thedrifter
11-06-04, 07:25 AM
The Day Principles Triumphed
November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Ali Sina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University , in an oped that he wrote for The New York Times blamed religious conservatism for the victory of the President Bush and ruefully titled his article The Day the Enlightenment Went Out.
He argued that “ America , the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
Then he went on to say that “The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.”
Mr. Wills did not stop there. He even write: “Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain . We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.”
Then he equated America to the terrorists and the most despicable countries of the world, and said “often enemies resemble each other”. He continued with his harangue berating the President and said Bush has not been a uniter but a divider.
“President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation.”
What Mr. Wills, and the rest of the brooding supporters of John Kerry missed was the most important dynamism of this election. Wills neglects the fact that Bush was elected because many secularists and many registered Democrats cast their votes for him. It was the support of this group that made Bush win and not the votes of the religionists. The number of religionists in America has not grown unproportionately since the election of Bill Clinton. The secularists did not vote for Bush because they suddenly had a religious epiphany and a conversion of faith into fundamentalist Christianity.
The elections are never decided by the extreme left or the extreme right but by the swing voters. The question is why the secularists decided to vote for a religious president. The answer to this question is what eludes Mr. Wills and others who still wonder what happened.
In one word the answer is PRINCIPLES.
Mr. Wills says that the founders, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence, had "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
This is the fundamental mistake of Mr. Wills and others who think like him. The opinions of mankind do not have to be respected. What has to be respected, is their human rights, their rights to life, to liberty and to express their opinion without being harassed or killed.
If a group of people believes that it is their God-given duty to murder those who disagree with their belief, to subdue and humiliate people of other religions, to beat their women, to rape (or as they call it, give in “marriage”) girls as young as nine years old, to stone the single mothers or to behead the unbelievers, that belief does not have to be respected. Not all beliefs deserve respect. In fact no belief deserves respect. All beliefs must be scrutinized weighed with facts and if found wanting, they must be discarded. Beliefs and opinions are not sacred. What is sacred is human life and human rights.
A cynic may ask then what about creationism. Isn’t this an absurd belief? Why a secularist would vote for a president who is a creationist? The answer is; yes creationism is absurd. But that is not the only absurd belief. Everyone is guilty of believing in some absurdity. Is the belief in God logical? Or is the belief in atheism logical? Neither of these beliefs is logical. In fact the moment you believe you step into the realm of illogicality. All beliefs are illogical. Beliefs do not rest on logical proof or material evidence. That is why they are called beliefs. If they did, they would be called facts.
The key hear is tolerance. I do not have to agree with your beliefs nor you should agree with mine but we must tolerate each other and even each other’s irrational beliefs. However tolerance should not be confused with submission. You can no more tolerate my belief if I believe it is my right to kill you or to impose my beliefs on you.
The reason many secularists supported a religious candidate is precisely because of this. We felt that the liberals have lost the notion of right and wrong. That in their zest to "respect opinions of mankind”, they are not only ignoring their human rights and their needs but also endangering the peace of mankind.
Wills names France , Britain , Germany , Italy and Spain as paragons of enlightenment and laments that America is not like them. What is so great about these countries? The common denominator of all of them is moral relativism. Weren’t the French high ranking politicians who received $1.7 billion dollars in bribe of Iraq ’s oil-for-food fund from Saddam to peddle on his behalf in the UN? Didn't several members of the UN receive kickbacks from Saddam for the same reason and from the same fund when the Iraqi children were dying by thousands every day for the lack of food? With all that going on, the liberals had the chutzpa to blame America for the sanctions. Aren’t these “enlightened” European countries vying with each other to sign trade agreements with rogue regimes such as the Iranian Mullahs, disregarding completely the fact that these are thugs and not the legitimate rulers of the wretched people whom they have subdued and suppressed?
“Respecting the opinion of mankind” is only a pretext of these European neo-colonists to continue pillaging the wealth of the poor nations and propping the dictators. Under this pretext they turn the blind eye to all the atrocities and human right abuses going on in the world and continue dealing with the most ruthless regimes.
