More Active Posts
Front PageGive me liberty
 |
 35 Comments |
In his column this week, WORLD’s Marvin Olasky wonders: In its foreign policy, does the U.S. have it wrong – putting democracy before freedom?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Nah. Peace, Peace.
Peace would be nice, but unless Jesus Christ returns, how can we hope to have it?
Is freedom really what most terrorists and radical islamists want? For everyone, I mean, not just themselves. It seems to me that someone who wants to slaughter everyone not dedicated to Allah and Islam is not really after freedom.
I think Natan Scharansky’s remarks should get much more airplay and reprinting. He is correct. A free country eventually achieves elections. If you impose or expect freedom to result merely from the act of going to the polls to vote, whaddya get? President for Life Mugabe and other brutal regimes.
Building the nongovernmtal institutions necessary to sustain a free society takes a lot of time and treasure. Islam is totalitarian in the sense that it must control and dominate all institutions within its societies. Hence, the prospects for even a modicum of western-style democratic rights under law in a republic form of govt are slim to none.
I like the quote made by an Israeli journalist:
The Palestinian authority is experiencing a civil war between secular terrorists (Fatah) and fundamentalist terrorists (Hamas)
Yep, that just about sez it all. I recall all those years of seeing Arafat in Moscow hugging Brezhnev, Andropov etc. The Hamas element is mainly radical Shiite who could never embrace atheism/communism, as Arafat did back when he needed guns, war materiel etc etc.
Janie and Sawgunner have said it right. The jihadists want to impose a totalitarian system not only on those who already practice Islam but on the rest of us as well. For freedom to take hold in those countries, it will be necessary for the people who live there to want it.
Totalitarianism, lack of independent thought: this is what happens when the “government” is involved in every aspect of daily life. Hillary Clinton for president, anyone?
For freedom to take hold in those countries, it will be necessary for the people who live there to want it.
Right people like to live under martial law. As Sawgunner points out, diversity in non-government institutions is necessary to maintain democratic freedom. When Islam (or anything else) dominates all institutions, its hard for minority rights, which are necessary for the freedom of all, to be recognized.
As for Olasky’s piece;
He accepts Musharraf’s claim of either I’m in charge or the Islamic terrorists are in charge. Convienentlly forgetting that its the Supreme Court which has been abolished and the lawyers which are being imprisioned not the Taliban and other Pushtun tribal leaders. Lawyers demanding the British style rule of law under which they train are being arrested. There is a third option support the rule of law and not be driven by the politics of fear to accpet Musharraf’s justification.
The negation of democracy in the Arab because “we” don’t like their choices only serve to increase thier discontent. The demands of goverance may serve as a moderating force or may serve to illuminate their incompetence to the masses but now the masses will never have a chance to judge their abilities.
Kudos to Mr. Olasky for tackling this subject, and I think he hits upon the answer, though I’m not sure he emphasizes as much as I would have.
Pushing for democracy in foreign countries, especially by military conquest, is a losing strategy. It hurts US interests by wasting our economic and military resources and by making us look like imperialists.
Besides, “democracy” itself was not the goal of our founders. It was liberty. In fact they largely feared pure democracy, for reasons they saw in the French Revolution and we’re seeing in these Arab states.
Secondarily, it is immoral of the United States to support dictatorial regimes against their people. Sadly, we have a history of doing this, and it has a history of getting us into hot water.
Sawgunner (3): Building the nongovernmental institutions necessary to sustain a free society takes a lot of time and treasure.
jjf (7): Pushing for democracy in foreign countries, especially by military conquest, is a losing strategy.
Frank: I think one could make the argument that, biblically speaking, there is no true liberty apart from Christ. Liberty is not a commodity that can be delivered to a people at the point of a sword or the muzzle of a rifle, it is a state of mind, soul, spirit. And political liberty can only come after the spiritual liberty that is found only in Christ.
I agree with Marvin’s position in theory, but it poses a potential and difficult dilemma:
1. The government of Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
2. Freedom for Pakistan would mean that the Pakistani people would be free to put whoever they want in power (normally, a good thing, in my book).
3. The people put in power could be Islamic fundamentalists (a significant portion of the Pakistani population) who are friendly to Islamic terrorists.
4. Ergo, Islamic terrorists could easily have access to nuclear weapons.
Please understand, I am not arguing against freedom in Pakistan. I’m just pointing out a fly in the ointment. And, frankly, I can’t think of a solution.
There is no question that political liberty is more important than democracy. What America’s Founders delivered could aptly be termed “liberal democracy,” which means there are democratic structures (i.e., popular voting) but also individual rights that cannot be abridged by majority rule.
The problem is the Arab world, alas, probably isn’t ready for such liberal democracy as we have it. We are clearly dealing in a non-first best situation here.
Frank wrote:
“Frank: I think one could make the argument that, biblically speaking, there is no true liberty apart from Christ. Liberty is not a commodity that can be delivered to a people at the point of a sword or the muzzle of a rifle, it is a state of mind, soul, spirit. And political liberty can only come after the spiritual liberty that is found only in Christ.”
