What Do You Mean, ‘WE’?
Posted on | August 16, 2010 | 29 Comments
by Smitty
In the post on the GZM as an election issue, I had said:
“I’m all for seeing ecumenical centers at all sorts of hallowed sites, like Mecca, Medina, and Ground Zero. Because if ‘tolerance’ and ’sensitivity’ are not omni-directional, then they may just be cheap talking points proffered by the nefarious.”
And our senior critic from the Left, Young4Eyes, replied:
Your point is moot.
It’s not a matter of any tolerance or sensitivity being omni-directional or not; I’ve heard this argument before and it strikes me as sadly devoid of any reason.
Our principles are not theirs. Dare I say that our standards are better? Of course.
Therefore any excuse making that seeks to equate their ways with ours is pathetic. WE abide by principles that distinguish us from their Sharia standards.
You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?
Because we are America.
Anything else reeks of the phony Conservatism you folks espouse.
Actually, the point is well-founded on a reasonable argument. I even expounded on the point here.
The notion of deciding what is and is not tolerance is a purely moral case.
I can espouse and follow as radical a flavor of Christianity as I care to, even dropping out to become an Amish farmer.
Do I get to drag you with me, though?
No, that would be unethical.
WE, in fact, do not abide by standards that distinguish us from Sharia. Sharia, from casual reads of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Andrew McCarthy, is a totalitarian, Borg-like system that, in full bloom, really doesn’t play well with notions like, say, Western Civilization.
And, no, I don’t think Christianity, and its individual moral choices and doctrine of individual salvation require a completely passive acceptance of being treated like a doormat. Furthermore, the notion that the US is a “Christian nation” is truly radical to me, for reasons stated in the previous sentence: Christianity is an individual, apolitical, moral endeavor. If you want to attend my church, study the Bible in the King James version, and build some argument whereby you think your point is tenable, fine.
Until such time, all I see is projection: “You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?”
Who is being denied religious freedom here? Who has explicitly stated “You cannot go to location X unless you are a member of Y faith”? What, specifically, is intolerant about requesting your own views on a matter as emotionally charged as a mass murder receive respect? And not lip service, but tangible action?
What about a church at Ground Zero that was destroyed, and has not been rebuilt, but may not be receiving equal consideration?
I realize you’re here to troll, Young4Eyes, but even you must admit that the Ground Zero Mosque is achieving exactly the opposite of its stated intent, and this Saul Alinsky “Hold the opposition to their standards” tactic is a barrel of hogwash.
Doctor Zero is also worth your time on the topic.
As is the rather more passionate Freeberg.

Pingback: Do We Have An Answer? « Obi’s Sister