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.

Category: New York

Comments

29 Responses to “What Do You Mean, ‘WE’?”

Adobe Walls
August 16th, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

I have written here and a several other sites making a comparison between Islam and the Aztec Religion which included ritual removal of human hearts while the victim was still alive. My point is meant to be that calling an ideology or a ceremonial activity a “religion” doesn’t mean we have to accept it as such nor do we have to tolerate beliefs or activities no matter how antithetical to our values just because some other group decides to call such activities a religion. The Aztecs believed that their religious rites and activities including human sacrifice were as spiritually valid or acceptable as we feel our religious rites are today. We do not have to accept that there are any religious elements to this debate about the ground zero Mosque at all. To state that the sole purpose of this Islamic center is to create a monument to the Moslem tactical victory of 9/11 is not intolerant in any negative sense of that word and certainly doesn’t justify the charges of Religious intolerance. In my opinion the only “rights” we have to argue about here are property rights.
Adobe Walls
August 16th, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

I have written here and a several other sites making a comparison between Islam and the Aztec Religion which included ritual removal of human hearts while the victim was still alive. My point is meant to be that calling an ideology or a ceremonial activity a “religion” doesn’t mean we have to accept it as such nor do we have to tolerate beliefs or activities no matter how antithetical to our values just because some other group decides to call such activities a religion. The Aztecs believed that their religious rites and activities including human sacrifice were as spiritually valid or acceptable as we feel our religious rites are today. We do not have to accept that there are any religious elements to this debate about the ground zero Mosque at all. To state that the sole purpose of this Islamic center is to create a monument to the Moslem tactical victory of 9/11 is not intolerant in any negative sense of that word and certainly doesn’t justify the charges of Religious intolerance. In my opinion the only “rights” we have to argue about here are property rights.
Kojocaro
August 16th, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

GG would probably shit a kidneystone bigger than his toilet in anger if someone dared to propose building a mosque or church in saudi arabia?
Kojocaro
August 16th, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

GG would probably shit a kidneystone bigger than his toilet in anger if someone dared to propose building a mosque or church in saudi arabia?
Kojocaro
August 16th, 2010 @ 7:11 pm

and btw if your gonna defend islams right to build a mosque youngforeskin than you have no right to complain about homophobia got it you little turd?
Kojocaro
August 16th, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

and btw if your gonna defend islams right to build a mosque youngforeskin than you have no right to complain about homophobia got it you little turd?
David R. Graham
August 16th, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

In re trolls, you’ve probably seen indications today that they are employees of DOJ and other campaign organizations. With the usual inaccuracies and insufficiencies of news reports, this likely means the trolls are coming from all manner of foreign and domestic government agencies — the trolls’ psyops MOs are textbook — along with focus organizations, especially Mohammedan, but to include others as well.

If every large government, many small ones and private corporations (e,g, Google and no doubt virtually every large such entity) today engage in electronic espionage, surveillance and insurgency on an impressive scale — and they do — then it is reasonable to assume that corollary efforts attend social media, which include blogs large and small.

Without faith in the reality of reality, one would become by turns morbidly cynical and grandly corrupt. One would become a troll, and paid for it. Sounds like a variant of prostitution.
David R. Graham
August 16th, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

In re trolls, you’ve probably seen indications today that they are employees of DOJ and other campaign organizations. With the usual inaccuracies and insufficiencies of news reports, this likely means the trolls are coming from all manner of foreign and domestic government agencies — the trolls’ psyops MOs are textbook — along with focus organizations, especially Mohammedan, but to include others as well.

If every large government, many small ones and private corporations (e,g, Google and no doubt virtually every large such entity) today engage in electronic espionage, surveillance and insurgency on an impressive scale — and they do — then it is reasonable to assume that corollary efforts attend social media, which include blogs large and small.

Without faith in the reality of reality, one would become by turns morbidly cynical and grandly corrupt. One would become a troll, and paid for it. Sounds like a variant of prostitution.
Live Free Or Die
August 16th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

When one starts a response/comment with, “Your
point is moot.” I know I can end the reading of said response/comment, because their response/comment is moot(of little or no practical value or meaning) to me.
Live Free Or Die
August 16th, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

When one starts a response/comment with, “Your
point is moot.” I know I can end the reading of said response/comment, because their response/comment is moot(of little or no practical value or meaning) to me.
jefferson101
August 16th, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

I love the logic of it all. If we don’t let Islam do whatever it wants to do, the terrorists have won. For some reason, I’m having a problem seeing why that’s any more of a downside than just surrendering.

