"Can Democracy Co-exist with Extremism?"
Sunday, February 5, 2006 at 12:41PM In light of the violent reaction from Muslims around the world as retaliation over a Danish newspaper’s cartoons of Mohammed, the prophet of peace, Stop the ACLU asked this question:
Can democracy co-exist with this kind of extreme mentality?
The answer: Yes. There are 2 types of democracies at the center of this question: reasonable and unreasonable ones. The term "co-exist" may be open to interpretation.
Stop the ACLU went on to say:
Can democracy co-exist with such large numbers of this kind of extreme mentality? They have no alms with destroying freedom. They have no tolerance for freedom, and illustrate that very well. I’m not advocating anything like wiping them off the face of the earth, but have no doubt that this is the kind of mentality they would advocate for us, and for freedom. So, as groups like CAIR, and the ACLU are quick to defend these extremists, make note that these very same folks would be the first to do away with our First Amendment. If we stand by and appease them, they will destroy us.
Democracy relies on governing of the self1…. Freedom requires love and responsibility. Freedom used "for an occasion to sin"2 rather than an opportunity to do good is a fundamental violation of freedom. Cultures that carry out their sense of justice through violence are almost always subdued or destroyed. They then become isolated and take out their wrath on each other.
Iraq is a vulnerable experiment in democracy. As Iraqis are still basking in their new freedom and government, there are Muslims protesting the Mohammed cartoons and demanding justice for Israel/Christians/United States. None had anything to do with the cartoons, of course, but the fire under Islam is always hot and waiting to wage war against those three. Iraq is the one country that has so far showed the most restraint during these riots, perhaps proof that democracy can promote reason without a total disregard for culture.
While the Palestinian elections of January 2006 cannot be called an exercise in self-discipline, it is an exercise in Democracy. With Hamas at the wheel and the people behind this new government, it is an example of the will of the people. The problematic nature of the movement in Palestine has yet to be worked out.
In a democracy, the people decide their own course. If in the middle east, as with the Hamas victory in Palestine, Muslims decide that fanaticism is the route they wish to take, they will ultimately forfeit the freedom that they think they possess and it will be replaced by fear and violence.
At the end of the day, Arab states experiencing democracy may not be as civilized or humane as other democratic republics, which usually have foundations in Judeo-Christian ethics, but there is good news. If democracies insist on fighting each other (as Muslims insist on carrying out Jihad), the civilized democracies are more skilled in their national defense. Extremism produces a military that fights without precision (which is more dangerous for civilians), but civilized democracies make more effective the defense of it’s people with one bullet. The success with which the enemies fight each other will be determined by the accuracy of the rifle and psychological operations. This is the advantage of a self-disciplined, self-governed people.
Co-exist? We have to whether it looks like we are or not.
1"Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of self." (*George W. Bush, Inaugural speech 2005)
2 For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. Galatians 5:13
Expose the Left
Michelle Malkin
Righting America
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/375738
Democracy, Europe, Islam, Middle East 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (28)
Also, the imprecise military tactics used are a symptom of desperation -- what alternatives do they have?
AMY -
As I have often said when debating my fellow colleagues and friends, the only perfect system is a Monarchy - and that is only if the King happens to be a very good one. (Imagine Middle Earth and King Aragorn). But then, of course, you've got to hope that his successor is also benevolent and so forth....eventually, you get one that (through incompetence, malevolence, greed or stupidity) shatters everything. History is chock full of examples.
Of course, a great Monarch is hard to find. Democracies and Republics give voice to the people, but there are big prices to pay for widespread political activism. In exerting their "rights" people can unwittingly tear down the very system that gave them such rights.
As for what SCOTT says, I have to agree with him to a point. Generally, it IS mob rule...and there is always a disgruntled minority. The constitution had better be very sound, and the balances of power carefully distributed.
Democracy (and Republicanism) is a sort of like a gift from the world for nations like Iran and Palestine, but if they squander this gift (as it seems they are both doing) then they will learn a very hard lesson on voting for extreme ideology.
