Showing posts with label Gert Wilders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gert Wilders. Show all posts
Sunday, January 23, 2011
A Warning From Gert Wilders
Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem warned about the Islamization of Europe. He argues that Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology! And he states that America and Israel are the last bastions against Islamization in the West!.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Free Speech Is in Danger...
I have written about Gert Wilders, a Dutch politician that is outspoken against Islam. Today it was reported that he is being tried for "hate speech"!
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Dis-Solving American Identity
Multiculturalism is based on the local and the specified. It is an individualized understanding of groupish identification factors. Multiculturalism's values are not "value free". Multiculturalism makes no "judgements" because prejuidice is the ultimate "sin". Multiculturalism is devoid of reason's "judgment" because of 'imperialistic and post-colonial paradigms of "meaning".
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Do We Have a Right to Exist?
Much has been promoted in the media about "social justice", humanitarian aid, and "moral concern" for those without opportunity. Although these are ideals that most people assent to, is it practical? The real world must define itself. And definitions are not inclusive, as diversity limits one's ability to exclude. Without boundaries, no individual, group, or nation can exist. Therefore, definition is important.
Social justice has been suggested for "all people" or humanity at large. But, while liberalism promotes inclusion, it limits the boundary of definition and dissolves difference, which practical policy issues demand.
One of the major areas of policy facing our nation for the last decade has been the issue of immigration. Should immigrants have the same advantages that a citizen does, in the name of "human rights"? Where does a sovereign nation deserve the right to discriminate in making policy decision based on the best interest of the nation? And where do national interests, such as national security trump expediency, outcome and limitations to resources for our own people? And where does national security trump "human rights"?
These are not easy questions to resolve, in light of our nation's ideals and beliefs about natural rights.
It seems obvious if we give healthcare to those who have not shown a desire to "bear the burden" of our countrie's interests by becoming a citizen and learning the language, then we, the people, bear the burden alone. And we are dooming ourselves to subvert our cultural interests of freedom.
While in Europe, the European Parliament held elections. The Dutch, who are known to be the most tolerant of all countries, voted Gert Wilders into office. He respresented the "Freedom Party" which promotes Dutch national interests. As a whole, all European nations were swinging back to conservative policies, at a time when globalism is trying to 'win the day'.
Gert Wilders has spoken out aggressively against the immigration of those whose culture is undermining his own. In fact, he was invited and dis-invited to the British Parliment to present his film concerning Islam. Our country invited him to present his film before Congress, which I hope has made an impact and impression about the costs of tolerance.
Last year, my husband and I went to a science and religion conference in Madrid. The conference was on Choice, Free Will, and Tolerance. How does a culture that adheres to diversity (tolerant) allow choice and free will to the intolerant?
Policy demands answers and solutions to real problems. Policy problems do not solve themselves. We must address these issues theoretically and practically, if we want our nation's interests to survive an onslaught of exclusive religious claims! Otherwise, we WON'T have a right to exist!
Social justice has been suggested for "all people" or humanity at large. But, while liberalism promotes inclusion, it limits the boundary of definition and dissolves difference, which practical policy issues demand.
One of the major areas of policy facing our nation for the last decade has been the issue of immigration. Should immigrants have the same advantages that a citizen does, in the name of "human rights"? Where does a sovereign nation deserve the right to discriminate in making policy decision based on the best interest of the nation? And where do national interests, such as national security trump expediency, outcome and limitations to resources for our own people? And where does national security trump "human rights"?
These are not easy questions to resolve, in light of our nation's ideals and beliefs about natural rights.
It seems obvious if we give healthcare to those who have not shown a desire to "bear the burden" of our countrie's interests by becoming a citizen and learning the language, then we, the people, bear the burden alone. And we are dooming ourselves to subvert our cultural interests of freedom.
While in Europe, the European Parliament held elections. The Dutch, who are known to be the most tolerant of all countries, voted Gert Wilders into office. He respresented the "Freedom Party" which promotes Dutch national interests. As a whole, all European nations were swinging back to conservative policies, at a time when globalism is trying to 'win the day'.
Gert Wilders has spoken out aggressively against the immigration of those whose culture is undermining his own. In fact, he was invited and dis-invited to the British Parliment to present his film concerning Islam. Our country invited him to present his film before Congress, which I hope has made an impact and impression about the costs of tolerance.
Last year, my husband and I went to a science and religion conference in Madrid. The conference was on Choice, Free Will, and Tolerance. How does a culture that adheres to diversity (tolerant) allow choice and free will to the intolerant?
Policy demands answers and solutions to real problems. Policy problems do not solve themselves. We must address these issues theoretically and practically, if we want our nation's interests to survive an onslaught of exclusive religious claims! Otherwise, we WON'T have a right to exist!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
BANNED!
My husband just came in from work and told me that Gert Wilders was invited to show his piece about Islam, in England, but was not allowed into the country. What? A free Western nation bans someone's free speech? Were they afraid of retaliation from extremists? Did they think that his criticism of a religion was inapropriate? Is tolerance to a religion, even if extreme, more important than freedom?
My husband said Wilders piece was only informing from the Koran, and showing how the Taliban implements their discipline. It takes great courage to inform such an intolerant tradition. There is no openness to another's opinions, at least, in the end. Their vision is total control and domination under God's rule.
Hirshi Aryan Ali warned that the tolerance and religious freedom of the West would allow free reign to political infilteration and finally an enslavement to a narrow view of religious tradition under Shairia Law. This is greatly disturbing to the future of our individual rights, human and otherwise.
My husband said Wilders piece was only informing from the Koran, and showing how the Taliban implements their discipline. It takes great courage to inform such an intolerant tradition. There is no openness to another's opinions, at least, in the end. Their vision is total control and domination under God's rule.
Hirshi Aryan Ali warned that the tolerance and religious freedom of the West would allow free reign to political infilteration and finally an enslavement to a narrow view of religious tradition under Shairia Law. This is greatly disturbing to the future of our individual rights, human and otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
