Mohammed, Cartoons, and Liberty

Writing requires passion and conviction not merely knowledge. But some people’s “passion” seems to require them to burn down embassies and threaten people with violence because they are “offended” by what someone believes or wrote or depicted in a cartoon.

That is the difference between the "western man" and the others. Western (and by that I mean people who espouse to a Liberal Democratic ideal as based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices) can roll with the punches to our most deeply held belief and values and rise above them with calm and rational debate. Indeed it is those qualities in us that have allowed our civilization to grow and become, arguably, both the most and most prosperous in living human history.

I guess that's why I was a bit surprised when some people speak of "discretion" as being the reason for not publishing the cartoons that "offend" Islam. Discretion, howeverk, as many people know, takes on many and different varied forms.

For instance in my speech to friends I apply a different discretion than I would to family. In my letters and e-mails to my employer, I would apply another level of discretion than I would towards co-workers. Even when I am sending letters to my company's customers in China I have to always check myself to see that I am not saying something that might inadvertently offend their cultural sensibilities. Yet in all cases I manage to succeed (and, by and large, succeed well since I am still employed and my customers are still happy) because at the bottom of my "discretion" is fear.

Fear is not a bad word, despite its largely negative connotation in our world. Infact, in our almost too pampered Western society, where murderers and cutthroats are allowed to visit sleepy Alberta towns on day passes and where it seems ok to blaspheme the name of Christ or renounce our parents as "abusers" we could, in fact, use MORE FEAR, not less. The Bible says that "The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge..."(Proverbs 1:7) but the "...fear of man bringeth a snare...".(Pro 29:25).

The question then remains is what is the fear behind the "discretion?" Although discretion in all things can be a virtue, I shiver in my heart to think that some very decent and upstanding people, people whom I truly respect and admire, shrank from an opportunity to let their readers see what is so "blasphemous" about these Danish cartoons against a religion that few people know much about...and then make their own decisions.

Indeed, about the only thing most people know about Islam is that it breeds violence, abuse against women, and leads people to fly airplanes into buildings. Even now the reaction that the publishing of these cartoons has done to the so-called Moslem world, of whom vast majority of Moslems have probably not even seen, has only served to justify the views most non-Moslems have of this religion and its seemingly fanatical followers.

Yet unreasonable discretion (fear) in the face of violence does nothing but breed more violence, not less. It is a backwards step in liberty, not a forward step in tolerance, since it only encourages the enemies of liberty to even more mischief.

Forty years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. views were clearly upsetting to the cultural sensibilities of the vast majority of white Americans in the South and perhaps the North as well. Yet by having the courage to speak out, and then having a media that was receptive to publishing his views, this martyred Christian Brother changed the nation he lived in. Did HE use "discretion" when he spoke about brotherhood of all men, black and white, joining hands and rising above the endemic racism they lived in? Had he, I am sure, we would never have heard of him, although he might be alive today.

And what of the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, who dared to call the leading powers of his age, the Pharisees, "hypocrites" (Matt. 15:7) and warned people about them. Or what of John the Baptist, who called the Pharisees a "generation of vipers" (Matt. 3;7)? Did either of these giants use "discretion?" Indeed, my words would fail me now were I to tell you of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, St. Paul and St. Peter, who spoke such powerful words of truth in the midsts of a hostile crowd.

These brave Jewish men and leaders of the early Christian church all paid the ultimate price for their lack of "discretion", a price that cost them not only their lives but a chance to live relatively comfortable existences and to die in peace. Yet if they kept their mouths shut not only would Christianity have died still-born on Christ's cross, but the foundation of Western civilization would have died there too.

But among those people now protesting so-called "offenses" there is no liberty and they wish to deprive us all of the same thing; the right to decide for ourselves the merit of what we read, hear or see. The same is true about those involved the great human cult of Political Correctness, which lashes the mind to the execution post of "proper" or "enlightened" thinking. They, too, want us to use "discretion" so that we might not "offend" the sensibilities of those who have nothing better to do than complain about their sensibilities and thus deprive us the liberty of free people to make up our own minds.

For that reason I was honored and proud that The Western Standard, if alone among the North American "free" press, had refused to be numbered among that crowd, though it has unleashed the furies upon him. That is the litmus test of the validity of the very liberty we have.