"the imprecise military tactics used are a symptom of desperation -- what alternatives do they have?"
I'd be interested to hear Johnny's take on this. He actually fought these thugs.
My belief is that (they Muslim fanatics) are sloppy in spirit, sloppy in execution of military. They're so frenzied by their hate that they don't settle down to focus on precision. They're also a bunch of cowards who shoot randomly hoping to hit something and they leave their objective prematurely because they're factoring in their own escapability...i.e., running away like little girls.
You sound symapthetic to these extremists, Jez. So why are you not sympathetic to what you consider Christian extremists? At least we're not blowing people up.
I'm not sure if I agree about the monarchy, but I would love to live under King Aragorn. Whew.
Good comments.
I don't sympathise with terrorist tactics, but I try to understand them. You know, what would we do if our homes were stolen? I think we'd certainly respond. In our cultures, we have options, and money, courts to hear our cases etc.. Palestilians don't have those. Given that they cannot attack the true culprits (in their eyes, the Israeli govt), there is no option but to attack civilians.
Fundamentalist Christians in mature western societies are trying to desecularise our society, which I think is dangerous. You have freedom to worship, what more do you need? Why try to make America an overtly "christian" country?
It's dangerous because you argue from authority, and yet you might be wrong. "Basic moral code" is too vague, does that include resistance to gay marriage?
What's wrong with your current representation? Not being smart-ass, I appreciate that I live abroad and might not know something hurtfully obvious to you.
Of course, piss Christ is a shocking piece, but being human has a lot to do with sorting out piss. It is unpleasant and offensive, but it's a big part of life (especially before modern plumbing, ie 80 or a hundred years ago, our grandparents would know a lot about dealing with waste, human and animal). The bible is shocking too, with its cannibal and vampire elements. Problem is, it's so familiar it's lost its power to shock. I think it *should* shock, and things like piss christ can help remind us about that.
First glance, though, it does look like "heh, this is what I think of your saviour. what do you think of that??!" But it has interested more people than sniggering 14-year-olds, so surely it must mean something more? Hopefully, you consider my taste better than to be entertained by mere acerbity.
Do you think that the Mohammed cartoons should have been censored? I think they're mostly childish, and are only interesting because of the terrifying controversy; but that opinion, I think, is between me and the cartoonists, and there's no place for some third party to intervene and stop them... exceptions include things like child porn, which should be censored. Any photographic depicition of a crime isn't free speech, it's evidence.
I fully support your rights, and I'm proud of my country's history of Roman Catholicism, Pagan Druidism, Protestantism and secularism etc., I think all of it has taken us to where we are today, and I can't think of many better places to live, politically (although I have my share of complaints). I'm proud of Christianity's ongoing contribution to national history. Our most recent archbishop John Sentamu is a great man. But I resist some of the attempts I see to corrupt education and infringe on others' rights. I do see certain campaigns as overstepping the mark.
I was still a Christian when Blair was first elected, and I was excited to have a believer for a PM. I know a lot about how pleased you are to have Bush in charge. But American Christianity has a different flavour, and I'll be honest, I find Bush's faith worrying. He once mistakenly called the War against Terror a "crusade". I can easily believe that's how he sees it, and that would be dangerous.
Christianity is the most successful. Criteria: 1) positive influence in the world. 2) most charitable and benevolent. 3) most followers. 4) most lifechanging affects from this religion in a positive manner (i.e., peace, joy, love, etc).
My beliefs are based in a combination of logic, intellect and Christian authority. I'm not arguing anything insane like, if you martyr yourself you'll get 7 virgins when you die. I'm arguing things like -life begins at conception -birth control is harmful to women . etc.
I have no idea the quote you're talking about regarding Pres. Bush, so I won't defend or not, but surely you can see that now it is a crusade against extremism.
