Today, emphasis is put upon multiculturalism in the name and for the sake of tolerance. Tolerance is a value in Western society as it civilizes what otherwise, would cause conflict. I am in totol agreement with this "ideal", but the reality is, that many do not adhere to plurality. Plurality takes humility of mind and heart and exlusivist religious claims do not allow such tolerance.
Fort Hood's "battleground" was to be a place of safety where "liberty and justice rules" and "peace reigns", because of our liberal democracy. It is to our detriment that we "tiptoe around" the issue of radical faith claims.
It seems obvious that the man that killed these soldiers in cold blood was doing so for religious reasons. Yes, there were political differences, but the differences were basically underwritten by this man's religious convictions. This view is not open to pluralistic views or values, because it views any "other" as "infidel". How can we tolerate such thinking and being in our society? or at least in our military?
When men/women pledge their allegience to the cause of our nation, they give up the right to digress from serving what leaders deem necessary for our nation's interests. Those that think that there is a higher or more primal loyalty do not need to be pledging their allegience.
Those that think that societies can live without police officiers are living in an a disconnect from reality or are in mental institutions. Crime happens and people get hurt, should we look the other way? Should we tolerate such things, or worse, should we dissolve the "force" of the police officier because we think the police officier is the "problem"? Of course not!
Our military do similar things in the larger context of "world affairs". Whenever nations rise up against another, should we looke the other way? Should we dissolve the military of any "force" because they are the problem? Or should we evaluate our values and determine whether this is a cause that justifies our nation's interest and the interest of a "free world"?
The world does not change in this regard. We will always have need for law to bring order and the police and military are the enforcers of what is "right" in the "free world" under law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Effectively written.
What bothers me is that Army officers approved of this psychotic. He had previous issues.
The response has been a bit strange as well (including Hutchinson's odd remarks that he was about to be deployed ...so what, b***th? She nearly suggests he was innocent because he was about to be deployed?/ Nyet).
I have mostly given up on AC. A few interesting articles, but the regs tend to be biblethumpers (though Mr Rowe isn't--but a too Aynnie Rand-like--perhaps as dangerous as a fundamentalist).
J,
I just read where AC is going back to the Founder's original intent under Locke.
Pinky is working on some article he wants to publish. So, come back and join the group.
As to your comment, one news reporter when asked about why the military would keep this guy in when he obviously had problems, said that the military had given him a free education, therefore, it was "right" for this man to "pay back" in time to the military. But, at what costs? This is why one budget decision can affect many people. The military is squeezed, and then ends up "sqeezing" others, because of budget issues. So, are our decesions to be based on budgets, or not? What is of most importance, fiscal responsibility or personal and society's safety?
Decesions are always based on questions like these, which are no "easy solutions"....ethical questions always conflict, then it is left up to the leaders and individuals to appropriately determine their course of action.
The U.N. seems to be biased in the other direction, concerning multiculturalism. I don't believe for a moment that all cultures are equal in value. They could be if one thinks that culture is internalized to the extent that the individiual's identifying factors are "set in stone". But, I believe that it is only leadership or government itself that limits another's development.
Post a Comment