To thus turn away from it, from a point of "discretion," therefore, is to undermine Liberty for all of us. But if "discretion" is measured by the fear of violence from those who disagree with what is published, what then does it make of the naive assertion being propagated by some people that Islam is "peaceful" and that terrorism and violence are an "aberration" of it's views?

Calgary Sun Editor Licia Corbella wrote that "Only once the rhetoric of love replaces the constant spewing of hate in Muslim countries, will that ever change," something that I totally agree with. But I disagree that that the best way to accomplish that is by censoring the press and pandering to the myopic views of religious fanatics and terrorists.

Were that the solution for the problems of this tired old world, Black people in the US would still be little more than slaves and those who now rejoice in their Christianity and Western Liberty, would be robbed of both their freedom and their hope of eternal joy.

That's not "discretion," per se, that's cowardice and represents a fear of men rather than a fear of God. Followed to its logical conclusion, therefore, it will only serve to further encourage he enemies of liberty, all the while ensnaring its friends in the pipe-dream (bomb?) of tyranny known as Islam.

Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Those are great words, from a great man. But in this case they are better reversed because the truth is “JUSTICE AND LIBERTY HERE IS A THREAT TO INUSTICE AND A LACK OF LIBERTY THERE" which explains the reason these Moslem-dominated societies hate us so. It's not about cartoons, it's about freedom and if we fail to stand up for it, we shall surely lose it.

So, as a free man, born in the image of God and fearing Him not man, I thank people like Western Standard Editor, Ezra Levant for the courage he has shown by standing up for me and for my liberty. And I pray, in the name of my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, that he will find the courage, the strength and the bearing to stand up against the storm that the defence of that freedom has, no doubt, stirred up.

Liberty, our liberty, has a price, a price paid for by greater men than ever served Mohammed and his teachings. If we are to be worthy of them and the price they paid for our liberty, we need more people who willing to toss "discretion" to the wind and stand up for it.

Sincerely,
IM. Ulysses

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Delusion

To hear Nancy Pelosi, the Congressional House Speaker presumptive, say it, you'd think that the Democrats just won the presidency, climbed Mount Everest and defeated Osama bin Laden in battle. But when the liquor-induced hang-overs and celebratory back-patting wears off, they will have discovered the shocking truth that what they "won" was a Phyrric victory that will prove very illusory.

That's because what they really "won" was the temporary leadership of congress; and, apparently, only the Lower House at that. How this Hillary Clinton Wannabe thinks that she and her crew can, in barely two years, provide Americans with cheap prescription drugs, health care, win the war on terror (and why not cure AIDS and stop global warming while their at it?) and all over the veto power President George W. Bush and the conservatives within her own caucus, is beyond me.

In two years, all these notions will be moot and the "change" these people speak about, though it might have profound if disastrous effects on the military and global power of the USA should it actually be accomplished, will be forgotten as Americans rush to the polls to elected not only new House and a new batch of Senators, but also a new and most-likely Republican/Conservative President as well.

In the mean time, Pelosi's words remind me of another person's words, who were just as equally empty, foolish, and vacuous. Those were the words uttered by my High School class valedictorian in 1986. She, too, said something about how "we will change the world" or "we are the generation that can..blah, blah, blah" While listening to this prattle which I'm sure she thought was somehow "profound" instead of being little more than the same mindless prattle uttered every year by equally pompous windbags, I kept thinking to myself, "how many of these guys are going to end up dead from drugs, will get killed in a drunken brawl, end up in prison, have broken marriages, kids out of wedlock, or spend their lives working dead-end jobs just to pay the rent?"

Listening to Pelosi and other Democrats on election night I thought, "yeah, but weren't you the same crew that brought us Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Michael Dukkakis , Bill "I did not inhale or have sex with that woman" Clinton, and thought that peace meant surrendering to the Soviet Union?" Yeah...all that and raising taxes and demoralizing the military will make these guys really popular come 2008.