Meg, whatever freedom is used for terror will be subdued or conquered. It's self-destructive. Free loving democracy, or reasonable democracy, allows for freedom for those who wish it. There is no reason to apologize for that.
By the way, WE aren't doing that in the Middle East. It was Denmark with the cartoons and Muslim countries with the riots.
The democracy that led to this to which I was referring has nothing to do with it. Hamas was voted in in Palestine.
I would suggest, however, that the freedom of speech is good, but the violence is not. Free speech is indicative of democracy, and violence to Islam. THAT is the problem.
I hope I was more clear. Thanks for your comments.
Aside from 3) I can argue with all of your criteria. Absolutely every religious person will tell you how uniquely life-changing their religious epiphany was.
I'm not in any way comparing your type of campaigning with the kind of extremist zealotry of Islamic paramilitaries. I think some of what you say is a little crazy (eg. you ignore half the data when you look at birth control), but those guys win the contest, definitely.
The word "crusade" carries with it the idea of a military clash of religious ideals, and of capturing religiously significant lands. That's the last association we want to make.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
Democracy has a tendency to make instability worse. For all its faults, at least with dictatorship you know where you stand. ;) I tend to think of democracy as intrinsically the "right solution," but it is vexing when other countries vote in the wrong candidate. I worry about Iraq setting up a fundamentalist Muslim government (would we allow that?)
In Iraq when the Shiite sat out the first election, they were reverting to their same old/same old ploy and tactic of taking their ball and going home. It didnt' work because throwing a temper tantrum didn't get them a representation in the Iraqi government. So they operated through the system and voted the next elections. Smart.
Hamas is a different animal. Palestine has become a terrorist state from the top government official to the least little kid (potentially). The US had nothing to do with spreading that kind of democracy and I'd suggest it might be democracy if you're a Palestinian, but it's terrorism to the rest of the world.
You can never go wrong by giving people the gift of freedom. If they abuse it, the repercussions will be squarely on them. Democracy gives a voice to the otherwise unrepresented. In most of the places democracy has spread to in the Middle East, it has been an extremely positive experience. It is Muslim culture coupled with freedom (taking a foot when given a mile) that is problematic. But this is not something the United States is "causing".
While I understand theoretically what you mean about dictatorship, who the hell cares? I'd rather have an unstable freedom than a stable dictatorship. It's called maturation. Freedom grows with the people. Those who have freedom are always the ones saying that those under dictators don't have it quite so bad.
I am confident that Iraq's government will not be fundamentalist Islam. I have read the constitution and I see the demographics: there is overall a good balanced variety of men/women, Muslim and Christian representation. The majority are Muslim men, but you could say that the majority of US Senators and Congressmen are white Christian men, yet they represent the people. Iraqis have suffered to long under Saddam without the hope of ever believing he'd be out of power and they'd have Democracy to blow it. I firmly believe that.
I'll get to the "gay" issue and my "current represenation now" points later.
So what about my question, are you concerned that our war in Iraq may inadvertently lead to bigger problems with terrorism?
We should care, since we have installed a democracy directly in Iraq, and hope the trend will spread throughout the Arab world via the domino effect. When you say
"You can never go wrong by giving people the gift of freedom. If they abuse it, the repercussions will be squarely on them."
I disagree. Were the consequences of the democratically elected Nazi party directed squarely on Germans? I'm not necessarily against the new Iraqi republic, but we should certainly be intelligent and remove rose-tinted lenses when predicting possible effects.
"Those who have freedom are always the ones saying that those under dictators don't have it quite so bad."
I hope you understand that's not my point of view. But in Britain, democracy snuck up on us gradually over the centuries; and you in America started from scratch. Jumping into democracy from a cold start is an untested approach, and we simply don't know what the effects will be. When it happens naturally, certainly I can't think of a better way.
re hormone treatments: you always ignore me when I point out that risks from some types of cancer, eg. ovarian, are *reduced*. (this is contrary to your claim). It's a complicated thing where risks are offset by benefits. Your spiritual responsibility is, as you say, personal, and is not hindered by mass availibility of treatments you prefer to avoid. I know some guys, I think Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions. Fine for them, not OK for me. I'll take the blood, thanks. (The upsetting thing is that they would refuse blood transfusions for their children too. I can't condone that.)
