F*#% YOU “Freedom” Party

I don’t think I’m overstepping my bounds by talking for all of us WaCK bloggers, but F#%} YOU Freedom Party.

This morning, I heard a story on NPR about Denmark’s “Freedom Party” who “wants to stop all Muslim immigration into the country” because “Islam is incompatible with Western values” like freedom.  Although NPR failed to in any way criticize the hypocrisy of this party’s name, I was glad they brought this issue to attention.

Are some tenets of Islam (or Christianity or any other religion) contrary to individual freedoms?  Yes.  Does that mean a government should unilaterally inhibit the freedoms of an individual due to their beliefs, if they’re not coercing anyone else?  No.

In my mind, this is a great example of Hayek’s “road to serfdom” concept.  If you like cartoons and not books, below is an excellent video of a comic strip that pretty perfectly explains the thesis.

A quick interpretation might go like this: crisis happens in a country (like economic down turn in Denmark) >> people give power to government to fix problems (Denmark’s not exactly known as a small-government country, it’s pound-for-pound about as big as France’s government) >>  problems worsen (as immigration rises, non-Muslim folks in Denmark have gotten angry about “losing jobs”) >> a strong figure needs to “take control” (say, a political party whose whole existence is to limit the freedoms of one group for the benefit of another).


p.s.  I’ll throw a little wrench in here–Denmark was #8 in Heritages 2009 Index of Economic Freedom….

This entry was posted in Economics, Government, Philosophy, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to F*#% YOU “Freedom” Party

  1. Not smart. Learn a little something before you pop off at people with worse problems and more fortitude than you.

    Islam embeds as a core doctrine that Muslims are obligated, whenever it becomes possible, to strive for the subjugation of the entire world, such that no other religions are acceptable. Islam holds itself to be a complete system of life, governance, and thought; there can be no separation of mosque and state.

    Islam also teaches such charming conceits as:
    — the inferiority and subordination of women;
    — death by stoning for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, or homosexuality;
    — that lying to a non-Muslim is morally obligatory if it advances the cause of Islam;
    — that non-Muslims cannot ever be trusted, regardless of the circumstances;
    — that agreements with a non-Muslim need not be honored if breaking them is to the advantage of Islam or Muslims;
    — the enslavement of non-Muslims and concubinage of non-Muslim women is encouraged;
    — sexual congress with a girl child before her menses is encouraged;
    — Physical contact with a non-Muslim renders a Muslim “unclean,” and obliges him to seek “purification;”
    — for a non-Muslim to kill a Muslim merits death, but for a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim, well, not hardly worth talking about;
    — that to be killed while fighting for the advancement of Islam immediately admits the fighter to the highest plane of Paradise.

    We cannot have adherents to this system of thought, so completely hostile to freedom, running loose in a free society. They’re worse than Nazis or Communists, because they believe that they’re under orders from God, and are forbidden to question them for any reason.

    Denmark’s Freedom Party, and Geert Wilders’ group in Holland, and anyone else who resists these thugs-for-Allah, are heroes doing the hard work of defending freedom: ultimately, yours and mine. If you’re serious about your love of liberty, learn to recognize its enemies, and show a little respect for persons willing to do more than you to protect it.

    • Aaron says:

      You’re drawing generalizations for a whole religion, which is … well, not smart. For instance, not all Christians handle snakes, and many religions have different views on genital mutilation.

      By and large the objectionable parts of Islamic ‘teachings’ aren’t unique to Islam, and they’re mostly illegal by themselves. There’s nothing wrong with combining religious tolerance (which means “putting up with”, not “embracing”) AND a firm rule of law, without demonizing an entire faith. That’s just an easy, lazy way to think.

      The objectionable traits of Islam that you highlight are objectionable because they’re disrespectful of individual freedom or identity, not because of where/who they come from.

  2. mamaclaire says:

    We could also look at it this way…
    The “Freedom Party” appears to exist for the sole purpose of alienating one particular ethic/religious group. The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis existed for the same reasons to further their cause: to persecute non-white/arian races, paying particular attention to non-Christians. Regardless of whether the Freedom Party’s objective to promote liberty is a good thing, their methods are abhorrent.

  3. Jake says:

    I will skip over religion here, but just to say…

    in some ways, isn’t the point of having liberty simply the ability to decide for yourself when to give it up? Lomasky’s example of this was tennis. You have ultimate liberty, but when you choose to play tennis, you relinquish certain rights that you had before in order to play by the rules of the game. Marriage could be this as well. You freely decide to forfeit your rights of singlehood for married life. Religion, to me, is a great example of giving people the liberty to give up their liberty.

    I hate when people use words like liberty and freedom to describe ideas and groups that are antithetical. Can we call this Lib-washing?

    Regarding the wrench, I’d like to discuss Denmark a little. I have a Danish friend who told me that she looked up American political parties, and saw that Danish political parties are all much more to the left. This is only sort of true. The Danes have very classically liberal views on things like trade. On the other hand, American liberal progressives love economic protectionism almost as much as they love Tom’s shoes. Unionization is increasingly unpopular in Denmark. Yes, they have a large welfare state, but how expensive, comparatively, are 5 million blonde people with Master’s degrees?

    • Mr. Fantastic says:

      Nice comments, Jake. I like your interpretation. Good call on the lib-washing, too….

  4. Pingback: Scandis Are Weird: Part One (Paternity Leave) | Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex

  5. Pingback: Scandis Are Weird: Part One (Paternity Leave) | Scandis Are Weird

  6. Jakob says:

    There’s no party called the “Freedom party” in Denmark, as far as I’m aware. There is a quite powerful (third or fourth largest in parliament) party called the Danish People’s Party (calling parties “People’s party” is a long-standing tradition here that does not, in itself, imply Socialism. Socialist People’s Party and Conservative People’s Party are other examples).

Comments are closed.