I saw an article (or blog post) somewhere today regarding the Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed by the WTC collapse. They still haven’t managed to get the permits in place to allow them to rebuild.

So, nobody else can manage to build a place of Worship down in that area, but Moslems can? You’ll have to excuse my raging Islamophobia, but I have to ask. “What’s up with that?”

The leftists will probably be disturbed when the Moslems start tipping walls over on homosexuals, but by the time it gets to that point, it’ll be too late.

One can only hope that people with some sense manage to override the useful idiots.

Walter Duranty lives, and he’s telling us that Islam is “The Religion of Peace”.
jefferson101
August 16th, 2010 @ 5:53 pm

I love the logic of it all. If we don’t let Islam do whatever it wants to do, the terrorists have won. For some reason, I’m having a problem seeing why that’s any more of a downside than just surrendering.

I saw an article (or blog post) somewhere today regarding the Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed by the WTC collapse. They still haven’t managed to get the permits in place to allow them to rebuild.

So, nobody else can manage to build a place of Worship down in that area, but Moslems can? You’ll have to excuse my raging Islamophobia, but I have to ask. “What’s up with that?”

The leftists will probably be disturbed when the Moslems start tipping walls over on homosexuals, but by the time it gets to that point, it’ll be too late.

One can only hope that people with some sense manage to override the useful idiots.

Walter Duranty lives, and he’s telling us that Islam is “The Religion of Peace”.
Do We Have An Answer? « Obi’s Sister
August 16th, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

[…] Arguments are heating up on both sides. Just when we think he can’t find another way to divide America, he does it again. […]
Adobe Walls
August 16th, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

Obi’s Sister I’m not convinced being divided doesn’t have it’s up side. Sooner or later we’ll all have to choose sides.
Adobe Walls
August 16th, 2010 @ 7:17 pm

Obi’s Sister I’m not convinced being divided doesn’t have it’s up side. Sooner or later we’ll all have to choose sides.
Bob Belvedere
August 17th, 2010 @ 12:53 am

Adobe is right: we will have to choose sides. I believe it will happen sooner – as in now.

I am very heartened to see people like Mr. Whittle and others are awakening to the danger of Islam – finally.
Bob Belvedere
August 16th, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

Adobe is right: we will have to choose sides. I believe it will happen sooner – as in now.

I am very heartened to see people like Mr. Whittle and others are awakening to the danger of Islam – finally.
young4eyes
August 17th, 2010 @ 3:18 am

“The notion of deciding what is and is not tolerance is a purely moral case.”
Maybe. But that decision has already been made by the Constitution.You and your friends can be as intolerant as you want. Hell, I’m intolerant of many things. But I won’t seek to overturn Constitutional law because I don’t like it.
“Who is being denied religious freedom here? ”
Um ,that would be…the Muslims? Smitty, your framing is clever.The fact remains that if this building plan were proposed by Hindu’s Buddhists, Mormons, jews for Jesus or any other religious group you’d have no problems.In this case you and your kin folk are targeting a specific religious group and stating that they are not allowed to exercise their basic right to worship. I know, it sucks, but it is what it is.
Recently, Sarah Palin began running her big mouth again and tried to make more hay out of this by asking POTUS a rhetorical “should they”, as in should they be allowed to build so close to Ground Zero.
All I can say is that unless Conservatives are willing to put it all on the table, and seek to ratify the Constitution’s freedom of religion clause, then you are merely fanning the flames for political gain.
So man up,”cowboys”. What’s it gonna be?
Do we change the Constitution or not? Your position has no legal standing,i.e.- it is ILLEGAL to deny a religious group it’s property rights. Get it?
So, put it on the table already and call for a change in the Constitution.
This is America.And if you don’t like, you can git out….
young4eyes
August 16th, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

