Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
and -- What is "Democracy"?
[COMMENT: I inserted 'Dutch" above. See comments
below on democracy vs. a democratic republic under God. E. Fox]
“2030—then we take over,” reads a popular T-shirt worn by Muslims in Stockholm. Recent comments by European politicians might cause these young Swedes to think about pushing the date forward a couple of decades. Europe, it increasingly appears, is in fact ready to be handed over to radical Muslims without a fight.
Consider the situation in the Netherlands. Just this month a female Muslim teacher was suspended by a school in Amsterdam for refusing to shake hands with men. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, trying to show his countrymen that dhiminni status is something to be proud of, said in an interview in the recently published book Het land van haat en nijd, (The Land of Hate and Anger) that he is not bothered by Muslims refusing to shake his hand. He also said it was wise for the Queen of the Netherlands not to have insisted that a Muslim leader shake her hand when she visited his mosque in The Hague earlier this year.
Western niceties are the least Donner is willing to give up. He went on to welcome Shari’a law in the Netherlands saying:
[COMMENT: This is a superb example of "democracy". It illustrates exactly the essence (and the tragedy) of "democracy" -- the untrammeled rule of the majority. It gives the majority precisely that autocratic power from which the American revolution was fought to protect us. That kind of power belongs to no one but God.
And that is why the American founding fathers clearly and universally out spoken against democracy. They insisted on a democratic republic under God. Only so could the rights of the minorities be protected against a hostile or ignorant majority -- as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
There is a democratic element -- election of rules by the people. But the "under God" and the "republican" parts both limit the majority.
Under God, means that the people acknowledge (1) that all freedoms and rights come from God, not civil government, so civil government may not remove them; and, (2) that the role of civil government is to administer the law already given by God, not to make up their own independently.
Apart from the rule of God, there is no possible legal protection for minorities. They would be totally subject to the will of the majority in a pure democracy. Unborn babies are a minority with no voice. Their very lives have been put at risk by our "democratic majority" law. 40 million+ and climbing have been executed without due process. That is democracy at work.
In practical fact, "majority" really means "those with the power to get their way". It rarely means "those who most reasonably argue their case".
And the "republican" part slows down the political process so that the rules which govern us can be debated reasonably -- by creating buffer institutions (local levels of government, family, church, etc., which have their own levels of authority), and by putting the final level of debate in the hands of elected representatives.
The absurdity of Donner's comments above illustrates the point. They also illustrate the point that we can vote ourselves into a tyranny -- from which we cannot vote ourselves back out.
But the secular world has not much choice -- it will be either a so-called "liberal" democracy or some sort of tyranny. And liberal democracy will prove to be neither liberal nor democratic in the long run. It will always drift toward centralization, control, and tyranny. Only the law and grace of God can save us from that.
So, the only rational way to handle the matter is to make some things non-negotiable, those things which are logically and legally necessary for a free people to govern themselves and remain free. If we cannot, or will not, figure out what those things are, we deserve what we get.
The Dutch are well on their way down that road to getting what they deserve, and America is seriously in danger.
The "ordered freedom" amendment aims to protect us from that folly. E. Fox]
Donner’s hypothetical scenario isn’t very hard to imagine. There are nearly one million Muslims in the Netherlands out of a population of about 16 million. Almost half of Amsterdam’s population is of non-Dutch origin, while only one out of three students in Amsterdam schools is Dutch. Not only are three out of five Turki sh and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands unemployed, but most are not integrating into Dutch society. As Bruce Bawer explains in his book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, “It was this policy, known as ‘integration with maintenance of one’s own identity,’ that enabled Muslims to establish an extensive separate culture within the Netherlands, complete with government-funded schools, mosques, community centers, and other institutions.”
Such Islamic colonies in the heart of Europe suit Donner just fine. He says, “a tone that I do not like has crept into the political debate. A tone of: ‘Thou shall assimilate. Thou shall adopt our values in public. Be reasonable, do it our way.’ That is not my approach.” Indeed, the only way that Donner seems inclined to follow is the Islamic way. In November 2004, Donner tried to make the case that an obsolete blasphemy law should be enforced to protect Islam from insults. Protecting film directors like Theo Van Gogh – who was murdered that same month – from Dutch-born Islamic terrorists seems to concern the Justice Minister less.
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos latest idea is even more incredible than Donner’s welcoming of Shari’a law to the Continent. After a visit to Gaza, Moratinos told the Barcelona daily La Vanguardia that “The best response to al-Qaeda is no response, and to keep working towards peace.” While Spanish blogger Jose Guardia commented that “it makes you want to cry,” Osama bin Laden would surely have to laugh at this policy of appeasement. Especially since al-Qaeda is using Spain as a recruiting ground for terrorists.
According to a recent report in the Spanish newspaper El Periodico, an average of three Spanish Muslims are recruited each month for suicide bombings in Iraq or terrorist training in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, and Somalia. It is clear that the decision by Spain’s Socialist government to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq following the Madrid train bombings (a perfect example of the “no response” method of fighting terrorism) has not made the country any safer. Spanish intelligence sources told the newspaper “the danger is that, once trained as terrorists in those camps or in combat in Iraq, they are sent back to Europe where they await the order to attack.”
But then, attacking innocent civilians wouldn’t necessarily earn one the label of terrorist from Moratinos. In order to legitimize Hamas, the Foreign Minister tried to have the group intent on destroying Israel (and “liberating” Seville) removed from the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations in 2005. Meanwhile, Moratinos reserves his hatred for the United States. In a 2004 op-ed he wrote, “Based on an extravagant and weak strategic design, the American military machine and her stooges entered the Iraqi wasps’ nest like a bull in a china shop.”
Moratinos and Donner are part of a large group of leftist politicians who—it could be argued—have joined forces with the enemies of the West. British MP George Galloway is the most well-known of those cheering for the other side. To Saddam Hussein he once said, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.” He has accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of “waging a war on Muslims…at home and abroad.” Such rhetoric is a blessing to radical Islamists who seek to divide the West. American al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn said in his latest message:
Escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. As for those who have expressed their respect and admiration for Islam, and acknowledged that it is the truth and demonstrated the support and sympathy for the Muslims and their causes like George Galloway, Robert Fisk, and countless others, I say to them, isn’t it time you stopped sitting on the fence and came over to the side of truth?
The support and sympathy Gadahn seeks are not lacking. In June 2003, historian Lin Silje Nilsen defended a proposal to establish a Shari’a court in Norway. She explained that minorities should have the right to “protect their culture and religious identity.” Unfortunately, for too many European leaders it’s the culture and identity of Europe that doesn’t need protection.
[COMMENT: The notion that a subversive culture has the right to protect its own religious identity and culture is religious and cultural insanity. It has the *right* to seek the truth, to do justly, and with a loving spirit. It has no rights which contradict those three values of truth, righteousness, and love. E. Fox]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *