|
Reader says Britain is “atheist, multicultural” society in which people can do what they want and nationalism is the true enemy
Following Melanie Phillips’s article in the Mail, there is a comment by Jack in Liverpool concerning the incident that greatly exercised Phillips—Muslim demonstrators viciously mocking British soldiers returning from Iraq. And here is a follow-up in the Mail about a Muslim cleric named Anjem Choudary who wants Britain to be a Muslim state and who said: “On 10th March 2009, 200 pathetic and cowardly British soldiers … pompously marched through Luton to demonstrate their skill at murdering and torturing thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children [in Iraq] over a 24-month period.” Jack in Liverpool’s point is: What is Phillips complaining about? Britain is a multicultural society, people can do what they like. I don’t know if Jack means what he’s saying or if he’s sending up Britain’s suicidal orthodoxy. Either way, he has a point. If you define your society as tolerating everything, then obviously that means tolerating those who despise your society. Britain opened its doors to Muslims and other unassimilables. It chose to be a multicultural society. It made its bed, now it’s got to lie in it. Here is Jack’s comment:
I have to say these protests are uncalled for. These soldiers are only doing what they were told to do. However as a multicultural society we must not be biased towards any religious groups. If these were christian protesters this would not have even been on the news. You must now realise our society is now based around atheism and multiculturalism. Protests are allowed through our constitution. They are completely within the law and are certainly not extreme. Nationalism is the true enemy we must fight it at all costs and embrace people of all backgrounds. We are all human. Not one species and another.Phillips has described Britain as a secular, pluralist society. How is that so different from Jack’s description of Britain as an atheist, multicultural society? Either way, it means a society without a common authoritative moral code and culture. If people don’t like the presence in Britain of open enemies of Britain, then they’ve got to reject the entire secular, pluralist mindset that brought those enemies there. But since even the most “conservative” commentators in the British mainstream press are unwilling to renounce secular pluralism, their complaints about hostile Muslims add up to nothing more than an impotent whine. To put it another way, how did Phillips think Muslims in Britain would feel about British soldiers occupying a Muslim country? Doesn’t she understand that to any devout Muslim, the presence of a non-Muslim army in the Muslim world is totally unacceptable? I guess she felt like her American cousin Dennis Prager, also a conservative-leaning liberal who supports Muslim immigration but is shocked when Muslims act like … Muslims. See how Prager and Robert Spencer, in a 2006 radio conversation, both said that they were “aghast” when newly elected Muslim congressman Keith Ellison announced that he would take his oath of office on the Koran. This is one of VFR’s most revealing entries, showing how conservative liberals like Prager and Spencer inchoately assume that Muslims in America will assimilate, which really means (but which they never spell out to themselves, because if they did, the absurdity of the idea would hit them in the face) that they expect that Muslims will cease being Muslims. So, when it turns out that a Muslim congressman acts like a Muslim, Spencer and Prager are aghast. The only explanation for their being aghast is that they assume a Muslim congressman will not want to take his oath on the Koran, meaning they assumed that a Muslim congressman would not act like a Muslim. Even Spencer, for all his warnings about the unchangeable Muslim beliefs of Muslims, reveals, by his shock at Ellisons’s announcement, that he, too, thought that America’s assimilative magic would turn Muslims into non-Muslims.
Email entry |