The Open Trackback Alliance XLIII
For your listening pleasure while you browse
"Der er et yndigt land" (There Is A Lovely Land)
Words by: Adam Gottlob Oehlenschlager
Music by: Hans Ernst Kr?yer
Adopted: 1844
"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.
When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not
Recentlty I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "
I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".
When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a
Statement of PurposeNow upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.
And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.
For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.
HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.
And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.
As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.
The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the
OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCEThis week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more inportant message.
In it's struggle for Freedom of Speech.
Sign the Petition NOW!
JEG opstille hos Danmark!45127 Total Signatures 12:03 AM CDT September 25, 2006 We can do better pass the word~!
From Agora a call to
Support the Manifesto online by signing another Petition, why not sign both?
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
Created by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "
Blogs that Trackback to this Post:
On Monday
Warning About Red Lobster Restaurants from planck's constant
Muslim Humor - Muslim Jokes from planck's constant
Y'al come back now, Y'heah? ;-)
Technorati Tag:Denmark***Free Speech***Jihad
|
Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Saw a post at No Pasarn! called
Where she belongs On Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Neither is she pessimistic about the West. It has, she says, "the drive to innovate.'' But Europe, she thinks, is invertebrate. After two generations without war, Europeans "have no idea what an enemy is.'' And they think, she says, that leadership is an antiquated notion because they believe that caring governments can socialize everyone to behave well, thereby erasing personal accountability and responsibility. "I can't even tell it without laughing,'' she says, laughing softly. Clearly she is where she belongs, at last.
Now I have some ancestors that
walked here (On the Bering Land bridge during the end of the last Ice Age) and I have some ancestors that
rode later, but they have all certain things in common. They went to a
lotof trouble to
get here.
Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Oh that's right because it was a lot better here, more Opportunities, more Freedom, more Liberty, more of an entire array of things that in the
OLD world were often reserved for the elite.
Some people forget that. Some people make a big deal because they say the US stole what is now the Southern South West from Mexico, leave aside the fact that the Mexicans and Spanish stole that land from the First Nations, if that ares
had stayed in Mexico, what makes anyone think it would be any different today than the
rest of Mexico?
Would people be risking death in the desert to get to somewhere just like the place they were leaving?
Some people also forget that some of our ancestors went to a lot of trouble, to
leave Europe.
Why should we go to a lot of trouble to duplicate the failed Socialist policies of Europe? Why should we wish to turn this country into a duplicate of what we spent so much effort to leave?
Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Technorati Tags:
Mexico ***
Europe***
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Linked to |
Do You Remember How It Felt
Do you remember how it felt when President Reagan gave his Evil Empire Speech?
Boy did it raise a ruckus. But you know something I was so tired of hearing over and over again how terrible America was with no response from our side.
It seemed like they could say anything, call us anything but Oh NO!, we were not supposed to say or do
anything to hurt
their feelings.
Then our President stood before the world and
stood up for
us. Told them what they really were.
My reaction was,
RIGHT this man is not groveling with politically correct platitudes. This man is standing up for us and the values we hold dear.
I was proud to be an American that day. I have always been proud to be an American, unlike some who seemed to be proud to be ashamed they were Americans. That Day I was reminded of why I had a right to that pride,
I am grateful to have lived at a time where I could experience that feeling.
Do you remember how it felt when President Reagan gave his Evil Empire Speech?
If not I feel in a way sorry for you, but you have today a chance to experience a 21st Century version of that.
First there was Pope Benedict statement, taken out of context, no one seems to want to listen to his clarification.
“I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason, go together,” he said. He added that he hoped he had made clear his “profound respect for world religions and for Muslims.”
Well they ignored that but the words of Lord Carey The former Archbishop of Canterbury will send them into hysterics.
Capitan's Quarters title
Lord Carey Delivers The Real ThingTHE former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to “violent” Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope’s “extraordinarily effective and lucid” speech.
Lord Carey said that Muslims must address “with great urgency” their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the “clash of civilisations” endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.
“We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times,” he said. “There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.” ...
Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a “clash of civilisations”.
Arguing that Huntington’s thesis has some “validity”, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
Today I am proud to be a member of Western Civilization. I have a right to be proud of that. I am grateful to Lord Carey for standing up for us for a change.
They can rant, demean, rampage, deface and we are
never supposed to do or say
anyting that might hurt those ucivilized barbarians feellings?
Why does that sound familiar?
Do you remember how it felt when President Reagan gave his Evil Empire Speech?
