Democracy's soft underbelly, Part 2
And... the percent answering "not sure" is 42% and 15% respectively.
I have to ask, not sure? You mean like, maybe it's a good idea but I'm not sure?
Like, if all your friends said it's a good idea, would you be more sure?
What if they said you weren't a good Muslim, maybe even a bad Muslim? Maybe even a really bad Muslim, if you didn't favor a Caliphate or weren't willing to kill for the faith?
Do you think that would affect your attitude? Do you think the disapproval of your co-religionists might be a tad... dangerous?
Now imagine what the worst consequence would be of the disapproval of your democratic liberal Brittish fellow-citizens, if you embraced the ideals of the most fanatic in your community?
Now I have to ask, how do you define "under attack"?
Do you mean, say... drawing satiric cartoons?
What would you think of a level of blasphemous satire, say, equivalent to what South Park subjects Jesus and Scientology to?
Now let's get back to the disapproval of your fellow-citizens in the UK, steeped in the noble tradition of democratic liberalism.
(No I'm NOT being facetious. Democratic-liberalism may be the noblest political ideal the human race has ever come up with. I don't like it that the term "liberal" has been hijacked by people who are not worthy to wear it though.)
What would that disapproval mean to you British Muslims?
Thought so, not much to me either.
That's what I mean by the "soft underbelly" of democracy.
And to be perfectly fair, that's what the Brits should have learned from the Irish.
In a democracy, where issues are decided by weight of opinion, a minority willing to use violence has a disproportionately weighted vote.
I think that depends on at what point the majority is willing to push back, and how hard.
And what if the answer is, not until too late, and not hard enough?