I'm amazed, well, struck by how many [liberals] want to make the argument, as they do with the GZ mosque, that the average in this case Muslim is no threat to America, means us no harm, as if this is a compelling argument - since when it comes to autocracies, tyrannies, it doesn't matter what the average person thinks or says or does - that's what makes these things autocratic. We all know that most Iraqis did not like Saddam, a great many Iranians are not fond of the theocracy and sure as shit almost all North Koreans aren't thrilled by Dear Leader and etc etc. Therefore, sticking with the mosque example, one must see that the problem is not Muslims per se, but rather Islam because Islam needs to be theocratic, it depends on an autocratic imposition in order to function in true accordance with its tenets - the average person, to be put it coldly, just doesn't much matter. Now, sure, no doubt many Muslims, especially in western societies, don't really pay attention to the theocratic imperative of Islam just as many Christians ignore a great deal of the agenda their Christ was selling - but that doesn't matter - the mullahs and attendant reactionaries and revolutionaries believe in it, it's important to them, and in a culture that has known nothing but theocracy and dictatorship or some bastard child thereof like phony democracies that are mere fronts for endemic corruption, what the mullahs et al believe is all that matters. So, again, a little amazed that so many make this argument as if it's cogent - or rather, struck by how many supposed 'experts' do not point out the flaws in the argument, do not seem to understand or fail to make the distinction that we're talking about systems, not people - and that makes all the difference.
This why I tend to, if not entirely support, at least strongly sympathize with the French ban on burqas - at some point one must ask the quite logical question: if an outsider enters a culture and says they accept and adopt the fundamental principles of that culture and yet insists on behaviors that are both at odds with those fundamental principles and lend credence or legitimacy to an opposing system of fundamental principles, at what point does this political aberration become a problem? Again, France is 10% Muslim, America .5% - certain elements in America may want to pontificate about intolerance in France etc etc but if America woke up tomorrow and was suddenly 10% Muslim attitudes would change dramatically - and that's because although the constitution is a progressive document advancing and protecting many rights and freedoms and America is consequently a very open and tolerant society that does not therefore imply that anything goes - it does mean you get a lot of latitude just so long as you willingly embrace certain fundamental principles but it is not a license to arbitrarily create new laws and conventions [or in the case of Islam regress to antiquated ones] - and there's a subtlety here that people either don't get or choose not to see - because in a way in America virtually anything does in fact go up to a certain point - there's a lot of crazy or annoying or dysfunctional shit that just gets ignored because it's too small or insignificant or non-threatening to be noticed or cared about or be judged capable of threatening the greater whole - but that does not imply there's nothing fundamentally wrong with these 'aberrant' things - we may tolerate one Ashton Kutcher - if suddenly tomorrow there were a million of him, well... something would have to be done, right? Just because I may be obliged to tolerate the one Kutcher and the social contract that enables this tolerance may require such a loathed sacrifice from me in order that my own rights and freedoms be respected and held inviolable that does not therefore imply that Kutcherism in and of itself is a good or tolerable thing.