Either way, I suspect that, like my class valedictorian, Pelosi and her crew will end up showing Americans one thing; that they are just the latest version of self-deluded but perhaps well-meaning windbags in the dubious but venerated history of the Democratic party. Twenty years ago I knew that also, although I still had the decency to say "nice speech" to the self-satisfied person who walked off the podium and took her seat in the table across from the one at which my date and I sat.

Back then her words were as hard on my ears as those uttered by Pelosi and her Democrat/Liberal crew were today. The only difference between these two people is that my class valedictorian could do little about it but use up oxygen better used by those who actually COULD have an impact upon the world in which we lived; namely, monkeys, mules and bacteria. Pelosi, on the other hand, may actually be in a position where she and her Democrats can do some serious damage to the United States and the world.

As a Conservative, that worries me. It took a long time for Americans to wise up to the lies and nonsense of the Liberal/Socialist tide that seems to have become entrenched in Canada and which, only recently, has begun to recede. To see it making a comeback, however, concerns me and I look forward to 2008 when Americans, who have less patience with fools than we Canadians, will turf out this crew again and restore dignity and the United States House and Senate.

Sincerely,

I.M. Ulysses
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Turnabout - Ted Haggard and Liberal Strategy

It's rather disgusting but don't be surprised by it. Democrats and Liberals alike are now jumping up and down with glee because they somehow believe they've found the magic bullet that can kill the heart of the Christian Conservative "beast" and destroy the progress we've made in reestablishing those good old fashioned values we share, both north and south of the 49th. That bullet, of course, is hypocrisy, something those on the Left are very familiar with.

Yet the whole seedy affair with nationally-renown Christian leader Ted Haggard should really represent a lesson to all of us, Conservatives and Liberals alike. And that "lesson" is that no matter you are, hubris and arrogance are never far away.

As a Conservative, and a Christian, therefore, I cannot condone, nor in any way do I justify, Mr. Haggard's actions; any more than I could justify or condone those of President Clinton's with Monica Lewinsky. We are all human beings and we make tragic (stupid) mistakes which undermine our credibility. But where we Christian Conservatives may screw up the most, however, is in our lack of humility and in the acknowledgment of our own personal faults and failings of character.

Liberals, however, don't appear to have that same problem. That's because the only standard they have is a secular, humanistic one. It allows them to accept virtually any behaviour as acceptable on the grounds of it being part of "human nature." And, as long as it "doesn't hurt anyone else" (which is really the old Hippie mantra), who cares? It's no-one business what goes on in between the sheets, or while walking down the hallway in the White House, apparently.

That's why when a Conservative Christian is found out to be a liar and a hypocrite, it represents a higher failing than when a secular, humanist Liberal one is. That's not necessarily wrong or a double-standard either.

A Christian, after all, must live to a higher standard because he or she is answerable to the standards set down by God Almighty in the Holy Scriptures. A secular, humanist Liberal, on the other hand, doesn't have that as a guide and, consequently, is really only answerable to his or her own desires. Hence their behaviour, morally wrong though it may be, can also be more easily understood and accepted by non-Christians and Liberals alike, if not completely forgiven.

That's also why a former president can make a bold-faced lie to the public ("I did not have sex with that woman") and still feel fully justified, if only for the technical reason that the act itself did not include penetration. To the Liberal press and humanist, therefore, the act itself was morally inert; the consensual sexual act of two individuals.

Never mind that it disgraced the Office of the President of the United States and led to an impeachment. Never mind that, combined with the famous "I did not inhale" comments made earlier by the same president, it showed a serious lack of appreciation for the position and the honour of the highest office in the Free World and became a running joke to pundits and tv show hosts alike. These, somehow, became "separate" issues, divorced from both the man and the office he held, and caused those who worked tirelessly to restore dignity to the American Presidency (Conservatives, to man and woman) to be looked upon as right-wing fanatics trying to persecute an "innocent" man.

Well, turnabout is fair play in the bloodsport that is politics, I guess. But how Haggard's disgrace makes President Bush a homosexual, a hypocrite, and unfit to continue being the duly elected leader of the USA (which is the subtle line that people on the Left are trying to draw), is beyond me.

Hopefully it's also beyond the voters during this last mid-term election of, arguably, one of the most influential and important presidential administrations in US and World history.

Sincerely,

I.M. Ulysses

Calgary, Alberta, Canada