Posts filed under ‘Uncategorized’

The Real Enemy

Intolerance is the enemy. The finest of the founding principles of America are based on tolerance. We have a “Bill of Rights” not a “Bill of Exclusions”.

It seems apparent that two of the driving forces behind violent conflict and oppression are the concepts of fundamentalist ideology and intolerance. When belief in a cause, movement, race or religion becomes so strong and focused that a group believes it is the only acceptable existence for all, that group becomes a dangerous entity. Anyone not adhering to the beliefs of such a group is viewed as a threat and they become an enemy, less than human; they become disposable. This is the psychological process that allows us to kill other human beings. Think about the people you marginalize because they are a threat to your way of life. I don’t know that there is or can be an answer to this problem.

On one side, as a benevolent society we don’t want to harm the civilian population of our political or ideological enemies. On the other hand it is from the civilian population that the military, political, and ideological support springs. How can you subdue an enemy if you don’t defeat the ideology that fuels its existence? It is the nature of some men to strike out at those they feel are responsible for their lack of self worth or anyone they perceive as a threat. This is visible in our own society when we see people burst from the confines of acceptable behavior and wipe out former spouses, co-workers or even a stranger in traffic. On an individual basis we view this as an aberration, but the feeling is much more prevalent than one might expect. Imagine if this happens in a group of people; imagine the harm they are able to justify, the ideology in the name of their oppression. We only have to look to Nazi Germany to see this on a national scale.

The fundamentalist Islamic world is intolerant of anything non-Muslim. This is of great concern because they believe that the supreme force of human existence, God, supports their cause. They believe that this divine support makes their cause righteous and it marginalizes all non-Muslims as infidels. While there are many moderate Muslims, it seems they are more than willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by the fundamentalists against Infidels because the infidel is outside the grace of God; they are reprobate. As insane as this might sound we non-Muslims are viewed as a threat to all things sacred to fundamentalist Islam. So they have made us their enemy and we have only two choices, passively submit to their ideology or fight to defend ourselves from their attacks.

If we choose to defend ourselves, we must accept that in a war even the innocent may die and develop a stomach for doing what it takes to win a war. The idea that war can be waged without civilian casualties is a ridiculous notion. In World War II civilian members of my own family were killed in British and American bombings of Germany. The price for your government and or ideology and support of it is that you may be a casualty of a war against that ideology and or government. After all can any government or ideology exist without the support of its populace?

Unfortunately mankind is not ready to “Just get along.” And war is an unfortunate byproduct of ideology. As Sherman said before burning Atlanta, “…War is cruelty…” there is no way to make it pleasant; and the more unpleasant it is, the more likely a speedy resolution is.



January 6, 2009 at 4:05 pm Leave a comment

“Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee” – The Liberal version of Liberty

I consider myself an independent thinker. I take an issue study both sides of the issue, look at the history of similar issues and then I try to come to an intelligent conclusion. There are times when an intelligent or decisive conclusion cannot be reached and that’s okay too.

Sometimes I don’t like what people say. I have no interest in hearing them say the things they say. Keith Olberman is an example. I think he’s hateful, inaccurate and even anti-American at times. MSNBC airs his show, so I don’t watch MSNBC and I don’t watch Keith Olberman. My choice, right? While I disagree with nearly everything Mr. Olberman says and find him viciously annoying, Mr. Olberman has the right to speak his mind and voice his opinions. I will not call for his firing for his hateful and nasty left wing commentary and personal attacks on people. “Why?” you might ask. Well, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are fundamental rights granted by our Constitution.

Now the definition of “liberal” is: open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. It seems that political “Liberals” lack, by definition, the very values of the word that defines their political position. How often do we see “Liberals” attempting to stifle thought and discussion that differs from their own? Let me answer: Constantly. Now “Conservatives” are no better, but they don’t claim to be tolerant. “Conservatives” often stand strictly for or against an issue, but oddly enough they often welcome debate if for no other reason it gives them the opportunity to voice their positions. “Liberals” however hate opposition and will do nearly anything to shout down, shut-up and or stifle ideas that oppose their agenda.

August 15, 2008 at 9:50 am Leave a comment

June 2018
« Aug