" ends up banned in Canada as "hate speech" according to a "human rights commission" comprised of unelected leftists, any and all mentions of Orwell's writings are perfectly relevant.

Yeah, that was brought up and essentially dissipated in December of last year. But hey, nobody ever accused you of being current.

Totalitarianism, is evil, in any guise.

I myself would turn a critical eye on the American left. (And often do.) What that does not mean is that I become "right". It means I become further left.

For example, Obama is a Capitalist. This is one of the many things I have a problem with, although I support him. (I have also supported Republicans in the past--until they were taken over by crazy people.) However, I live I the real world and understand that we are not at this time about to be ready for anything but capitalism. Still, people who call him far left amuse me.

The left, in some views are only another side of the same coin.

Whoops, RJ, I owe you an apology. Steyn's book is actually going to be brought before the BC Human Rights Commission this month.

Interestingly, Amazon in Canada is sold out of the book. People must be interested in hearing about how Islamic fundies are coming to kill us more than many individuals think. I hope they don't ban the book, especially if we're going to allow equally bigoted tripe like Christopher Hitchens' books or others.

#47 was addressed to Clav, I had better learn some manners soon.

I'd also like to reiterate Cindy's point slightly.

In other countries, the American left sits more entrenched in the middle of the spectrum. The notion that people on the right in America are starting to link Obama and Clinton to socialism is creating an awful lot of laughter from many countries around the world, so there is that constant gift of ignorant paranoia that American continues to provide which we give thanks for.

Nevertheless, totalitarianism and imperialism in any form is something to be deeply concerned with. Due to the imperialistic tendencies of America's power structure, right or left, the lack of perspective in terms of the real issues of the day isn't surprising.

BTW, I've read both Animal Farm and 1984 multiple times.

Animal Farm was a fable that pretty clearly denounced the Communist government of the Soviet Union.

1984 depicted the horrors of totalitarianism. In the period Orwell wrote it (post-WWII), totalitarianism was pretty much the exclusive province of the Left. It remains so today. (Google: "North Korea" and "Burma" ...)

RJ

Quite to the contrary, we quote and cite him because he was a "progressive" whose eyes were open enough to see the totalitarian nature of the far-left.

Orwell was on the far left.

The far left is what often points to the turning of capitalism INTO fascism.

"Yeah, that was brought up and essentially dissipated in December of last year. But hey, nobody ever accused you of being current."

Sigh...

This is the way free speech ends, not with a bang but as the result of an administrative hearing in a windowless basement in Vancouver, Canada.

At least that's where a "Human Rights Tribunal" is taking place this week that will further solidify the Canadian legal position that the right not to be offended by something you read is more sacred than the freedom of the press.

At issue is a cover story National Review's own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean's, titled "The Future Belongs to Islam." An excerpt from Steyn's bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada's national and provincial "human rights" tribunals and presto! Steyn's opinion and Maclean's right to print it have now been effectively criminalized.

This was published yesterday. I believe that qualifies as "current" ...

RJ

The terms are subjective. So, what you mean and what I mean are likely two different things.

However, some of us on the far-left think that needs changing.

Cindy,

I know Orwell was a socialist. I merely said that 1984 doesn't proselytize any ideology, not that the author himself wasn't ideological.

And unless you're well into your 40s, I read (and was taught about) Orwell before you were born.

Nevertheless, totalitarianism and imperialism in any form is something to be deeply concerned with. Due to the imperialistic tendencies of America's power structure, right or left, the lack of perspective in terms of the real issues of the day isn't surprising.

well said or as Clav might say "quoted for truth."

Clav you are my age, I think (47) or thereabouts. You should be very afraid as I am moving to FT. Lauderdale soon. I plan to take over! :-)

Cindy,

You're a socialist/leftist, and so was Orwell. And I'm a conservative/libertarian.

So what?

That doesn't change the fact that what Orwell wrote about in 1984 (and to a lesser extent in Animal Farm) is occurring today. A so-called "human rights commission" (newspeak?) is about to rule that the basic human rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech no longer are applicable in Canada (thought crimes?).

That seems rather chilling to me, and it would even if I was a leftist. So comparisons to Orwell are relevant.

Your personal insults directed at my intelligence (based on the flawed assumption that I didn't know what I was talking about) was an ad hominem attack, and as such, a logical fallacy.

This is, sadly, typical of many on the Left. Any ideological disagreement with them is allegedly evidence that their opponent must be stupid, uneducated, and/or uninformed. Such arrogance.

Yes, you really should take your own advice and learn some manners.

@#58:

Thanks for the compliment, Cindy, but I'm a fair bit older than that.

'nuff said.

"...the basic human rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech no longer are applicable in Canada..."

Nor are they on many US college campuses these days...

I apologize RJ I can be arrogant.

I agree with you that what Orwell wrote about was chilling. So, we have a meeting of the minds.

But, as a declared member of the far left, let me introduce you to an idea that you might not associate with my kind. When universities started declaring that racist views were "hate speech", I began to cringe. I believe that ideas not dealt with in discussion find outlets in much more dangerous ways.

