Wednesday, September 08, 2010

More Leftist double standard

The intrigue about this idiot in Florida and all of his moronic followers who are calling for a "burn the Koran" day isn't that the guy's an idiot.  Or that his followers are moronic.  There's plenty of that nowadays in America to make this story rather boring.  He seems to be hungry for attention, hungry for fund-raising, hungry for controversy or whatever.  I don't know his motivation nor do I care.  People like him should simply be ignored.  That's how you deal with the foolish and ignorant.  Whether you're talking about people who spew racism, anti-semitism, stereotypical hatred or someone who wants to destroy the sacred symbols of another person's religion.  It's best just to ignore and marginalize them.  And, by the way, if this guy professes to be a Christian I would suggest he take a few moments to acquaint himself with Christianity.  There is nothing Christian about attacking someone else's religion.  This guy is about as Christian as Bin Laden.

But the real intrigue in this story deals with the Left's reaction to it.  The media is frothing at the mouth.  They can't get enough of it.  So much for marginalizing the foolish.  No, they're giving this guy exactly what he wants: attention and controversy.  Their giving him airtime, and I think it's a mistake. 

What I don't hear is the fact that this church has a Constitutional right to burn the Koran.  Interesting.  The same people who rallied around the ground zero Mosque are suddenly silent when this fool wants to burn the holy book of Islam.  Such is the world of relativistic liberalism.  There are no concrete rights and wrongs with these people.  Everything is relative and depends on the situation at hand.  Want to build a Mosque at ground zero?  Okay.  Want to burn the Koran?  Not okay.  President Obama said the folks have a right to build the Mosque at ground zero, that it's a fundamental American principle.  Robert Gibbs repeated this notion, as did Joe Biden.  Has anyone heard the President stand behind these dopes in Florida who want to burn the Koran?  Nope.  It's just the latest example of why liberalism never appealed to me.  It's too inconsistent as an ideology.  I prefer solid principles, unwavering, consistent.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are solidly consistent.  People have a right to build a Mosque at ground zero.  People have a right to burn the Koran.  But both are tasteless, offensive, disrespectful and provocative and shouldn't be tolerated.  Good luck finding a liberal to agree with me on that.

So the media will continue to slobber over this story, no doubt sharing culpability with any consequences that occur as a result of global Muslim outrage.  It's almost as if the Leftist media WANTS the world to hate us, WANTS the world to think we're anti-Muslim and are waging a holy war against Islam.  Hmmm.

8 comments:

Auntyem said...

Hello, John,

I see you are back commenting on conservative vs liberal views.

You said, "this church has a Constitutional right to burn the Koran". Even if it might affect our national security and the safety of our troops in Muslim countries? Muslim radicals are just waiting for an excuse to "justify" their terrorism.

Also, the furor over this crazy man wanting to burn someone's "holy" book should show the intolerant theocracies like Saudi's that we Americans mean what we say when we say we have freedom of religion. We become just like them when we turn a blind eye to someone contemplating such an act as burning a symbol like that.

They ban the Bible in Saudi, and I wonder if they burn them if found. They don't allow the building of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, etc. We don't want to be told by them that we do the same.

Sure the media gives lots of attention to this pastor with his incendiary ideas, but the media also helps stir the feelings of those who feel "ground zero" is holy ground. The contemplated mosque in NYC is not AT ground zero, it is two blocks away, and neither site can be seen from the other. How far do people want to extend "ground zero"? I do feel that the imam is being insensitive wanting to build a new mosque at this time with feelings running so high, even though one has existed there for a long time.

The makeshift mosque now near "ground zero" needs more room, so the imam says, and I'm afraid the worshipers might use the furor over a new mosque as an excuse to start praying in the streets like they do in Paris and disturb the flow of traffic, etc.

The media, conservative and liberal and in-between, can't really ignore such high feelings as both situations give rise to.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

John Washburn said...

Em,
To answer your question: Yes, despite the obvious consequences, this guy has a right to burn the Koran.

And exactly how does the "furor" over this idiot show others that we value freedom of religion? His actions are not imposing on the religious rights of anyone. And if your argument is true, then are you saying that freedom of religion supersedes freedom of speech? Which of those two is most important? Which deserves to be protected more than the other?

If a group of gay activists held a Bible-burning, would there be so much furor from the Left? Or would there be more talk of 1st Amendment rights? Would the media cover it 24-7?

