Reply With Quote
dennis prager lol
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns....o_moral_nuance
One of the most common self-assessments of the left is that conservatives rarely see nuances in moral questions, while liberals always do.
That this is a false conceit can be demonstrated with regard to almost any position held by the left. There is no nuance in liberal positions on abortion, race-based affirmative action, capital punishment, embryonic stem cell research or just about any other social issue.
Two such issues are the current Cordoba House Islamic center controversy and Americans' perceptions of Islam.
To liberals commenting on these issues, all that needs to be said are two things: First, Islam is a religion of peace and even the most sophisticated questioning of that claim is an expression of nativism, bigotry, xenophobia and Islamophobia. Second, the Muslim imam in New York City has a right to build his $100-million Islamic center two blocks from the spot where thousands of Americans were incinerated by 19 Muslims in the name of Islam. That no conservative spokesman has challenged the imam's right to build the center, only the rightness of the act, is ignored whenever The New York Times, for example, discusses the issue.
The truth is that the Right's views of Muslims, the Cordoba House, and Islam are considerably more nuanced than those of the Left.
Remember -- we are comparing elite with elite, not the elite left with dregs like the Gainesville "pastor" of a "50-member church" who planned an "International Quran Burning Day" and who was universally dismissed on the right as a publicity seeking jackass.
The elite right -- the leading conservative columnists, editorial pages and vast majority of major talk-show hosts -- readily and regularly distinguish between jihadists and their American Muslim neighbor across the street.
But the left rarely distinguishes between bigoted haters and Americans who have questions about contemporary Islam and oppose the building of a $100 million Islamic center two blocks from ground zero.
This past Sunday, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered another example of left-wing nuance-free attacks on Americans who have any moral reservations about the world of Islam today.
Kristof began his column with an attack on the "venomous and debased discourse about Islam" in America.
He gives one example: New Republic publisher Martin Peretz, a rather thoughtful lifelong liberal, who actually had the temerity to raise moral concerns about Islam in a recent article. Peretz asked, for example, "Is not western society, imperfect as it may be ... immensely more liberal than the domains of Islam?"
And this: "This intense epidemic of (Islamic) slaughter has been going on for nearly a decade and a half...without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that."
Kristof ignores every issue raised by Peretz and quotes one sentence to cite Peretz's article as an example of the "venomous and debased the discourse about Islam" permeating America. To The New York Times and the rest of the left, the question here is not whether what Peretz wrote is true -- because when it comes to the right, the left is concerned with finding bigotry, not truth.
"Nativists are back on the warpath," Kristof went on to write.
Question: Can Kristof name any opponents of the Cordoba center or anyone else who vocalizes any questions about the moral state of the contemporary Muslim world whom he does not consider a nativist or bigot?
Kristof: "In America, bigoted comments about Islam often seem to come from people who have never visited a mosque and know few if any Muslims."
Question: Would Kristof agree that those on the left who declare that "Islam is a religion of peace" and who claim to see no moral differences between the contemporary Muslim world and the contemporary Christian, Jewish and Buddhist worlds, also have "never visited a mosque and know few if any Muslims?"
Kristof: "In their ignorance, they mirror the anti-Semitism that I hear in Muslim countries from people who have never met a Jew."
That is about as non-nuanced, as unsophisticated a statement as one can make on this is or any issue. In many Muslim countries, the media are saturated with "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" type Jew-hatred, with popular TV shows depicting Jews as killing Muslim children for their blood, and calls for extermination of the Jewish state. Nowhere in America is there anything regarding Muslims remotely analogous to the anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.
Another lack of nuance:
Kristof: "One American university professor wrote to me that 'every Muslim in the world' believes that the proposed Manhattan Islamic center would symbolize triumph over America. That reminded me of Pakistanis who used to tell me that 'every Jew' knew of 9/11 in advance, so that none died in the World Trade Center."
Here is the (nuanced) truth: Vast numbers of Muslims believe that Jews stayed away from the World Trade Center on 9/11. That is a lie -- not one Jew on earth knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. But it is not a lie that there are millions of Muslims who believe that a giant Islamic center and mosque near ground zero would be a sign of Muslim victory.
The same day Kristof's simplistic view of the mosque issue was published, AOL News reported on a demonstration against the mosque. It quoted a man named Ron Silverados, identified as "a 57-year-old road striper from Long Island:" "I'm tired of saying this but this isn't a religious issue ... it is a moral issue."
There was more moral nuance in the road striper's comment than in all the liberal columns and editorials of The New York Times.