I am opposed to restrictions on freedom of speech whether I agree with the speech or not, and whether I interpret it as hateful or not.

And actually I am a Libertarian Socialist so we are split down the middle :-)

RJ, see #48.

A so-called "human rights commission" (newspeak?) is about to rule that the basic human rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech no longer are applicable in Canada (thought crimes?).

I'd also be careful postulating about the ruling when there hasn't been a ruling yet and is certainly no precedent for such a ruling in Canada. According to Freedom to Read, we (Canada) have had about 100 books "challenged" over the past several decades. Many of these challenges are led by parents groups who, for instance, don't feel it's appropriate to feature Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale in schools or so on. But there is no governmental mandate against "thought crimes" nor are the issues carried out via government but rather through private groups.

Groups are allowed to make their cases, as they are in all countries, but for the most part the decisions pertaining to any form of censorship in Canada have been extraordinarily minimal compared to other countries.

So in order to properly discuss the implications of this, one has to differentiate between a banning of a book and a challenging of a book. I think the Orwellian comparisons you drum up pertain to book banning, which isn't particularly a cogent contrast.

I found The Handmaid's Tale fascinating. After I read it I went out and got 3-4 other Atwood books. None held my interest enough to finish.

Sorry to get off the topic. Maybe Fahrenheit 451 would be a better analogy for RJ.

Um, Jordan? Think about what you just said-and consider the implication. "Most Countries". Last time I looked, most Countries were dictatorships or oligarchies of one stripe or another, and most countries don't have ANY tradition of free speech, or free press. Whether Fascist, Communist, or ideological religionist, most of the world has a going concern in locking up writers and speakers who present unpopular ideas or ideas that offend the ruling body.

It wasn't all THAT long ago that 'Obscenity' was enough to get books banned here in the States, and even get those involved in their publication thrown in the pokey and "Given a Hearing".

NOW, the fad isn't Obscenity or Pornography, instead, it's "Hate Speech", and Canada is lining up with many U.S. Universities in furthering this new persecution of secular sin.

even HAVING a hearing about a controversial view, instead of, oh...debating it and disproving it? where does it go from there, hmm? It used to be that Liberals would open with the phrase "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it."

This appears to be no longer true-apparently, now, instead of debating or debunking, we need comissions and Committees to have Tribunals to suppress speech that offends anointed minorities who might make trouble.

If you believe a man to be a fool, and you believe his ideas foolish, it is better to let him make a fool of himself in public so that all should know him a fool, this immunizes...unless, of course, you're actively suppressing critical thinking skills to remain predominant.

Part of freedom of speech also means the freedom to disagree with that speech. While I am in no way for censorship of any kind, the process has every right to occur because people have every right to object to what they see and to have it limited. Again, I'm making the distinction between books that are challenged and removed from certain places and books that are out-and-out banned by governmental agencies. If a group funding a school or set of libraries decides, in our capitalistic privatized times, to have certain books pulled from the shelves, it is their right to do so because, hell, they paid for the shelves in the first place. For the public, that is Canada, to do it is another matter. This is not Canada vs. Steyn.

So when Cannonshop says "Canada is lining up..." he erroneously implicates a nation instead of a private group of Canadians. It may seem like slight semantical quibbling, but the case against the book we're discussing is not prompted by the majority of the public (who have been buying the book like crazy and who generally are opponents of censorship). Instead, the case against the book and, indeed the case against all books up for challenge, comes from private groups.

Part of exercising their freedom of speech and expression is the challenging process.

Also, you're right about my "most countries" excerpt. I should have qualified the statement further to infer "most industrialized, somewhat democratic countries." Cheers.

Orwell was writing about communism, or, better yet, Stalinism.

agreed biffle, if a disclaimer is tagged on the end.

Orwell was writing about communism, or, better yet, Stalinism.*

*but was in no way supporting capitalism.

Totalitarianism is not exclusive to the left or the right. In fact, both converge as they move towards extremism.

It seems that both 'left' and 'right' are bankrupt notions. We need better political paradigms.

"because people have every right to object to what they see and to have it limited...If a group funding a school or set of libraries decides, in our capitalistic privatized times, to have certain books pulled from the shelves, it is their right to do so because, hell, they paid for the shelves in the first place."

I cannot agree with that, even with the qualification you put on it, at least not for the US.

Case in point:

A few months ago, here in Miami, the Cuban hierarchy objected to a children's book about contemporary life in Cuba being made available in certain school libraries. The book was one of a series about life in various countries, intended to educate kids on the differences between various cultures. The Cuban leadership's objection to the book was that it inaccurately depicted life under the Castro regime, making it seem better than the reality; a sort of "Potemkin book," if you will.

I agreed with the Cubans as to their claim the book misrepresenting life in Cuba, but disagreed with them as to whether it should be removed from the shelves of schools in Cuban neighborhoods, which is what they were demanding. As taxpayers, they were paying for the schools and their libraries, and contended that they thus had the right to have the book removed.

Fortunately, the courts disagreed with them, and the books stayed.