“The notion of deciding what is and is not tolerance is a purely moral case.”
Maybe. But that decision has already been made by the Constitution.You and your friends can be as intolerant as you want. Hell, I’m intolerant of many things. But I won’t seek to overturn Constitutional law because I don’t like it.
“Who is being denied religious freedom here? ”
Um ,that would be…the Muslims? Smitty, your framing is clever.The fact remains that if this building plan were proposed by Hindu’s Buddhists, Mormons, jews for Jesus or any other religious group you’d have no problems.In this case you and your kin folk are targeting a specific religious group and stating that they are not allowed to exercise their basic right to worship. I know, it sucks, but it is what it is.
Recently, Sarah Palin began running her big mouth again and tried to make more hay out of this by asking POTUS a rhetorical “should they”, as in should they be allowed to build so close to Ground Zero.
All I can say is that unless Conservatives are willing to put it all on the table, and seek to ratify the Constitution’s freedom of religion clause, then you are merely fanning the flames for political gain.
So man up,”cowboys”. What’s it gonna be?
Do we change the Constitution or not? Your position has no legal standing,i.e.- it is ILLEGAL to deny a religious group it’s property rights. Get it?
So, put it on the table already and call for a change in the Constitution.
This is America.And if you don’t like, you can git out….
young4eyes
August 17th, 2010 @ 3:29 am

“btw if your gonna defend islams right to build a mosque youngforeskin than you have no right to complain about homophobia got it you little turd?”
Kujo, how do you mangage to keep your brain on stupid for so long? So, I have no right to complain about bigotry? Right, wouldn’t want to put the kabbash on what you do best.
Moron…
David Graham ( if that’s really his name) wants to suggest that I am a secret Muslim too.Nothing cracks me up like a conspiracy theorist. Hey David, don’t look now but I’m standing right behind you…Hey, Beck called.He wants his paranoia back…
“The leftists will probably be disturbed when the Moslems start tipping walls over on homosexuals”
You’re goddam right we will! we’re not gonna let those intolerant jackals do that in OUR country. But isn’t it funny that you guys are so…sympatico on that issue? Maybe you guys are secret muslims!
Listen idiots, you’re either for the rule of law or not. I’ve always argued that Conservatives really don’t have any principles, as they are ready do fuck the law when it suits them best. And you are proving it with this issue.Therefore Conservatism and everything you purport to stand for is a sham.
But I already knew that….
smitty
August 17th, 2010 @ 3:29 am

@Y4E,
Actually, the problem is similar to that of the Nuns of Auschwitz. Irrespective of sincerity, the venue just isn’t appropriate.
And exactly who is “not allowed to exercise their basic right to worship” in this case, exactly? “Framing”, indeed.
Also, you minimization of the context of a building that was impacted during the 9/11 attack is kinda sad.
Given the unadulterated savaging of the 10th Amendment by a century of Progressivism, I expect you laugh maniacally every time you type ‘Constitution’.
But, really: take in Bill Whittle for the rebuttal I wish I’d penned. An order of magnitude better than my mumblings.
young4eyes
August 16th, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

“btw if your gonna defend islams right to build a mosque youngforeskin than you have no right to complain about homophobia got it you little turd?”
Kujo, how do you mangage to keep your brain on stupid for so long? So, I have no right to complain about bigotry? Right, wouldn’t want to put the kabbash on what you do best.
Moron…
David Graham ( if that’s really his name) wants to suggest that I am a secret Muslim too.Nothing cracks me up like a conspiracy theorist. Hey David, don’t look now but I’m standing right behind you…Hey, Beck called.He wants his paranoia back…
“The leftists will probably be disturbed when the Moslems start tipping walls over on homosexuals”
You’re goddam right we will! we’re not gonna let those intolerant jackals do that in OUR country. But isn’t it funny that you guys are so…sympatico on that issue? Maybe you guys are secret muslims!
Listen idiots, you’re either for the rule of law or not. I’ve always argued that Conservatives really don’t have any principles, as they are ready do fuck the law when it suits them best. And you are proving it with this issue.Therefore Conservatism and everything you purport to stand for is a sham.
But I already knew that….
smitty
August 16th, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

