Sunday, September 17, 2006

Common-Sense Multiculturalism

I'm going to lift this entire piece from Instapundit (see blogroll at left) because it's so clear:

THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT ISN'T MINCING WORDS:

AUSTRALIA'S Muslim leaders have been "read the riot act" over the need to denounce any links between Islam and terrorism. The Howard Government's multicultural spokesman, Andrew Robb, yesterday told an audience of 100 imams who address Australia's mosques that these were tough times requiring great personal resolve.


Mr Robb also called on them to shun a victim mentality that branded any criticism as discrimination.


"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith," Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.


"And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.


"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.


"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."


We need more of this common-sense variety of multiculturalism.


Can I get an "Amen!", or would that not be multicultural enough?

10 comments:

Bob Denham said...

Amen from Georgia ...

Darren said...

Thanks for commenting. And come back again any time!

nebraska girl said...

Thank you Mr. Robb. It's about time a government official stood up and told Muslims to stop whining and start denouncing terrorist actions. I second your amen.

Mrs. Bluebird said...

Amen double time! About time someone stopped tiptoeing around the issue!

EllenK said...

When is the last time you saw any ancient Greeks around? How about those Hittites and Assyrians? Or perhaps you've seen a Hun around lately? The reason we don't see these people anymore is that their culture ceased to exist. They were outstripped by time and invaders only to fade away. That is why we see so little "diversity" in the older regions of the world, because instead of encouraging cultures to continue in the face of invastion, conquering and often technically superior powers demanded that they assimilate and become part of the whole. In the United States and most of the free world, or what's left of it, we are faced with a bullying minority that is all too ready to cry foul if they don't get their way. Instead of learning the language, practicing the cultural cues and becoming part of the whole,these minority groups-ethnic, regional, religious and political, demand that their needs be served over and above the needs of the general population. You see that now with the illegal immigration issue, you see it with the irrational overreaction of Islamists to the least little hint of criticism and you see it in the hyphenated Americans that are so sensitive to score real or imagined, that they bleed even when not injured. Everyone can't be first. Everyone can't have their way. So someone has to make a decision to lead and be willing to take the abuse that is heaped upon them by screaming little bullies-hereafter referred to as Unassimilated Whiny Babies. I hate to quote fictional heros, but Spock once said that things should be done for "the good of the many over the needs of the one." Should we bend over backwards to accommodate a population that seems all too willing to cause terrorism in our midst? Should we tolerate the endless demands for translation of ballots into languages, when in order to become a citizen and vote, you must demonstrate a knowledge of English? Should we continue to be the sitting duck and silly dupe for fear of appearing "unfair" or "intolerant"? At what point do we say enough?

Darren said...

EllenK, you're right on--except for the quote from Spock. I never bought that "need of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" stuff, because that allows tyranny of the majority. Fortunately Spock's statement was repudiated in the next movie, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Captain, there be *whales* here!) when Spock's mother pointed out that Spock lived because his "flawed, human" friends thought that in his case, the needs of the one (him) outweighed the needs of the many (them)--and they believed that strongly enough to risk court martial.

Any time you want to talk Star Trek, though, I'm game! Oddly enough, just this morning a friend emailed me this from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/opinion/18moore.html?ex=1159243200&en=8424b7ffac456442&ei=5070&emc=eta1

young_activist said...

You know whats funny is that the pope said that Islam was a violent religon and the more conservative Muslims decided they needed to protest against that description by using violence "in the defence of Islam" I guess they where just trying to prove the pope right.

EllenK said...

You might want to take a gander on my blog. I have a very interesting quote from a convert to Islam who managed to extricate himself from the cult of Wahabism.

young_activist said...

I'll take a look at your blog and possibly leave some comments to. Although my position against radical Islam and terrorism is absolute (although I have been called a terrorist for publicly critizing Bush) I am pretty liberal on everything else. I don't think that Islam is natrually violent and I disagree with the president most of the time. What is your opinion on the national debt? (That's is my pet project and the subject of my blog)

EllenK said...

I don't necessarily think Islam is a violent religion either. I have many many Muslim kids in my school and I have no more or less problems with them than any other kid. I guess my concerns are that we don't know what is being taught as fact. I have had a few Muslim students come to me with what amounts to propoganda which they got from relatives or friends in college or overseas. Some of the stuff is very prejudicial against Israel especially. I also have Jewish students. Their needs have to be met as well. I worries me that we may have young people indoctinated under our noses. And right now, we just don't really kow what is going on.