This is what I meant by the people wanting it — liberty, freedom. Just look at India. Sure, they outlawed the caste system, but it is only now when Christianity is growing there that the Dalits are experiencing progress. The missionaries have told them that in Christ they are as equal as anyone else. This is a slow-going process, as it will be in the Muslim world. In time, however, they, too, will want it.
We can’t let the nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the jihadists. I just hope that when the lawyers get out of jail that they realize that sooner or later they will have to take up arms not so much against Musharef, but against the Taliban thugs coming down the road. Those clowns won’t arrest the lawyers. They will kill them.
Right on, Frank!
Janie has it right.
In fact, there can be no peace, until the return of the Prince of Peace.
I realize that as humans, we have to try to achieve it. But the fact is, it will never happen, until the appointed time.
We may see a point where we think peace is around the corner.
I Thess Ch. 5
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
Now, we would be stupid not to try to avoid being nuked,in whatever way necessary.
And I’m not saying that we should just throw our hands in the air and give up, but all that man will ever be able to do, is fulfil God’s will.
As much as we want to stick our fingers in our ears and yell “I can’t hear you” to God’s word, it is going to happen…just as was written.
Ready or not.
Military conquests, diplomacy, whatever. Ultimately all will lead to Gods will being done on Earth, as it is in heaven.
And Frank is right about the importance of spreading the gospel. When all is said and done, that will be the only thing that will have made any difference. Even if it is just on an individual level
This thing is eating posts again.
Janie has it right. In fact, there will be no lasting peace, until the return of the Prince of Peace. Not that we shouldn’t try. But ultimately, any military campaign, diplomatic effort, peace treaty,or even some new proclamation from “on high”, will not change the fact that God’s word will come to pass.
I Thess Ch. 5
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober
And Frank is right that the most important thing we can export is the gospel.
That is the only thing that can save any individual, in any environment.
We’re not going to create peace on Earth.
The best we can do is protect ourselves as much as possible. And stay in the word.
Yep, that’s what we need…our military exporting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not!
(I wonder, when our military tortures someone in the name of Christ, will they cover the crucifix like the Catholics did?)
We should be advocating for people to acquire their freedom, no matter where they live, including Pakistan. Then we should respect the people’s choice. We may not like it, but we should respect it. That means, no coups by the CIA to install leaders more favorable to us. No supporting right-wing dictatorships.
The principle of freedom is important. Unfortunately, too many conservatives seem willing to sacrifice it for safety or for short term gain.
The Bush administration made a serious error in putting all their hopes in Musharraf. Now he’s got us over a barrel. As a result the United States will come out on the wrong side of the fight between a dictator and the people of Pakistan.
I didn’t say anything about the military exporting anything. We should do what we already do…just more of it.
Not on behalf of the US, but on an individual basis. After all you, as an individual do not receive any spiritual reward, or blessing for a govt. stealing from some to give to others.
Same thing applies to delivering a message.
Do you think that everyone in WWII Germany received the same divine judgment as Hitler?
I agree that putting democracy before freedom will often not lead to freedom. But I’m puzzled as to how, in practical terms, one can bring about freedom first.
As other mentioned above, it comes down to what people want. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean giving other people freedom to mock what you hold holy, to point out faults in the leaders you think are wonderful, and to offer opportunities to your young people to choose a way you think will lead to their ruin. How many people are going to be eager to die for the sake of those freedoms?
For those of us who have grown up with freedom, we know from experiences that it’s a society full of lots of good and lots of evil. People differ on whether it’s more good or more evil, but I don’t know anyone who’d rather leave our free society to go to one that’s not (unless it’s to try to change them to our way).
But for people who have no experience of freedom as a society, how do you get them to see that it’s worth it?
Pauline,
How do you get them to see it’s worth it?
By setting a good example. When people around the world see the United States upholding the principle of freedom, they take notice. When they see the United States using or advocating torture, rendition, and secret prisons they want nothing to do with freedom.
I believe that there is no substitute for standing for the principle of freedom. It may be painful and it may result in great (even the ultimate) sacrifice.
role modeling what a concept
JFK had is right. He said that America will help any oppressed people in the world gain their liberty and freedom, because countries based on a representative government founded in democratic principles do not war with each other and there will be peace.
JFK said little about religion or pure democracy in his 1961 inaugural address.
JFK realized that God has left us to our own devices and inventions when it comes to earthly government and peaceful living.
It’s just that the left has forgotten what JFK said, never understood it or believed it
JFK didn’t leave the left, they left him way to the right - long ago.
“God has left us to our own devices and inventions when it comes to earthly government and peaceful living.”
I’d say that’s true.
But I’d add that God knew we’d screw it up, and predicted through his prophets exactly how we would do so.
And we have, and are doing so.
But, having read the book to the end, it all works out for the best.
Here is a good analysis of the dilemma.
