Interesting how the editorial board attacks critics of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of seeking to "discredit all of Islam," and then the editorial board itself sweepingly attacks conservative bloggers and Tea Party activists. We who oppose the building of the mosque, as the Forward puts it, are "bigots," because we oppose it for "unjustifiable reasons" - though the Forward fails to mention even one of those "unjustifiable reasons." That's the way of the Left - attack and label your opponents, usually without taking the time to debate the issue at hand.
The reason why many of us oppose the building is because it is not in good taste. Legal? Certainly. But it is not the right thing to do. It is an insult to the memory of those who were slaughtered on that infamous day. While it is true, as some of my friends have pointed out, that Muslims were also murdered that day, it was religious Muslims who perpetrated the acts. Until there are massive Muslim demonstrations, on par with those in the wake of the Danish cartoon scandal, in which mainstream Muslim leaders declare that anyone who intentionally murders innocents goes straight to hell, and not to Paradise, there should be nothing to discuss regarding this Ground Zero mosque. Would we accept white supremacists building a church near the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City? After all, it's their right, right? Unlike many of our liberal fellow citizens, we conservatives also think in terms of what is right, not only in terms of what are my rights?
Secondly, why must we persist in trying to show Muslims how tolerant we are of other faiths? Is it not high time for the Muslim community, whether in America or elsewhere in the world, to demonstrate some tolerance for those who believe differently than they? Enough of this breast-beating; America has nothing to apologize for regarding its treatment of the members of any faith. There is no country in the world as tolerant as America is, and we should not be ashamed to say so.
Finally, why does the Forward minimize the evil of 9-11 by calling it "a perverted act of religious zealotry"? Why are we so afraid of the real possibility that the hijackers were not perverting Islam's teachings at all, but were actually acting in accordance with them? Perhaps they were, perhaps they were not, but dismissing even the possibility out of hand does no good, and might lay the groundwork for the next violent act by a Muslim who is "perverting" Islam's teachings. If Christians did what these nineteen Muslims did, having attended fundamentalist churches, and yelled, "Praise Jesus!" as they were crashing their planes, does anyone think the Forward and other liberals would be so quick to disassociate Christianity from their acts of terror?
"That's the way of the Left - attack and label your opponents"
ReplyDeleteAnd the right doesn't do this? Labelling people as Liberals to discredit them?
To your credit, you do debate the issues at hand - but don't be so naive as to think that the failure to do so is a fault only of the left and not of the right. On each side, some do and some don't.
Cyberdov, labeling your opponents using a name they themselves use is not a problem. Why do you take the label of liberal as discrediting? I fully acknowledge that when I describe someone as a political liberal, it is not a compliment. But if one is proud of his beliefs, why should he be bothered by this? (I consider myself a religious liberal, and am proud to describe myself as such.) I would not shy away from being labeled a political conservative; I revel in that! In numerous discussions with liberals, I have found that they are much more likely to bristle at being called liberals than conservatives are in being labeled conservative. Why is that? Could it be that deep down, many liberals realize that modern liberalism has actually become Leftism, and that in order to espouse classical liberal notions of liberty, fighting evil, and racial equality, they must define themselves as modern conservatives?
ReplyDeleteOverwhelmingly, conservative commentators attack their opponents' views, not them personally. If you read any sampling of Dowd, Rich, Blow, Herbert, Krugman, and Dionne versus Will, Krauthammer, Goldberg, Jacoby, Prager, Medved, and Hewitt, you will overwhelmingly find that the former regularly label their opponents as racists, bigots, and sexists. The latter label their opponents as liberals. There is no comparison here.