Much ado about burkini bans in recent days. On one hand, that sounds a bit silly — women and men should be able to wear what they want, and be comfortable — on the other hand, there are good reasons to oppose burkinis on western beaches and at public pools. Here’s the best commentary I’ve read on the burkini ban thus far — Allison Pearson for the Telegraph, Burkinis: Here’s Why We Should Fight Them On The Beaches.
Who’s the best source, if we want to investigate this concern, this report, that Muslims who want to subvert The West are using ”immigration” and the excuse of “wartime refugees” to move into Europe and now into America hundreds of thousands (oh, let’s be honest, millions) of their people with no desire to assimilate — no desire to embrace our traditions and become Frenchmen or Swedes or Britons or Americans — but who instead intend to wage a holy war, using terror and subterfuge and even the rape of Western women in hopes of forming island colonies independent of outside, secular, French or Swedish or British or American police or political authority, with the eventual goal of turning these nations into Islamic nations, the “new caliphate,” under the rule not of our own traditions and Constitutions, but under ”Shari’a law”?
Brunette here (Trigger warning may apply. Or not. Reader discretion advised.) 😉
Trying to wrap my head around the subject of Islam, and what its increasing presence means to the West, has been daunting. Clearly Muslims are humans first and foremost, and deserve to be seen as individuals like anyone else. It would be a shame to totally ban immigration from Muslim countries, and turn away people like Anni Cyrus and Brigitte Gabriel, who sought sanctuary from Islamic abuse in their home countries, here in America. But does it make sense to welcome Imams who seek to radicalize western youth, and jihadists who hate western infidels?
Charles C. Haynes, who works out of Gannett’s financially strapped “Newseum” in Washington, holds a master’s degree from Harvard Divinity School and promotes himself as a champion of the First Amendment (though, being a statist Democrat, he has of course written in favor of federal “anti-hate-speech” legislation — http://capcityfreepress.blogspot.com/2009/11/charles-c-haynes-say-what-you-want-hate.html .)
(For some time now, I’ve had an urge to re-post this old piece — so here goes. If anything, it seems more relevant today than when I wrote it, years ago. Enjoy.) 🙂
(A version of the following column runs in the Aug. 10 issue of “Firearms News” — formerly “Shotgun News” — on newsstands this week.)
It’s not a good idea to be so open minded — as the saying goes, sorry if it’s trite — that your brain falls out. Nor is being too closed minded a good idea, since it’s often useful to consider new ideas. So, if you’re thoughtful, you probably employ a mental screening process. Does the idea make sense? Does the source seem trustworthy? Does the idea conflict with what you know to be true, or just unexplored beliefs and/or assumptions? Is the idea worth considering? Sometimes things we initially laugh off — or dismiss with contempt — later prove to be true. If we’re honest enough with ourselves we’ll admit to having been wrong . . . and learn a valuable lesson in the process.
A lonely voice in long-socialist (and thus long-declining) Britain, Sean Gabb is often worth a look. Recently, he steered readers to Ilana Mercer’s latest book, on The Donald:
Claire Wolfe requests your help, to continue blogging — you can contribute here, also please don’t forget to use her Amazon links* for making any online purchases. So if you haven’t stopped by Living Freedom for a while, it’s a good time to go get caught up! (Hint — it looks like there’s a new blog and site in the works, and your donation investment in freedom (H/T Bear) will help make it bigger and better. Yes, we’ve invested a little something too.)
You are currently browsing the Vin Suprynowicz weblog archives.
