London's election of Sadiq Khan, its first Muslim mayor is being hailed by the Left as a sign of progress. Mr. Khan was sworn-in at a Multi-Faith Ceremony using a Quran rather than a Bible. Females accompanying the new mayor wore the hijab and Islamic attire common in their non-Christian culture. Buses in London and other English cities are being adorned with large signs bearing the incantation "Subhan Allah" (Glory to Allah.)
Whenever any aspect of Western civilization is altered or eliminated, Leftists consider it an improvement. But Americans and Europeans have learned that radical societal changes can make things worse instead of better. So it is premature, and naive, to assume that London's first Muslim mayor will have a positive effect on British society. All we can say is that it represents a significant alteration to centuries-old English traditions. In America, the public is conflicted over the ongoing elimination of American traditions. Unfortunately, those who want to abolish them largely control the media. Indeed, America's long-held moral values have become easy targets for Saturday Night Live comedy skits.
Many of us feel helpless in the face of distorted news reports, sanitized versions of history, and the neutering of the Christian faith. We are overwhelmed by race-related hoaxes, the silencing of voices of dissent, and the destruction of symbols of the past. There has always been a certain amount of chicanery from those who want to alter society, but there have never been attacks like what we're seeing today. The past is actually being censured and only the voices of militant ideologues are heard.
The silencing of dissent has become a technique used by belligerent groups throughout the country. This was brought home to me in the 1960s. Being from a previous generation, I was both bemused and fascinated by the 1960s; that starry-eyed decade of love, peace, and brotherhood; a time when common sense gave way to feel-good theories. The Utopian thinking of the time maintained that no one is better than anyone else, and no one must ever pass judgment on anyone else. And woe to anyone who dissented from this new vision of Shangri-la.
I myself witnessed what happened to a woman who attempted to rebut arguments put forth by rabid 1960s females during a public discussion. These young women were part of the emerging movement known at that time as "Women's Liberation." My wife and I attended this public discussion, thinking it would be like the debates that took place in our generation. We quickly saw how times had changed.
An enthusiastic Women's Libber spoke first, insisting that society's cruel treatment of women was so harmful that radical measures were necessary to rectify it. The audience received her talk respectfully.
But when the lady who was to present a rebuttal began speaking, the radical females in the audience reacted with hissing and booing. The speaker was often interrupted with sarcastic remarks and derisive laughter. When she tried to resume speaking, the hissing, booing, and taunting comments resumed.
The boisterous efforts of contemporary agitators far exceed that disruptive 1960s audience. Today's protesters will go to any length to prevent the expression of opinions they disapprove of. Because of the danger posed by violent mobs, Donald Trump cannot deliver a speech without wearing a bullet proof vest and being surrounded by a sizable contingent of security guards. Hundreds of cars were held up for two hours or more when a major highway was blocked by demonstrators attempting to prevent Trump supporters from attending one of his rallies. At one campaign event, a protester broke through security and tried to tackle Trump as he spoke. At another rally, protesters doused Trump supporters with pepper spray, and two young girls required treatment by paramedics.
It's surprising that more Americans are not publicly expressing their anger over the unbridled efforts to silence dissent. Many claim to be offended when they are reminded how German and Russian citizens were forbidden to criticize the regimes of the Nazis and the Soviets. Yet they seem unconcerned when this happens in their own country. Incredibly, some Americans are still being taken in by the shop-worn "slavery/racism" propaganda used to justify the censure of the past and the scorning of formerly esteemed Americans.
The campaign by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) includes demands that the Founding Fathers and early presidents must be denounced because of their ties to slavery, and that facilities throughout the Northeast must be renamed because their construction was funded by families involved in the slave trade. Monuments honoring Confederate soldiers killed in action must be demolished because slave labor was used in the old South. The thinking of today's SJWs reminds us of the 1970s TV series 'All In The Family' that portrayed America as a land of bigotry, racism, homophobia, sexism, and religious fanaticism.
The belief that the past can be erased is not a new phenomenon. In 16th century Europe, there was a growing concern about corrupt clergy and other abuses within the Catholic Church. These concerns, and Martin Luther's criticism of Catholicism helped to create the Protestant Reformation. Radical reformers attempted to eliminate Catholicism, by pillaging churches, smashing stained glass windows, defacing religious statuary, and desecrating altars. Eventually, wiser heads prevailed and the devastation abated.
At that time, reformers maintained that since some Catholic priests had faults, the entire Church must be considered flawed. Likewise, today's SJWs insist that members of prior generations cannot be deemed to have any favorable qualities if they acquiesced in the ancient practice of slavery. These SJWs want us to believe that people of the past were immoral for holding the opinions of their time rather than today's opinions. Some of our national leaders also hold this notion.
Support Canada Free Press
The process of electing a new president reminds us that a nation can change when its leadership changes. Bear with me for a brief look at Tudor England to illustrate this point. The Protestant Reformation was a boon to King Henry VIII, whose request for an annulment of his marriage was rejected by the Pope. Henry responded by not only demolishing numerous Catholic structures throughout his kingdom, but also ending England's affiliation with Rome. However, Henry's daughter, Mary, a devout Catholic, employed extreme, and often inhumane, measures to restore Catholicism when she became Queen.
Mary's sister Elizabeth favored Protestantism and began her reign by terminating Mary's pro-Catholic pogroms. But Elizabeth I was a pragmatic ruler, wise enough to realize that traditions cannot be eliminated by fiat. An English Church evolved that included elements of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Elizabeth also allowed Roman Catholics to celebrate their faith as long as it didn't interfere with the stability of her realm. The pragmatism of Elizabeth I produced what many believe was England's finest era.
21st Century America is also in desperate need of pragmatic leadership. That is more important than a leader with a consistent governing philosophy or an allegiance to a political party. We need leadership that understands that a clique of elites cannot arbitrarily alter a society or its past; a leader who understands that substance is more important than symbolism, and will work to salvage our country's time-honored traditions.
Gail Jarvis is a Coastal Georgia based freelance writer. Following a career as a CPA/business consultant, Mr. Jarvis now critiques the establishment’s selective and misleading reporting of current events and history. Gail can be reached at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
