Blaer.
It means "light breeze" in Icelandic, and it's what a mother in Iceland has been calling her daughter for the past fifteen years. The problem? The government of Iceland didn't approve the name so, for her entire life, young Blaer has been identified as stulka or "girl" on all official documents. Now she's suing the Icelandic government for the right to legally use her name. What does this have to do with America? Why is this an omen? Here's why.
In the article on this story I was struck by a sentence which described Icelanders as being "comfortable with a firm state role" (emphasis added) in their lives and therefore not inclined to question the government's right to control what they can name their children. That is exactly the kind of submissive populace that Obama and the secular progressives want to create in America. They want and need a people "comfortable with a firm state role" because they believe state control is fundamental to realizing their version of a compassionate and just society.
Americans need to become comfortable with the government telling them what guns they can own, what light bulbs they can use, what kind of cars they can drive, even what size soda they can buy in a restaurant. Such comfort will make it easier for secular progressives and their president to concentrate more and more power in government, especially the federal government. As Americans become more submissive to and dependent upon the state, looking to it for their sustenance, they will give their votes to the party doling out the goodies, ensuring it permanent political power. And that's the end game; creating permanent power for the Democratic party and making America a one party dictatorship. All for the common good, of course.
But now there's little Blaer, daring to oppose the statist do-gooders in her tiny country. She's "prepared to take her case all the way to [Iceland's] Supreme Court" to protect her "basic human right" to have the name her mother, not the state, chose for her. A name she likes as much as she likes freedom. Her court case is an omen for America but also an inspiration. If a teenage girl can fight to keep the state at bay, so can we. So can anyone. Thank you, Blaer.
Are you listening, America?
Showing posts with label Constitutional Freedoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutional Freedoms. Show all posts
Friday, January 04, 2013
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Burn, Baby, Burn?
By now everybody has heard of the Florida church that plans to burn Korans on the upcoming 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The burning, planned by Dove Outreach Center (DOC) and its pastor Terry Jones, has created a huge backlash and has been condemned by everyone from Angelina Jolie to Gen. Petraeus. While I understand some of the concerns raised by the critics of DOC and pastor Jones, I'm also suspicious of those critics considering most of them are left-of-center.
Dove Outreach Center wants to burn Korans on September 11. I don't know what the church's motive is but if it's to expose the glaring hypocrisy of liberals and Muslims, especially the ones who support the Ground Zero (GZ) mosque, I think the church succeeded.
Think about it.
Every since the GZ mosque controversy erupted liberal and Muslim supporters of the mosque have posed themselves as gallant defenders of the Constitutional right to freedom of religion. They've insisted that religious freedom absolutely overrides the hurt feelings of Americans who are insulted by a symbol of Islam being built near the place where Muslims slaughtered their loved ones and fellow citizens. Yet, when it comes to the Koran burning these same liberals and Muslims aren't nearly so zealous and absolutist in defending another Constitutional right: the right to freedom of speech. Why not?
Is it due to the Left's corrupt "anti-racism" which says that any criticism of non-White people, which most Muslims are, can only come from hate? Or is it because of the Left's equally corrupt idea of appeasement which insists that we must brown nose Muslims even to the point of restricting certain freedoms so they'll like us and stop wanting to kill us? I think it's both.
In the "anti-racist", appeasement wracked, PC world of the Left the hurt feelings of Americans are irrelevant to the right of Muslims to practice freedom of religion, but the hurt feelings of Muslims trump the right of Americans to practice freedom of expression. Instead of a climate of hate coming from "Islamophobes", the real problem is liberals and Muslims creating a CLIMATE OF REPRESSION where our freedoms are stifled if Muslims find them in any way offensive.
I understand the dangers inherent in burning Mohammed's book. I share the concern that it could lead to reprisals against our troops BUT, in light of the context outlined above, I must come down on the side of BURN, BABY, BURN! Muslims need to realize that sensitivity, tolerance, and Constitutional freedoms work BOTH ways. If Muslims insist on exercising their undisputed right to religious freedom in a grossly insensitive way, then they have no right to expect sensitivity from non-Muslims when exercising their Constitutional rights.
I know that burning a Koran insults Muslims; I get it. I get that burning any book is almost always an expression of disgust with the book's content and/or author(s). But this is America and her citizens have the right to express disgust with ideas by torching the books--or CD's, flags or anything else--that contain or symbolize those ideas. If Muslims want to live in America and invoke her Constitutional freedoms in their own defense, then they must accept those same freedoms giving voice to disgust with or opposition to their faith. If they can't deal with that then I hear the Kingdom--and I don't mean the magic one--is nice this time of year. And the liberals can go there, too.
Dove Outreach Center wants to burn Korans on September 11. I don't know what the church's motive is but if it's to expose the glaring hypocrisy of liberals and Muslims, especially the ones who support the Ground Zero (GZ) mosque, I think the church succeeded.
Think about it.
Every since the GZ mosque controversy erupted liberal and Muslim supporters of the mosque have posed themselves as gallant defenders of the Constitutional right to freedom of religion. They've insisted that religious freedom absolutely overrides the hurt feelings of Americans who are insulted by a symbol of Islam being built near the place where Muslims slaughtered their loved ones and fellow citizens. Yet, when it comes to the Koran burning these same liberals and Muslims aren't nearly so zealous and absolutist in defending another Constitutional right: the right to freedom of speech. Why not?
Is it due to the Left's corrupt "anti-racism" which says that any criticism of non-White people, which most Muslims are, can only come from hate? Or is it because of the Left's equally corrupt idea of appeasement which insists that we must brown nose Muslims even to the point of restricting certain freedoms so they'll like us and stop wanting to kill us? I think it's both.
In the "anti-racist", appeasement wracked, PC world of the Left the hurt feelings of Americans are irrelevant to the right of Muslims to practice freedom of religion, but the hurt feelings of Muslims trump the right of Americans to practice freedom of expression. Instead of a climate of hate coming from "Islamophobes", the real problem is liberals and Muslims creating a CLIMATE OF REPRESSION where our freedoms are stifled if Muslims find them in any way offensive.
I understand the dangers inherent in burning Mohammed's book. I share the concern that it could lead to reprisals against our troops BUT, in light of the context outlined above, I must come down on the side of BURN, BABY, BURN! Muslims need to realize that sensitivity, tolerance, and Constitutional freedoms work BOTH ways. If Muslims insist on exercising their undisputed right to religious freedom in a grossly insensitive way, then they have no right to expect sensitivity from non-Muslims when exercising their Constitutional rights.
I know that burning a Koran insults Muslims; I get it. I get that burning any book is almost always an expression of disgust with the book's content and/or author(s). But this is America and her citizens have the right to express disgust with ideas by torching the books--or CD's, flags or anything else--that contain or symbolize those ideas. If Muslims want to live in America and invoke her Constitutional freedoms in their own defense, then they must accept those same freedoms giving voice to disgust with or opposition to their faith. If they can't deal with that then I hear the Kingdom--and I don't mean the magic one--is nice this time of year. And the liberals can go there, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)