If not, you are at least fortunate enough to live in a time to read when Lord Carey Deliverd The Real Thing
Technorati Tags:
Benedict***
Pope***
Terrorism***
Islam***
Pope Benedict***
Archbishop of Canterbury>***
Lord Carey Linked to |
Muslims Beat Paris Police
From
Iris.com to my email inbox to You
Dress Rehearsal for a Repeat of Last Fall? The "youth" (the traditional euphemism for Muslim immigrants) have apparently been inspired by the brazen effrontery against the most venerated man in Christendom. First a gang of 30 stoned an unmarked police car. When the officers got out of the car, they were surrounded and attacked with iron bars.
One officer was hospitalized with a double fracture of the skull during Tuesday night's incident in Corbeil-Essonnes, a police source said. His colleague reportedly sustained facial and body injuries.
Police were called in to disperse the gang of up to 30 youths who stoned the unmarked police car as it patrolled the area, police officials said.
The police got out of their car, were encircled and attacked. Some of the youths were armed with iron bars, according to reports.
No arrests were made following the incident, police said.
"These youths fear nothing," a police union official said on LCI television.
Why should they fear when there are no arrests after breaking the skulls of police? Why should they fear when they have been given areas where they can engage in
gang rape unmolested and where adult
Muslims spit on victims who complain? Why should they fear when, at the beginning of the French Intifada, police made an official decision to retreat? Why should they fear when
dozens of neighbors can drop in as accomplices to the most horrific anti-Semitic torture on record without a single tip to the police? Why should they fear when
women are not defended from assault within large groups in daylight? Why should they fear when demonstrators can brazenly call for the
murder of the Pope outside Westminster Cathedral and openly state their intention that "Islam Will Conquer Rome" without even a single Londoner complaining to the police?
They know that if an infidel were to voice a minor complaint about a minor imam outside a minor mosque in a minor Muslim country, he would instantly be lynched. The same as
Jews who mistakenly enter an Arab neighborhood around Israel.
The conventional wisdom about the Papal Intifada is clever ("we'll protest your charge that we're violent with violence") but facile. Islam is not the slightest bit interested in fairness toward infidels. The entire point of the laws regarding insulting Islam and
dhimmitude in sharia in general is to inflict humiliation on non-Muslims to pressure them into converting or accepting subjugation. "Submission," after all, not "peace," is the
definition of "Islam." Technorati Tags:
Papal Intifada***
France***
Terrorism***
Islam Linked to |
Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks
From Stratfor.com to the Inbox of my email to YOU.
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 09.19.2006
By George Friedman On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the
Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."
Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:
"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...'
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'"
The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.
The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.
Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.
Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be.
A Deliberate MoveLet's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.
It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.
As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over
cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.
So, why this, and why now?
Political ReadingsConsider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.
Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.
One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.
The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.
It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.
This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.
There is an intensifying
tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.
As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.
It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there.
The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.
From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.
The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.
It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.
Send questions or comments on this article to
analysis@stratfor.com.
Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at
www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact
pr@stratfor.com.
Technorati Tags:
Benedict***
Pope***
Terrorism***
Islam***
Pope Benedict Linked to |
Things Worth A Riot
The Pope may or may not have meant what he is accused of, but it would appear there are quite a few Muslims bound and determined to prove and uphold what he quoted.
Are there any events that would have been worth riots by
us? Which did not happen?
Well I would say this would have been worth at least a gathering of denunciation in front of CAIR's headquarters.
It has been 5 years and few knew about or remember this obscenity. I am speaking of the
“NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.” Critics have also taken aim at CAIR's fundraising and sources of funds. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR's website solicited donations for what it called the "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund." However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity whose assets were later frozen and confiscated by the United States Department of the Treasury because, according to United States Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, HLF "masquerade[d] as a charity, while its primary purpose [was] to fund Hamas."
Of course anyone pointing out these unpleasant facts will be immediately accused of being Islamophobic.
I got to wondering how Islamophobic
were the American People, after 9/11/2001. The FBI keeps pretty good data on Hate Crimes so I looked up
FBI - Crime in the US, 2002 - Crime Index Offenses Reported 
Yes folks, the American People were so Islamophobic that Hate Crimes against Muslims climbed all the way up to about a whopping SEVENTEEN PERCENT of those against Jews and 72% of hate crimes against Asian/Pacific Islander.
That's pretty Islamophobic, because we all know how serious the Asian/Pacific Islander Terrorist Problem is.
The truth is as a Society we are extremely tolerant, understanding and unwilling to assign collective guilt.
There were shameful incidents, but no overall outpouring of rage to begin to compare with the hysterical actions by Muslims worldwide lately.
But when I think of what CAIR did during that period after 9/11, I almost wish in their case and exception had been made,
Almost, because we really are not like that, but it seems they are.
I see Michelle Malkin agrees with me that there isa difference between us and them...
Technorati Tags:CAIR***Pope***Terrorism***Islam
Linked to
|