@Y4E,
Actually, the problem is similar to that of the Nuns of Auschwitz. Irrespective of sincerity, the venue just isn’t appropriate.
And exactly who is “not allowed to exercise their basic right to worship” in this case, exactly? “Framing”, indeed.
Also, you minimization of the context of a building that was impacted during the 9/11 attack is kinda sad.
Given the unadulterated savaging of the 10th Amendment by a century of Progressivism, I expect you laugh maniacally every time you type ‘Constitution’.
But, really: take in Bill Whittle for the rebuttal I wish I’d penned. An order of magnitude better than my mumblings.
smitty
August 17th, 2010 @ 3:35 am

@Y4E,
I semi-agree with you that, for the RINO set, Conservativism is mainly a tool to wrap in the flag while furthering the Progressive agenda.
Which is why you not fairly consistent heat from this blog on the Lindsey Grahams and the John McCains. Ted Stevens, Heaven rest him.
There wouldn’t be wood without deadwood, and it bears constant trimming.
This is why you hear me meta-bitching about incumbency. I work near the integrity singularity that is DC; honesty has a short life.
Robin Williams on politicians and diapers had the right of it.
smitty
August 16th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

@Y4E,
I semi-agree with you that, for the RINO set, Conservativism is mainly a tool to wrap in the flag while furthering the Progressive agenda.
Which is why you not fairly consistent heat from this blog on the Lindsey Grahams and the John McCains. Ted Stevens, Heaven rest him.
There wouldn’t be wood without deadwood, and it bears constant trimming.
This is why you hear me meta-bitching about incumbency. I work near the integrity singularity that is DC; honesty has a short life.
Robin Williams on politicians and diapers had the right of it.
young4eyes
August 17th, 2010 @ 3:54 am

Constitution?Bwahahahahah….
But seriously, Smitty…eventually you can see that this, under the letter of the law, falls under religious persecution. If it were an isolated incident I’d think that this whole matter is a touchy one.But since 9-11 there has been a pattern of groups across the country protesting Mosques in their community, despite the considerable lack of proximity to GZ.Now why would that be? Hmmmm?
I get it, this is yet another battle in your foolish “culture wars”, which is a more media friendly way of saying Civil War. Who are you fooling?
I’ve stated before the impact of 9-11 on my city( hell, my country). That day and the days,weeks and months following are ingrained in me the same way your values are ingrained in you. But we are losing sight of what we stand for if we let Conservative mob mentality and bitterness poison the principles we supposedly stand for.
Call me crazy, but I believe in the principles set forth int he Constitution. Part of why it disturbed me so much to find that the men who crafted the idea that “all men were created equal” were slave owners themselves.
So is this what America is? Just words?
Like I said, cowboy up and put it all on the table. How far are you willing to go in your beliefs against the GZM( a misnomer as it is)? Call for an amendment on the Constitution if you think the GZM is wrong.
Otherwise, this is all grandstanding and gamesmanship.
I think we all know what this is…
young4eyes
August 16th, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

Constitution?Bwahahahahah….
But seriously, Smitty…eventually you can see that this, under the letter of the law, falls under religious persecution. If it were an isolated incident I’d think that this whole matter is a touchy one.But since 9-11 there has been a pattern of groups across the country protesting Mosques in their community, despite the considerable lack of proximity to GZ.Now why would that be? Hmmmm?
I get it, this is yet another battle in your foolish “culture wars”, which is a more media friendly way of saying Civil War. Who are you fooling?
I’ve stated before the impact of 9-11 on my city( hell, my country). That day and the days,weeks and months following are ingrained in me the same way your values are ingrained in you. But we are losing sight of what we stand for if we let Conservative mob mentality and bitterness poison the principles we supposedly stand for.
Call me crazy, but I believe in the principles set forth int he Constitution. Part of why it disturbed me so much to find that the men who crafted the idea that “all men were created equal” were slave owners themselves.
So is this what America is? Just words?
Like I said, cowboy up and put it all on the table. How far are you willing to go in your beliefs against the GZM( a misnomer as it is)? Call for an amendment on the Constitution if you think the GZM is wrong.
Otherwise, this is all grandstanding and gamesmanship.
I think we all know what this is…
Adobe Walls
August 17th, 2010 @ 10:24 am

I thought we were past stipulating that Islam is a religion.
Adobe Walls
August 17th, 2010 @ 6:24 am

I thought we were past stipulating that Islam is a religion.