Llama - 20
Why do you think President Kennedy said little about religion, either in his inaugural address or any other time?
Kennedy had an interesting ’social life’ do you believe this might have been the reason he made ‘little reference’ to religion or Jesus Christ?
What is very difficult for the religious to understand is that the US can only “lead” by example. We can’t nation build or tell others how to govern within their own borders.
It’s difficult because they are used to being told how to think and what to believe. The true religious are actually anti freedom. Look how they treat their own children.
Those Americans that love freedom have two fronts they must fight. Overseas and at home. Both are currently religious based.
The Christian “War on Science” is the prime example. Their fight to limit “rights” to Americans who have broken no law is another example. They pretend to deny it, but every action says otherwise.
Victoria,
JFK actually talked about religion quite a lot before and during his Presidency - more than most Residents. He was not afraid of anything including his affairs. He was the last of the real American Democrat Presidents before the party went way left and anti American. He was also very smart and a terrific speech writer who could capitivate the country and the world with his words. He would have been a great president but sadly a short lived one.
Below are his words about God in his 1961 Inagural Address,
For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to “undo the heavy burdens … and to let the oppressed go free.”
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
His very best ideas in his address, which oddly the left has forgotten, are below. They seem perfectly appropriate today even though 46 years old.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge —and more.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans, who answered the call to service, surround the globe.
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
RDean writes: “What is very difficult for the religious to understand is that the US can only “lead” by example.”
If by religious you mean Bible-believing Christians — well, it is all about following the example of Christ for us. It isn’t the Christians who are serving their children up to every STD imaginable. It is the lefty-socialists who embrace anything goes when it comes to their kids. Your so-called Christian “war on science” is laughable. Only extreme leftist/atheists believe that exists.
Well, the distinction between liberty and democracy is complex and hardly clear and neat. Many people argued after WW II that both Germany and Japan lacked the institutions of liberty that could allow for a democracy; yet,both set up their own brand of democracy that have been mostly successful.
Sharansky in his book The Case for Democracy argued that both democracy and liberty are intrinsically related. In fact he and Bernard Lewis advised Bush that terrorism within the Arab world would continue to thrive until some form of Arab democracy was hatched and that Iraq would be a good place to start.
Also, sometimes in the war against terrorism we of necessity need to seek help from authoritian rulers like Musharaf, just as during the Cold War we of necessity sought help from the Shah and other authoritian rulers.
It’s easy to wring one’s hands and criticize the necessary realpolitik of foreign policy, though the reality is that in the real world we would be rather naive not to do so. World powers including Rome, Britain, and the U.S., often have to make hard choices between the lesser of various evils that bring the slings and arrows of the many righteous moralists in the world.
However, Musharaf has done very little in the so-called “war on terror” and right now is busy imprisioning democracy and rule of law advocates instead of securing the border and policing the North-West.
HRW,As the article pointed out he responded to Powell’s ultimatum after 9/11, assisted us in the Afghanistan fight and has done some batlling Waziristan. He has, also, helped in handing over alQuaeda senior operatives in Pakistan including Khalid Sheik Mohammed/ We’d like him to do more, though in the real world one has to settle for less.
I suspect that building institutions for freedom within other countries will come to grief if they are seen only as assisting in US power. That is, freedom needs to be a good to pursue in itself. The reason to resist the totalitarian impulses of some one like Musharef is that this path is largely counterproductive to his nation’s (and his) own best self-interest. We are better off with a healthy Pakistan than an unhealthy-if-stable one.
Olasky does mention the role of the US in all this, too: Instead, we need to use all instruments available to promote religious and intellectual liberty.
There is a bitter irony here, that some of our conduct in Iraq (e.g. lawless private contractors, Abu Ghraib, and generally the perception that we tolerate torture) has substantively eroded our ability to project the soft power which Olasky recommends. And while I cannot hope that this Administration will be able to do much in this regard, the challenge of again becoming an advocate of religious and intellectual liberty — this light on the hill — certainly falls to the next President. Some seem to understand this task, others appear to be oblivious (the candidates from NY both come to mind, here).
Yes, it does seem quite ironic that Musharraf is cracking down on the democratic elements of Pakistan, while negotiating with the terrorists.
While Musharaf is busy throwing lawyers in jail, the Taliban have seized control of several towns in the north west.
Amen, Frank!
Thankfully, Olasky is now realizing that democracy does not bring freedom. However, his article leaves much more to be desired than his lackluster conclusion. Generic freedom is a license for lawlessness. Only the Bible makes an objective distinction between Christian freedom and ‘every man doing what is right in his own eyes’, between God-ordained justice and man’s evil desire for revenge.
We do not need to create a free society as a greenhouse environment for Christianity to take root and flourish. Instead, Christianity is the greenhouse environment where a free society will take root and flourish. Consider China, the anti-thesis of a free society, yet also a nation where the church is growing by leaps and bounds. And this Christian witness is tearing down the oppressive regime of communism brick by brick. The same thing will happen in every nation where the gospel is preached.