Oh no, I don't agree with the principle, but it does indeed occur. It is the right of the groups that challenge books, movies, TV shows, CDs, and all sorts of other stuff to do so. It is then up to the job of responsible committees and responsible citizens to deal with the discussion in a fair and balanced fashion and to come to a resolution. I'm merely discussing the right of the process and, as usual, wording it rather carelessly.

Biffle,

It seems that both 'left' and 'right' are bankrupt notions. We need better political paradigms.

Left and right (like "l(L)iberal" and "c(C)onservative" seem be multiple points on a circular spectrum, and to merge at some point. You may know what you mean, and I may know what I mean; but that doesn't suggest that anybody else does.

Wouldn't it be great if we could do away with such labels altogether? They tend to be ambiguous or meaningless, and most often impair rather than facilitate civilized discussion. Problem is, it probably can't be done. Perhaps you have some suggestions as to how it could be. I would love to hear them.

Dan

Of course we can get rid of 'right' and 'left'. Just do it. Don't reach for a label to heap condemnation on an apposite view.

Vote issues, not ieologies.

"Wouldn't it be great if we could do away with such labels altogether?"

But don't you think it's foolish to ignore facts? The fact is that Bliffle and I disagree on most every issue. I have a set of principles upon which I base my opinions, as I'm sure does Bliffle.

We could state three or four defining principles per ideology, and cover 95% of civic opinion with four or five ideologies. As long as we're not using them as insults, and we're not excluding possible solutions by looking at a narrow list of alternatives, we benefit by having commonly-agreed-upon terminology.

Allow me to ramble further.

Take something like "protectionism". It doesn't fit on the left-right chart, or the four corner chart that libertarians are fond of. Clearly, there's a link between fair trade / protectionism, anti-immigration, english as a national language, and noninterventionism. Also, clearly there are people who support some but not all the items on that list. Don't you think it'd be helpful to have a term which applies to those common impulses? Maybe not a perfect term, but one that would aid in the recognition of their commonalities?

I remember being stunned when I found out that I'm a conservative. I was reading a lot of religion and philosophy at the time. Peripherally, I started noticing that one party - no, one branch of one party - seemed to make sense consistently. The odd thing was, it was the scary branch, the one I'd always heard was made up of rich people and closet Nazis.

Well, obviously political labels were a handicap to me when I first started out. But I've found them to be indispensable when I'm trying to explain something, or when I'm approaching a new topic. Or like when I read Adam Ash's most recent article. There wasn't a bit of it that I agreed with, but I was able to understand it thanks to my familiarity with his basic principles.

I can sympathize with Bliffle and Dan's point about bad paradigms. But there are patterns, and it's silly to pretend they aren't there.

I apologize RJ I can be arrogant.

Well, me too. Apology accepted. :)

But, as a declared member of the far left, let me introduce you to an idea that you might not associate with my kind. When universities started declaring that racist views were "hate speech", I began to cringe. I believe that ideas not dealt with in discussion find outlets in much more dangerous ways.

I am opposed to restrictions on freedom of speech whether I agree with the speech or not, and whether I interpret it as hateful or not.

Glad to hear. We do agree on this.

I'm reminded of a quote from JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

If a political or ideological group is told that they are no longer allowed to publicly proselytize for their position, some of them will likely turn to ... extra-legal tactics to make their point.

Not good. :-/

"people have every right to object to what they see and to have it limited"

People do have a right to object to what they see/read/hear. But I completely disagree that they have the right to petition their government to "have it limited."

Once the government gets in the business of regulating (or "limiting") political speech ... well, that's the sort of slippery slope I wouldn't want to travel down.

I also disagree with your characterization that this is some sort of private dispute, or that it's somehow akin to a library or a bookstore refusing to place a certain book on its shelves.

If Steyn et al. lose this case, what you will have is an official legal body of the Canadian government deciding to fine a privately-owned magazine because it published an excerpt from a book that a handful of people claim they found offensive.

Big difference.

It's silly to judge people on patterns. Malevolent, too.

"I can sympathize with Bliffle and Dan's point about bad paradigms. But there are patterns, and it's silly to pretend they aren't there."

I also disagree with your characterization that this is some sort of private dispute, or that it's somehow akin to a library or a bookstore refusing to place a certain book on its shelves.

Well that's just a historical characterization on my part. Any time a book has been challenged by a specific group in Canada, it has, at most, been removed from certain shelves but never banned from publication outright. So again it's important to frame my discussion in the context of the difference between challenging a book and banning a book. I say, again, that it is within the rights of these groups to challenge a book but not to ban a book. They can have it removed from their circle of influence because they're paying for the circle, in overly simplistic terms.

When a book is challenged in Canada, the challenge is to, according to FreedomToRead.ca, "limit public access to the books and magazines in schools, libraries, or bookstores." This, in and of itself, is not an outright governmental banning of a book, nor does it constitute all of Canada lacking access to a book. Rather, it gives jurisdictional judgment to certain areas to be able to decide for themselves to carry or not carry the book in question.

In my view, this type of thing constitutes scare tactics and other bullshit and I certainly am not in support of it. But it is within the rights of the citizens to do it.

Bliffle - Where's the malice? I'm not judging people. I'm admitting that ideology drives opinion.