I point these things out as a condemnation of the Left's spineless values. They are defined only by situations, not by concrete principles. The Imam has a right to build a mosque, but the Florida idiot doesn't have a right to burn the Koran? And what is it - other than someone's personal opinion - that distinguishes the two? And what is stopping the Left from arbitarily deciding our rights based on opinion rather than concrete principle?

Again, conservatives are clear on this. They both have the right, but just because it is within your rights to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

And yes, the media is culpable in this. Without the media coverage, this guy would be nothing but a ridiculous you-tube video. He should be ignored because his actions are not tolerable, even though he is within his rights to do it.

And the Imam should display tolerance, understanding, respect and compassion and move his Mosque to another location. Just as the Pope did when there were plans to build a nunnery near a holocaust site. Actions of respect and tolerance say much about your own religious beliefs.

Auntyem said...

John,

I don't know what happened to my second comment that I tried posting over the week-end, but what I wanted to say is that of course I don't think the principle of freedom of religion is more important than the priciple of freedom of speech, it is just that when certain statements or acts can lead to threats to our national security or pose a danger to our soldiers in Muslim countries, people should be alarmed, as was General Petraeus.

The media has long publicized the outrage people feel about a mosque being contemplated NEAR "ground zero", even though the muslims have a constitutional right to build mosques at sites of their choosing, as do other religions.

I don't know why people insist on calling it "the mosque AT ground zero, when the two sites are separated by two blocks and neither site can be seen from the other. Muslims died in the towers at ground zero too.

Now, the pastor who called for "International Burn a Koran Day" on 9-11-10, is old news, but the media, conservative, left and in-between, will continue to make the mosque NEAR "ground zero" news for God knows how long. Is that OK because people are outraged, as they were when the pastor threatened to burn Korans, and the media feels a duty to keep it in the news?

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

John Washburn said...

Em, I'm sorry but I still don't understand your argument. Why is it okay for an Imam to exercise his freedom of religion and build a Mosque when it is offensive and inflammatory, but it is not okay for a preacher to exercise his freedom of speech and burn the Koran when it too is offensive and inflammatory?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to allude to the fact that the preacher's actions would compromise our national security and put US troops in danger. The Imam's actions don't put US troops in danger, therefore the Imam is right and the preacher is wrong. Fair enough. But isn't that all the more reason for the media to ignore this bozo? To not make him a global story?

And were you equally opposed - on those grounds - to Cindy Sheehan when she camped on Bush's driveway, protesting the war? When Harry Reid made his "the war is lost" comment? Was the Left infuriated by these things because those actions put US troops in danger?

The principles on the Left seem to change with the wind. They supported Sheehan even though her actions emboldened the enemy. They support the Imam even though his actions are inflammatory. And they oppose the preacher BECAUSE his actions are inflammatory and put US troops in danger. It doesn't make sense. What exactly does the Left stand for?

Conservatives like myself oppose all three, while acknowledging that all three are well within their rights. What they did was counterproductive and wasn't the right thing to do. Simple as that. And that is the theme to this entire post.

Auntyem said...

John, It happened again. I lost what I had written. I will try again.

No, I did not say "The Imam's actions don't put US troops in danger, therefore the Imam is right and the preacher is wrong". That is putting words in my mouth. General Petreus also thought the preacher was wrong, that his act would endanger his soldiers.

My question is why not insist also that the media stop the coverage of the issue of the NY mosque?. Keeping that in the news has incited violence against mosques elsewhere, I am sure you have heard about the incidents of bricks through windows, a bomb planted in another.

You asked, ""What exactly does the Left stand for?" I don't know. Some are as extreme as the right-wing nut jobs like neo-nazis, etc.

Everything is not just black and white. Where do you make room for moderates? They do exist. They don't want to be labeled either strict Conservative or Liberal. Moderates consider each issue for themselves. I am against abortion and same-sex marriage, but I am for civil rights. I don't want to be made to step off the sidewalk for anyone anymore.

You brought up Cindy Sheehan. As I recall, the Secret Service would not have allowed her to camp on Bush's drive-way. That is an exageration. I thought she camped across the road, then next door at a neighbor of Bush''s who let her camp on his property.

I think Cindy was ridiculous, extreme and misguided, as were those women who put red paint on their hands and approached the Sec of State.