If the left were primarily concerned with bigotry, it would be preoccupied with the most bigoted places on earth -- many Islamic nations. But in general, the left hates the right more than it hates bigotry. And that leads to a world devoid of moral nuance.
dennis prager lol
What's wrong with him?
whats the matter, couldn't you find something from boortz?
Wasn't this the guy that wanted to force the first Muslim elected to Congress to take an oath on the Bible?
Oh for s sake...there was a Mosque INSIDE the world trade center...there's a Mosque INSIDE the Pentagon...there are strip clubs near and around this oh so sacred area...get over it already...
No
Last edited by jack sommerset; 09-15-2010 at 06:07 PM.
EIGHT! Ah ah ah! EIGHT threads about Islam started by DarrinS this month!
Did any of you naysayer idiots actually comprehend what he said?
No, they don't.
No need to read further.
Amazing incoherent piece by Prager. I almost feel sorry for him.
Oh look at me though, I'm in my Ivory tower.
Yeesh, this guy uses as many false generalizations as you DarrinS.
Where's this sophisticated questioning?To liberals commenting on these issues, all that needs to be said are two things: First, Islam is a religion of peace and even the most sophisticated questioning of that claim is an expression of nativism, bigotry, xenophobia and Islamophobia.
Oh yes, it takes alot of nuance to say, "I'm not saying all Muslims are jihadists."The elite right -- the leading conservative columnists, editorial pages and vast majority of major talk-show hosts -- readily and regularly distinguish between jihadists and their American Muslim neighbor across the street.
What questions do these Americans have about contemporary Islam? Why do they oppose the building?But the left rarely distinguishes between bigoted haters and Americans who have questions about contemporary Islam and oppose the building of a $100 million Islamic center two blocks from ground zero.
Here is the unnuanced truth: this guy is a big pussy. Oh, and he's also engaging in the Pascal's Wager fallacy. "If we build the mosque, they might claim victory! Therefore, we'll play on the safe side and not build it." As if they couldn't possibly use THAT for propaganda. Moron.Here is the (nuanced) truth: Vast numbers of Muslims believe that Jews stayed away from the World Trade Center on 9/11. That is a lie -- not one Jew on earth knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. But it is not a lie that there are millions of Muslims who believe that a giant Islamic center and mosque near ground zero would be a sign of Muslim victory.
And by preoccupied, Prager obviously means bombing the out of these nations.If the left were primarily concerned with bigotry, it would be preoccupied with the most bigoted places on earth -- many Islamic nations. But in general, the left hates the right more than it hates bigotry. And that leads to a world devoid of moral nuance.
Please help me comprehend this line:
Why is the act of building this community center wrong if they have the right to do so?That no conservative spokesman has challenged the imam's right to build the center, only the rightness of the act, is ignored whenever The New York Times, for example, discusses the issue.
Every single lib response reinforces Prager's column.
If you, in any way, oppose the Ground Zero Mosqepalooza, you are an Islamophobic biggot.
It's black and white. No gray -- no nuance.
Anyone check the latest cover of Time?
Nuance
If you create 8 threads about it in two weeks, you are Islamophobic.
It's pretty pathetic to lecture about nuance while you continue to lump all Muslims together into some shared accountability for terrorist attacks.
your nuance. You're a bigot.
You're free to provide an argument to prove otherwise.
Do you have a principled opposition to espouse DarrinS? Or are you just going to go with the "It's too big! Why should Muslims be able to pray there, when they can pray just four blocks away?!? Did you realize that the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims?"
If that's all you have, well, forgive me for calling it like I see it. If you have a valid reason why it should be moved, one based off rationality, by all means share it.
pretty much.
This has been repeated over and over. Sorry you don't understand. It should be obvious and not need explanation.
It is acknowledged that they have every legal right to build there in this free nation. However, they shouldn't because of the perceived smugness of the plan. To build as close to the site as possible. with all the public opposition to the plan, they are ignoring others feeling.
I fail to understand how liberals miss this. their whole political correctness, and many laws based on race and gender are based on how the victim perceives an action. The action itself is re-classed by perception rather than fact.
Why is it OK for liberals to have these nuances, but not conservatives?
"America's Islamaphobia" is the standard, election-season rabble rousing by VRWC, Fox, the hate-media megaphones. The rabble love nothing more than having their hate and fear stoked by their string pullers.
Darrin is claiming nuance on this issue?
For me, Prager doesn't even have to be a racist. It's more than enough that he's a ing nutball.
Darrin clearly claimed no nuance in the banner and mostly delivered, I thought.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
