A shot of the American west looking East.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Liberal Hypocrisy Finally Found!
In the typical liberal view of the world the worst possible sin is hypocrisy. Liberals have managed to inoculate themselves against charges of hypocrisy by not expounding any moral principles. Hence when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife it wasn’t hypocritical, and hence he wasn’t a bad person, because he’d never condemned adultery but when a televangelist was caught cheating on his wife he was guilty of hypocrisy and hence a bad person. By elevating the evil of hypocrisy over the evil of the actual acts, ranging from tax evasion to adultery, liberals have their cake and eat it too. They can condemn conservatives for pretty much anything-- conservatives are after all hypocrites because they didn’t live up to conservative moral values-- while excusing liberals--who do not have moral codes that require fidelity or honesty-- who do the exact same thing.
The GZM(Ground Zero Mosque) or now Park51 controversy has finally given conservatives an opportunity to call out liberals for committing the liberals definition of hypocrisy. For decades liberals have pushed the Politically Correct(PC; sorry Dell) concept. The core of PC is that espousing certain positions is hurtful to others because the very concepts are odious. Such concepts--say ending Affirmative Action-- must not be discussed because of the pain and suffering such a discussion would have on others. Much like an earlier and more gentile era’s prohibition on burping at the dinner table PC is liberalisms attempt to prevent innocents from being offended.
But what is the primary argument against GZM? Is it not that building the Mosque at the site where 3000 Americans died due to Islamic terrorists is a great offense against all Americans? Are not those who stand against a structure that could be construed by people of ill will, such as those who cheered in the streets of Cairo when they heard of 9/11, as a symbol of Islamic triumphalism merely standing shoulder to shoulder with their liberal brothers in solidarity to protect innocents from being offended?
But then aren’t those liberals who support the GZM, none of which seem to be running in vulnerable election races this year, being hypocritical by violating the PC standard which they always fly over the American flag? Liberals who support the GZM are clearly being insensitive to the feelings of the 70% of Americans who find an Islamic shrine so near to the site of the mass murder of Americans by Islamic terrorists. Hence the liberals are, by their own definition, guilty of hypocrisy because they are violating the core belief of PC which liberals never cease extolling.
But wait there’s more, no not a ceramic knife. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a controversy about Crosses erected at the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. The Roman Catholic Church supported the removal of the crosses because they offended Jews even though according to the Auschwitz-Birkenau web site at least 150,000 Catholics were killed at Auschwitz. During the Auschwitz controversy liberals were very much against the Crosses because they offended Jewish sensibilities. However now those same liberals seem to have no problem with ignoring the feelings of the vast majority of Americans. Clearly it’s hypocritical, by liberal standards, to condemn Crosses in Poland because they offend Jews while supporting a Mosque in America even though it offends everyone.
And if you order right now I’ll throw in at no extra charge the argument of hypocrisy from the perspective of decency. We’ve all heard how the talking heads of the MSM and the Democrats moan over the loss of decency and civility in public discourse. Of course calls for a more civil debate usually occur right after conservatives are compared to lower primates or Nazi’s. But nonetheless liberals do continually call for more decency in the political sphere. Yet what is decent about forcing the majority of Americans to accept a tall gleaming tower proclaiming the wonders of the Islamic faith within blocks of where faithful adherents of Islam murdered 3000 innocents? Just as a Crucifix in a jar of urine is declared by liberals to be “speech” protected by the First Amendment surely the GZM is a form of “speech” which in the minds of many is clearly not decent. We’re told by liberals that perception is reality so that if a member of a minority group thinks he’s been discriminated against he has in fact been discriminated against no matter what the facts of the case may be. Hence those who believe that the “speech” embodied by the 15 story paean to Islam must by liberal standards be told that their complaint is true; their suffering real. Yet liberals denounce those whose pain liberals own core beliefs hold to be valid. Is that not hypocrisy of the highest order?
In the end this is one controversy where liberals can’t really have it both ways, not that they won’t try. The issue is not about religious freedom. After all no one thought that Catholic Church’s support of removing the Crosses from Auschwitz was due to a deep seated desire by the Pope to squash religious liberty in Poland. The issue is true compassion for those who have suffered a tragic loss. Three thousand Americans died on 9/11 and Americans are a very caring group of people. Free speech may allow someone to put up a statue to Ho Chi Minh next to the graves of Americans who died in Vietnam but decency does not. Similarly decency--the glue that binds the disparate social threads of the American body politic together-- does not allow the construction of a 15 story Mosque near ground zero.
