One of the vilest traits of liberals is moral equivilance; taking the horrendous acts of a group and excusing it by pulling a barely related event out of our own history and declaring, "See, we are no better!".
Jim Hoagland in today's Washington Post gives us a perfect example as he lumps evangelical Christians in with Muslim terrorists:
Intolerance -- whether exercised by "Islamic" fundamentalists blowing up the mosques of other sects or by "Christian" activists blowing up abortion clinics -- is rapidly becoming a decisive force in domestic politics and foreign policy in nation after nation.
As seen here on a site dedicated to exposing the horrors visited upon abortion clinics, the number of incidents that Hoagland describes has fallen sharply. They list two "bombings" last year, but no details are given...
Compare that to 5,281 Muslim terrorist attacks (see Religion of Peace sidebar/link) since 9/11 (16 on abortion clinics in that time). Obviously, there is no comparison, so why does Hoagland make it ? To hide the evil of the Islamic Fundamentalists, or to smear American Christians by lumping them in with Muhammed Atta? Oh, but there is more than one way to deginerate Christianity:
The spiraling growth of evangelical Christianity in the United States -- as well as in Latin America, China and Africa -- reflects the central reality that also helps drive the radicalization of Islam across the Middle East, Central Asia and the northern Caucasus.
Except, of course, that Christians aren't flying 747's filled with innocents into Mecca and Medina, while trying to set up a new version of the Holy Roman Empire, are they? Doesn't matter to secular Jim; a church-going Christian is just as bad as a hate-filled Islamist; after all, everyone in the pressroom of the Washington Post know it!
Hoagland then cites liberal poster-boy Barak Obama (a good black politician, as opposed to, for instance, the sinister Condi Rice):
"...At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
Obama may have a general point, but liberal democracy can co-exist nicely within a strong religious backround (Israel's democracy is even more vibrant than America's). Despite Hoagland's fevered attempt to create a perception that the Christian Conservatives are trying to impose sharia-type law on America, there is no recent history of violent unrest in the United States over the secular/religious split in our deeply spiritual culture. In the Middle East, you have "morality police" dragging out and beating folks over the length of their beards and the style of their prayer. There is no comparison, no moral equivilance, to the American Christian, no matter how hard Hoagland and Obama try to convince us that we are no better than the terrorist animals that aim to destroy us.
Hoagland, fearful of America's enemies, tries to drag us down onto the mud with them. I feel sorry for Jim with his self-loathing, but his odious comparison just serves to illuminate the balanced nature of our nation. Is Hoagland trying to tell us that the Christians within the Republican Party are no different than the Muslims who make up Hamas?
Sorry, I don't buy into this liberal psychosis...
No comments:
Post a Comment