The reason Bush received the vote of many secularists is because we were fed up with the liberals' hypocrisy and their moral relativism. We found Bush to be a man of principles. He does what he believes to be right. We may disagree with him but we can trust him because we can see through him. Kerry on the other hand claimed to be a Catholic. He even quoted verses from the Bible. But his views were contrary to his professed faith. He came across as a moral relativist at best and a hypocrite at worst, who would say anything to get elected.
Unlike what the liberals claim, it is not the strong stance of America that has enraged the Islamic terrorists. What fuels the Islamic fervor is precisely the decadence and moral relativism of the liberalists. Osama bin Laden expressed that in his letter to America when he berated the Americans for tolerating Clinton ’s acts of lewdness in the Oval Office. He again made slight of the Americans for their sinfulness and profligacy in his latest video message. Interestingly it is the wealthy liberals and those who control the movie industry in America that are the harbingers of this decadence and not the religious right.
This election should not be considered as a triumph of religious fundamentalism. It is rather a triumph of principles. It is a rebellion against decadence and moral relativism. It is a rejection of political correctness. It is a victory of justice and truth.
We, the secularists who supported Bush, did not support him for his religious views. We supported him because we found him to be a man of principles. Many of his views were not popular. But he stuck to his guns and did not say things contrary to his beliefs just to grab more votes. This is what we appreciated in him. We backed him for what he is made of and not for what he believes.
Evil is real, just as darkness is real. Islamic fundamentalism is evil in every sense. We need a leader to stand against this evil with strength of character and determination. What was Kerry’s response to Islamic Terrorism? “We’ll reach out to Muslims” he said.
This is not good enough! If someone is attacking you with the intent to kill you, you can’t reach out to him. You have to defend yourself. Kill him or you’ll be killed. Muslims can’t be reached. They are not listening. They are not open to dialogues. They burn books written critical of Islam and kill their authors. They are like zombies programmed to kill. They are not coming to our Internet forums and ban us if we go to theirs. (See my failed attempt to reach out to Muslims. Try them and see if you have a better chance.) But they are determined to kill us. Their faith is unwavering. Their resolve is unshaken. We have no other choice but to fight back.
continued...........
November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Ali Sina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University , in an oped that he wrote for The New York Times blamed religious conservatism for the victory of the President Bush and ruefully titled his article The Day the Enlightenment Went Out.
He argued that “ America , the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
Then he went on to say that “The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.”
Mr. Wills did not stop there. He even write: “Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain . We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.”
Then he equated America to the terrorists and the most despicable countries of the world, and said “often enemies resemble each other”. He continued with his harangue berating the President and said Bush has not been a uniter but a divider.
“President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation.”
What Mr. Wills, and the rest of the brooding supporters of John Kerry missed was the most important dynamism of this election. Wills neglects the fact that Bush was elected because many secularists and many registered Democrats cast their votes for him. It was the support of this group that made Bush win and not the votes of the religionists. The number of religionists in America has not grown unproportionately since the election of Bill Clinton. The secularists did not vote for Bush because they suddenly had a religious epiphany and a conversion of faith into fundamentalist Christianity.
The elections are never decided by the extreme left or the extreme right but by the swing voters. The question is why the secularists decided to vote for a religious president. The answer to this question is what eludes Mr. Wills and others who still wonder what happened.
In one word the answer is PRINCIPLES.
Mr. Wills says that the founders, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence, had "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
This is the fundamental mistake of Mr. Wills and others who think like him. The opinions of mankind do not have to be respected. What has to be respected, is their human rights, their rights to life, to liberty and to express their opinion without being harassed or killed.
If a group of people believes that it is their God-given duty to murder those who disagree with their belief, to subdue and humiliate people of other religions, to beat their women, to rape (or as they call it, give in “marriage”) girls as young as nine years old, to stone the single mothers or to behead the unbelievers, that belief does not have to be respected. Not all beliefs deserve respect. In fact no belief deserves respect. All beliefs must be scrutinized weighed with facts and if found wanting, they must be discarded. Beliefs and opinions are not sacred. What is sacred is human life and human rights.