The GZM(Ground Zero Mosque) or now Park51 controversy has finally given conservatives an opportunity to call out liberals for committing the liberals definition of hypocrisy. For decades liberals have pushed the Politically Correct(PC; sorry Dell) concept. The core of PC is that espousing certain positions is hurtful to others because the very concepts are odious. Such concepts--say ending Affirmative Action-- must not be discussed because of the pain and suffering such a discussion would have on others. Much like an earlier and more gentile era’s prohibition on burping at the dinner table PC is liberalisms attempt to prevent innocents from being offended.
But what is the primary argument against GZM? Is it not that building the Mosque at the site where 3000 Americans died due to Islamic terrorists is a great offense against all Americans? Are not those who stand against a structure that could be construed by people of ill will, such as those who cheered in the streets of Cairo when they heard of 9/11, as a symbol of Islamic triumphalism merely standing shoulder to shoulder with their liberal brothers in solidarity to protect innocents from being offended?
But then aren’t those liberals who support the GZM, none of which seem to be running in vulnerable election races this year, being hypocritical by violating the PC standard which they always fly over the American flag? Liberals who support the GZM are clearly being insensitive to the feelings of the 70% of Americans who find an Islamic shrine so near to the site of the mass murder of Americans by Islamic terrorists. Hence the liberals are, by their own definition, guilty of hypocrisy because they are violating the core belief of PC which liberals never cease extolling.
But wait there’s more, no not a ceramic knife. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a controversy about Crosses erected at the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. The Roman Catholic Church supported the removal of the crosses because they offended Jews even though according to the Auschwitz-Birkenau web site at least 150,000 Catholics were killed at Auschwitz. During the Auschwitz controversy liberals were very much against the Crosses because they offended Jewish sensibilities. However now those same liberals seem to have no problem with ignoring the feelings of the vast majority of Americans. Clearly it’s hypocritical, by liberal standards, to condemn Crosses in Poland because they offend Jews while supporting a Mosque in America even though it offends everyone.
And if you order right now I’ll throw in at no extra charge the argument of hypocrisy from the perspective of decency. We’ve all heard how the talking heads of the MSM and the Democrats moan over the loss of decency and civility in public discourse. Of course calls for a more civil debate usually occur right after conservatives are compared to lower primates or Nazi’s. But nonetheless liberals do continually call for more decency in the political sphere. Yet what is decent about forcing the majority of Americans to accept a tall gleaming tower proclaiming the wonders of the Islamic faith within blocks of where faithful adherents of Islam murdered 3000 innocents? Just as a Crucifix in a jar of urine is declared by liberals to be “speech” protected by the First Amendment surely the GZM is a form of “speech” which in the minds of many is clearly not decent. We’re told by liberals that perception is reality so that if a member of a minority group thinks he’s been discriminated against he has in fact been discriminated against no matter what the facts of the case may be. Hence those who believe that the “speech” embodied by the 15 story paean to Islam must by liberal standards be told that their complaint is true; their suffering real. Yet liberals denounce those whose pain liberals own core beliefs hold to be valid. Is that not hypocrisy of the highest order?
In the end this is one controversy where liberals can’t really have it both ways, not that they won’t try. The issue is not about religious freedom. After all no one thought that Catholic Church’s support of removing the Crosses from Auschwitz was due to a deep seated desire by the Pope to squash religious liberty in Poland. The issue is true compassion for those who have suffered a tragic loss. Three thousand Americans died on 9/11 and Americans are a very caring group of people. Free speech may allow someone to put up a statue to Ho Chi Minh next to the graves of Americans who died in Vietnam but decency does not. Similarly decency--the glue that binds the disparate social threads of the American body politic together-- does not allow the construction of a 15 story Mosque near ground zero.
The new aristocracy
Jerry Brown is not doing his job of defending the people of California’s vote on Prop. 8 because he says that he believes it’s unconstitutional. Last I heard deciding if something is unconstitutional is up to the courts not the Attorney General. Brown is effectively saying he’ll only enforce the laws he personally believes to be “constitutional”. Talk about extreme positions! What right does he have to put himself above the law? Suppose the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8? Is Brown going to say “sorry”? Coming from a lawyer who sees nothing wrong with using technicalities to get drug dealers off the hook Brown’s position seems to say that his personal opinion not his duty to the voters is what matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