What incensed me more, maybe you are too young to remember, were the actions of Jane Fonda during the Viet Nam war. I thought she should have been tried for treason, as should have been the draft-dodging burners of the Stars and Stripes. We had to stand by helpless, but we couldn't contain our outrage, and the media then covered it all. That's the way it always is. The media doesn't create the outrage, they just report it.

So, my question, not my argument, is why place more emphasis on criticizing the media coverage of the "burn the Koran" pastor, and not also on the issue of the coverage of the outrage by some over the proposed NY mosque?

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

John Washburn said...

Em, sorry about your comments disappearing. Hope you know that I'm not deleting them. Has to be a system issue.

Now for your question. No, I don't think the media should drop the Mosque issue. Why? Because it's news, and it's a dynamic story. It changes. The Imam makes one claim, yet many things aren't consistent with what he says. And now most recently we find out that he associates himself with "truthers". That's bothersome. It should continue to be investigated and reported. The people need to know the truth behind this guy and his motives.

The pastor, on the other hand, is just a hater. He hates Muslims which is why he wants to burn the Koran. He is a hater doing a hateful thing. That's not news. It's like doing a story on fish that swim. Haters hate, it's what they do. Reporting on it brings nothing to the table. Nothing good can come from it. Only bad. It's like covering a Klan rally. Why? Do people like that have anything of substance to contribute? No. They should be ignored. Don't give them publicity or spotlight. It's pointless.

Now for your second question: is there room for moderates? Great question. I say there are no true moderates, defined as being someone who is neither conservative nor progressive but straight down the middle. Nope. You can be a moderate conservative but you're still a conservative. Same for progressives. So everyone in this country is one or the other.

Simple test: Which of these is most important, most sacred, most vital for America? Individual liberty or The State? We can all answer it. Which one do we value most? Because one of those grows at the expense of the other. Simple.

Answer that question and you will know if you're a conservative or a progressive. Individual liberty - with it's good and bad - is what conservatives believe. The State is what progressives believe.

And this may surprise you. If you believe the things you mentioned in your comment then you are a conservative. We believe those things. People are a bit hesitant to call themselves conservatives because our culture has branded us as - well, you know - bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. No one wants to be called that, so people are hesitant to call themselves conservative. But, trust me, it's okay to admit it.

Welcome to the club!!

John Washburn said...

Em, sorry about your comments disappearing. Hope you know that I'm not deleting them. Has to be a system issue.

Now for your question. No, I don't think the media should drop the Mosque issue. Why? Because it's news, and it's a dynamic story. It changes. The Imam makes one claim, yet many things aren't consistent with what he says. And now most recently we find out that he associates himself with "truthers". That's bothersome. It should continue to be investigated and reported. The people need to know the truth behind this guy and his motives.

The pastor, on the other hand, is just a hater. He hates Muslims which is why he wants to burn the Koran. He is a hater doing a hateful thing. That's not news. It's like doing a story on fish that swim. Haters hate, it's what they do. Reporting on it brings nothing to the table. Nothing good can come from it. Only bad. It's like covering a Klan rally. Why? Do people like that have anything of substance to contribute? No. They should be ignored. Don't give them publicity or spotlight. It's pointless.

Now for your second question: is there room for moderates? Great question. I say there are no true moderates, defined as being someone who is neither conservative nor progressive but straight down the middle. Nope. You can be a moderate conservative but you're still a conservative. Same for progressives. So everyone in this country is one or the other.

Simple test: Which of these is most important, most sacred, most vital for America? Individual liberty or The State? We can all answer it. Which one do we value most? Because one of those grows at the expense of the other. Simple.

Answer that question and you will know if you're a conservative or a progressive. Individual liberty - with it's good and bad - is what conservatives believe. The State is what progressives believe.

And this may surprise you. If you believe the things you mentioned in your comment then you are a conservative. We believe those things. People are a bit hesitant to call themselves conservatives because our culture has branded us as - well, you know - bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. No one wants to be called that, so people are hesitant to call themselves conservative. But, trust me, it's okay to admit it.

Welcome to the club!!

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Dr John - I've been called all of the names mentioned above, plus xenophobe & Islam-o-phobe when I go after a kill-culture that flys planes into buildings, and straps bombs on their own women and kids,
chops off heads, stones women and girls, mutilates captives by chopping off hands & feet from oppposite sides (Qur'an 5:33) and asks their faithful to do this:

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world, and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise." Qur'an 8:67

Don't burn their holy book; read it! - www.thereligionofpeace.com/

reb
___ ___