he’s partially right, conservatives cling to old fashioned bigoted ways. Not on purpose, but as a default. The past is filled with racism, sexism and all kinds of bigotry. Those that see the past as being better that the future, have a distaste for social evolution that – as evolution should, cleanses the social fabric of what soiled it in the past.
It’s pathetic that this cretin wants to disguise bigotry as something patriotic. There is nothing patriotic about wanting an American President to fail, there is nothing patriotic about denying benefits to hungry AMERICAN children, there is NOTHING patriotic about calling AMERICAN public servants racially and homosexual slurs.
There is nothing patriotic about stonewalling American progress!
Your response to the article is the exact reason the article was written.
it was written because the right is trying to defend it’s ignorant ways.
Agree with Luis. This is the exact reason the article was written. “The right is trying to defend it’s ignorant ways.” Talk about intellectual disonesty and poverty. I am part of the right, and I side with all those issues, and I can assure… you that you’re wrong to discredit me as defaulting to ignorance. Hardly so. I’ll openly take you up on any of those issues, however to simply cast me as a rascist bigot makes it much more time effective then actually having the discussions.
Must be so easy being a leftist.
So tell me Luis or Leo since youre the pious one – what is the rational, non-bigoted explanation for opposing a religious community center in downtown New York City?
And please tell me how you get around the contradiction of not wanting g…overnment expansion in one’s daily life and then saying that it’s ok for the government to ban gay marriage. You say it’s protecting morals and the morality of society at the expense of some people, but then when we pass healthcare reform – a moral and prudent thing that would benefit society as a whole, people say it’s not right, the government shouldnt legislate on moral grounds and its a burden on small business. So why is it ok to burden Gay Americans in an effort to uphold “civic morality” but not business owners? THEN you have the nerve to support a law that says it’s ok for the POLICE to stop you check your papers much like in Nazi Germany, and you claim that that government intrusion is ok, no violation of rights there?
So please tell me how someone that’s a rational person to understand this?
Sure, it’s quite rational! Since I’ve done the later issues in length in other places, and they’re publicly available, I’ll stick (for the sake of brevity) to the first issue (I’ve written papers on some of the issues, but invite futu…re discussions, especially the different between negative and positive ‘rights’). I’ll also provide an answer rooted in reason on the subject.
First and foremost, you must understand an important concept in discussing moral philosophy. First we must understand we have two important categorical distinctions. The first is the objective category of Right and Wrong. These are things that are a norm and adhere to an objective absolute standard. The second category is a subjective one which includes Good and Bad.
Now one must understand just because something is Good doesn’t mean it is Right. In addition just because something is Bad doesn’t mean it is Wrong. Subjective preference is personal and usually based on preference (such as what you determine to be a ‘good’ meal, or a ‘good’ looking person). An example of a case where something is Bad but Right would be the use of violence by an army to defend its innocent civilians. Violence is Bad, but using it to protect your innocent wife from a rapist is not Wrong, it’s Right.
In addition, I don’t doubt adultery and cheating on your spouse feels good (I speak not from experience). However cheating on your wife, even if it feels Good, is not Right.
Here then is a major problem of leftist moral thinking. They are quick to accept something that’s Good and Right (such as in sexual morality), and something that’s bad as wrong (such as capital punishment).
Now that we have this extr…emely important categorical division of Objective and Subjective moral terms, we can explore the issue of the Mosque.
The question then becomes twofold: (1) Do they have the Right to build the Mosque? (2) Is it Good for them to build the mosque?
(1) The first one is easy. Objectively they have every right extended to others and guarded by the Bill of Rights to build and worship freely. No major conservative thinker believes they don’t have the right. Go find me a majority …who believe they don’t. There is agreement here. They have an objective right to worship.
(2) We then move into the second question: Given the historical circumstances, is it a good idea? (A) The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers find a towering mosque so close to be insulting to the memory of thousands dead. (B) It is a historical fact that Islam has consistently throughout history built major mosques over the sites of major conquests (see the destruction of Hindu temples, the Temple on the Mount/Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, St. Sophia and churches in Constantinople, etc), (C) Research the original name of the project, (D) Research the remarks regarding 9/11 and the fault of Americans by the leading Iman, (E) Research where the funding for the project is coming from. That’s simply a short list that leads a majority of citizens to determine it to be a bad thing. Interestingly enough, this should prompt the mosque sponsors to rethink their building. Why?