A cynic may ask then what about creationism. Isn’t this an absurd belief? Why a secularist would vote for a president who is a creationist? The answer is; yes creationism is absurd. But that is not the only absurd belief. Everyone is guilty of believing in some absurdity. Is the belief in God logical? Or is the belief in atheism logical? Neither of these beliefs is logical. In fact the moment you believe you step into the realm of illogicality. All beliefs are illogical. Beliefs do not rest on logical proof or material evidence. That is why they are called beliefs. If they did, they would be called facts.
The key hear is tolerance. I do not have to agree with your beliefs nor you should agree with mine but we must tolerate each other and even each other’s irrational beliefs. However tolerance should not be confused with submission. You can no more tolerate my belief if I believe it is my right to kill you or to impose my beliefs on you.
The reason many secularists supported a religious candidate is precisely because of this. We felt that the liberals have lost the notion of right and wrong. That in their zest to "respect opinions of mankind”, they are not only ignoring their human rights and their needs but also endangering the peace of mankind.
Wills names France , Britain , Germany , Italy and Spain as paragons of enlightenment and laments that America is not like them. What is so great about these countries? The common denominator of all of them is moral relativism. Weren’t the French high ranking politicians who received $1.7 billion dollars in bribe of Iraq ’s oil-for-food fund from Saddam to peddle on his behalf in the UN? Didn't several members of the UN receive kickbacks from Saddam for the same reason and from the same fund when the Iraqi children were dying by thousands every day for the lack of food? With all that going on, the liberals had the chutzpa to blame America for the sanctions. Aren’t these “enlightened” European countries vying with each other to sign trade agreements with rogue regimes such as the Iranian Mullahs, disregarding completely the fact that these are thugs and not the legitimate rulers of the wretched people whom they have subdued and suppressed?
“Respecting the opinion of mankind” is only a pretext of these European neo-colonists to continue pillaging the wealth of the poor nations and propping the dictators. Under this pretext they turn the blind eye to all the atrocities and human right abuses going on in the world and continue dealing with the most ruthless regimes.
The reason Bush received the vote of many secularists is because we were fed up with the liberals' hypocrisy and their moral relativism. We found Bush to be a man of principles. He does what he believes to be right. We may disagree with him but we can trust him because we can see through him. Kerry on the other hand claimed to be a Catholic. He even quoted verses from the Bible. But his views were contrary to his professed faith. He came across as a moral relativist at best and a hypocrite at worst, who would say anything to get elected.
Unlike what the liberals claim, it is not the strong stance of America that has enraged the Islamic terrorists. What fuels the Islamic fervor is precisely the decadence and moral relativism of the liberalists. Osama bin Laden expressed that in his letter to America when he berated the Americans for tolerating Clinton ’s acts of lewdness in the Oval Office. He again made slight of the Americans for their sinfulness and profligacy in his latest video message. Interestingly it is the wealthy liberals and those who control the movie industry in America that are the harbingers of this decadence and not the religious right.
This election should not be considered as a triumph of religious fundamentalism. It is rather a triumph of principles. It is a rebellion against decadence and moral relativism. It is a rejection of political correctness. It is a victory of justice and truth.
We, the secularists who supported Bush, did not support him for his religious views. We supported him because we found him to be a man of principles. Many of his views were not popular. But he stuck to his guns and did not say things contrary to his beliefs just to grab more votes. This is what we appreciated in him. We backed him for what he is made of and not for what he believes.
Evil is real, just as darkness is real. Islamic fundamentalism is evil in every sense. We need a leader to stand against this evil with strength of character and determination. What was Kerry’s response to Islamic Terrorism? “We’ll reach out to Muslims” he said.
This is not good enough! If someone is attacking you with the intent to kill you, you can’t reach out to him. You have to defend yourself. Kill him or you’ll be killed. Muslims can’t be reached. They are not listening. They are not open to dialogues. They burn books written critical of Islam and kill their authors. They are like zombies programmed to kill. They are not coming to our Internet forums and ban us if we go to theirs. (See my failed attempt to reach out to Muslims. Try them and see if you have a better chance.) But they are determined to kill us. Their faith is unwavering. Their resolve is unshaken. We have no other choice but to fight back.
continued...........