Friday, March 24, 2006

Ayaan: zeroing in

Ferdy:
"Why attack so harshly a person who is one of the few critical voices about Islam in the Netherlands?"

Snouck:
It is not so much an attack on her, but rather my honest appraisal about where I think she stands. A difference of opinion is not the same as a "harsh attack on a person". If you read my post, you will have to agree that it is nowhere near ad hominem.

Ferdy:
"but unlike other politicians she wants to use it (the Government's tools, i.e. the State) to stop the Islamization of the Netherlands."

Snouck:
That is Statism. This is a Conservative blog. Conservatives oppose the use of Government's agencies to further ideological goals. You cannot separate State and Ideology (religion is a spiritual ideology) by uniting it. It is "casting out the Devil, by Beelzebub".

Ferdy:
I think Ayaan is a very positive contributor to the debat, but she is not the new messiah who should be followed blindly

Snouck:
Oh yes. I think she is smart, sensitive, vunerable, charismatic and wildly attractive. She is the muckraker of Multiculturalism. She is useful for our purposes as Westerners in that she opens discussions and raises point that would otherwise be left closed and unraised. But she is not one of us. She is a temporary ally. To be discarded when the time comes that she has outlived her usefulness. Harsh? Perhaps. But DO consider it. Follow her critically. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

3 comments:

JKayce said...

Quote: "You cannot separate State and Ideology (religion is a spiritual ideology) by uniting it."

Do you think that state and ideology can be separated? I don't think that is possible, the laws in our society are a reflection of ideologies.

Wiag said...

@jkayce:
The key to your point I think is your use of the word ideology in the plural form.

How can State and ideology be united, if it is a reflection of many different ideologies. I think the problem with mass immigration is that one ideology gets the upper hand, and makes it possible for the State to adopt one stance, the same with Universalism, where the state is going for one set of ideas and decrees it goes above all others.

JKayce said...

Quote: How can State and ideology be united, if it is a reflection of many different ideologies.

When the state reflects values derived from various ideologies, then surely the resulting system of values and ideas forms an ideology approved of by the various parties involved?

Different ideologies may vary in the degree to which they are tolerant of other ideologies, but there always is a limit. For instance, Satanists will not be granted their religious freedom if that freedom entails the ritual sacrifice of babies. Thus, certain core values of satanic ideology are not tolerated because those values are completely incompatible with the prevailing values upheld by the majority in society.

There always is a prevailing ideology, I don’t see how anyone can separate state and ideology. Leftists try to use the argument of separation of Church and State as a tactic to eliminate religious influence in the laws, which often limits destructive types of freedom that the Left seeks to tolerate, but it is based on false grounds. Why should Church (a collective supporting an ideology) be separated from the state while the young Marxist society or the New Liberal Movement (also organizations based on certain ideologies) are allowed to take part in the democratic process?

The most important question in a democracy is always the same: which ideology should prevail and which ideologies can be tolerated? I think any reasonable person will agree that it should be an ideology that allows room for various other ideologies, within certain acceptable (moral, ethical and socio-political) limits of course.