Time and again this group has stated as their purpose bridging the gap between Muslims and the public. They claim a sensitivity to the issue. However their actions are DIRECTLY acting against their stated intention. What would speak more towards wanting to heal attitudes then to humbly move the site to another location in the name of wanting to work with the public? Instead they decide to absolutely discredit themselves by stubbornly refusing something in the very interest of their “objective.”
For this reason, they have every logical reason to conclude on the subjective level that it is not a “good” idea.
However, some Lockean Two Treatise treatment for you, we remember the following. Even if they conclude they wish to continue, we must remember that just because you have a Right, it doesn’t mean it is always good to use it (you don’t get up during a movie and begin yelling out the ending in the name of the 1st amendment). Even then, you MUST remember that, as we have the objective Right to such an act, the opposition has the objective Right to publicly announce their protest. If you decide to use your right, you must be willing to confront the scrutiny of the public, as they have a RIGHT to vocalize such scrutiny. Prepare yourself to deal with the public.
SUMMARY: In conclusion, we must remember not everything that is Good is a Right, and not everything that is Bad is Wrong. In addition we must understand the argument being made is NOT that they have no RIGHT to build a mosque (every…one agrees they do), but that it is not a GOOD idea, given history of Islam, World Trade Center, and the stated objective of the Iman (including other factors). When the left tries to argue that the Right is objecting to the first question, they are deceiving the public.
Finally, we must remember that the public has a RIGHT to object to what they (75%) perceived to be BAD. To paint their RIGHT as simply an object of islamiphobia, given reasonable reasons listed prior, is truly subjective bigotry (one that argues that because what they determine to be good is not what you believe to be good, that they are racists). It’s also petty elitist politics.
I hope you read those categorical divisions and come to understand their implications in a debate of subjectivity in the issue, and understand subjectivity has moral implications that are adversial to the stated intentions of the Iman, and thus provided a rational on these grounds to adhere to such pressure. If you stick to calling the opposition islamiphobics because their relativistic determination of the ‘bad’ is contrary to yours, then you fail in bigotry. If you try to argue this as that majority disagreeing to the Right, then you fail in initial and necessary understanding, thus having a conversation with yourself.
FOOTNOTE: And calling someone a rascist or idiot because their subjective conclusion of the good is contrary to yours is the exact thing Krauthammer is discussing in the article.
Leo, I appreciate your efforts here, but your argument falls short of rational.
First, you argument claims that historically, Islam builds mosques as trophies… well, this is a community center, and the funding comes from a Saudi and als…o owns part of Fox News. (Which ironically is the propaganda station on which the right wing claims that the government was behind 9/11.)
Next, I’ve asked several people why they dont want the community center and they all say that it’s because the Muslims flew airplanes into the buildings and so we shouldnt let them build anything around there.
(NOTE: how terrible this argument is. The mosque is simply a ‘community center,’ and because he has friends whose answers he believes to be racist, all arguments against must be as well, LG)
Now, my reason for saying that all of this is racist, is because if it had been a white man that caused this act or terror, there would be no righteous indignation going on here.
(NOTE: The man removes himself from having a discussion of real reason, to one of hypotheticals. He has yet to address any of my points of discussion, which gives me the believe he had not read the post)
Kind of like how we still allow Catholic schools to educate young boys, you know given the historic nature of Catholic Priests and how they enjoy molesting (terrorizing) and raping little boys.
(NOTE: I don’t know what this has to do with the discussion. It also produces a logical fallacy. Just because some white men commit robbery, doesn’t mean all do and that we should simply put them all in jail. Just because some priests commit child molestation, as you find in basically every human group, doesn’t mean all do. This has nothing to do with the discussion)
This is in fact a case of Xenophobia, it’s always “those people”.
The biggest trophy that a terrorist can ask for they already have, it’s watching the American values that make this country great, crumble. When we see crowds of people protesting a religious edifice in America on grounds of “it’s not right”, we lost and they won”.
So, what about the other stuff?
(NOTE: The man failed to address any of my points)
I believing allowing the two comments to stand as is besides each other allows the public to determine which exhibits the most well reasoned argument. As for the other arguments you can find responses on my blog, as well as earlier discussions.
sure thing 😉