Absolutely not. It has had the opposite affect.
Jez, I'm not ingoring you. Off to bed. I'm beat from counter protesting tonight.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
In 2000 there were: 9 terrorist attacks in the world
In 2001 there were: 16 terrorist attacks in the world
In 2002 there were: 22 terrorist attacks in the world
In 2003 there were: 35 terrorist attacks in the world
In 2004 there were: 55 terrorist attacks in the world
In 2005 there were: 79 terrorist attacks in the world
(Note: I limited terrorist attacks to those killing 16 or more people. I tried to copy and paste the graph I made, but it couldn't make it past correctly)
NCTC has an area where you can make chronological comparisons of the number of terrorist attacks, number killed, number by region, number by target, etc. And each combination I tired showed an increases in the level of terrorism. (http://www.tkb.org/ChartModule.jsp)
It seems paradoxical that the number of terrorist attacks would be going up when we are decreasing terror.
Deb,
Check this out:
If freeing Iraq resulted with increased terrorist attacks, what prompted:
-1969 bombing in Milan and Rome, Italy?
-1970 hijacking of several large aircraft that were blown up in Jordan?
-1972 11 Israeli Olympic athletes murdered at Munich?
-1972 bombings by the IRA in Britain?
-1973 car bombing in Britain?
-1974 package bombing in Madras, India?
-1974 mechanical sabotage in Paris, France?
-1974 package bombing in Madrid, Spain?
-1979 Iranian Hostage crisis?
-1981 anthrax-contamination near a political conference in Britain by the "Dark Harvest Commandos"?
-1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II?
-1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, Egyptian President?
-1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut?
-1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut?
-1986 Berlin nightclub bombing?
-1988 kidnapping and murder of William Higgins. U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel in Lebanon?
-1988 Pan American Airlines Flight 103 that was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Libyan terrorists? (all 259 people on board were killed)
-1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger during a flight from Brazzaville to Paris? (all 170 persons aboard were killed)
-1991 Iraqi agents that planted bombs at the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia’s home residence and at the USIS library in Manila?
-1993 World Trade Center bombing?
- 1993 attempted assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents in Kuwait?
-1993 assassination attempt of then Jordanian Crown Prince Abdullah?
-1995 Tokyo subway gassing?
-1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin?
-1999 terrorist attacks in Spain by the ETA?
-1999/2000 four bombings of political party offices during the Spanish elections?
-2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors?
-2002 Bali bombings?
I left a lot out. It is too laborious.
Also, I would never argue that there wasn't terror before Iraq.
Apparently, I'm having to argue that the numbers have gone up. There is a feature on the graph link I sent you where you can limit the number of incidents by target. If you exclude military, police, and journalists targets (which I agree is the right thing to do) the numbers are still up (although they are more varied and increase less consistently).
Anyway, if we can assume fo a minute that the numbers have gone up, or at least that they haven't gone down, does that seem paradoxical to winning the war on terror?
It could be argued that homicides increased during the Civil War, the taking out of Hitler and so on. But aren't you glad for the end result? I'm very grateful for men who are willing to lay down their lives to fight evil.
As for your last question, to humor you, doesn't labor pain get worse just before the baby is delivered? The intensity increases until the birth. Word picture.
I'm grateful for those men too.
Thank you for humoring me.
"If you exclude military, police, and journalists targets (which I agree is the right thing to do) the numbers are still up (although they are more varied and increase less consistently)."
But the TERRORISTS are TARGETING CIVILIANS. Or am I misunderstanding your calculations still? Surely civilians are included in the # of terrorist attacks in your estimation, right? That being the case, of course terrorist attacks would go up since they are the main ones being targeted in Iraq.