Larry Gude
Strung Out
...I had a very interesting, robust and spirited conversation over the weekend with some young folks. Very smart, very articulate, educated and, one in particular, very, very educated.
The subjects ranged from the mosque at ground zero, FOX news bias vs. the rest of the media's bias, government transparency, global warming/environmentalism, Islam in general, and the wars and whether or not they are Holy Wars.
Without writing a book about it which I, happily could, the one thing that mattered most, that really has deep implications, is the view that, on the one hand, we, per our Constitution, should have absolute fealty to it and have no objections to the location of the mosque whatsoever in terms of opposing it.
On the other hand, is the cavalier position that most Muslims see Islam and extremism the same way most Christians see Christianity and it's extremism; that most of us are smart, reasonable people that just wanna get along and don't take all this religious stuff literally or all that seriously.
Clearly, there is the religious freedom to practice ones faith as they choose...in this country. However, that does not address the issue of what you can do, when and where and the counter argument of civility; just because you can, should you?
I found and pointed out the inconsistency of, on the one hand, arguing that we should take our founding documents very seriously and very literally, at least as regards religious freedom, and, on the other hand, the convinced opinion that they, Muslims, won't. That our sensibilities and bias' should and do take a back seat to our rules and laws vs. those of Islam will be interpreted literally and moderately.
These is a core weakness and danger, that I see, of progressive ideology; we should be literal and they won't be. Whoopie and Bahar motivated me to pursue this argument further. They are towering examples of this mind set in action. They are free to speak. They would not be in a Muslim nation. Not to a man. Not like that.
So much for yet another flimsy, and dangerous, progressive construct.
The subjects ranged from the mosque at ground zero, FOX news bias vs. the rest of the media's bias, government transparency, global warming/environmentalism, Islam in general, and the wars and whether or not they are Holy Wars.
Without writing a book about it which I, happily could, the one thing that mattered most, that really has deep implications, is the view that, on the one hand, we, per our Constitution, should have absolute fealty to it and have no objections to the location of the mosque whatsoever in terms of opposing it.
On the other hand, is the cavalier position that most Muslims see Islam and extremism the same way most Christians see Christianity and it's extremism; that most of us are smart, reasonable people that just wanna get along and don't take all this religious stuff literally or all that seriously.
Clearly, there is the religious freedom to practice ones faith as they choose...in this country. However, that does not address the issue of what you can do, when and where and the counter argument of civility; just because you can, should you?
I found and pointed out the inconsistency of, on the one hand, arguing that we should take our founding documents very seriously and very literally, at least as regards religious freedom, and, on the other hand, the convinced opinion that they, Muslims, won't. That our sensibilities and bias' should and do take a back seat to our rules and laws vs. those of Islam will be interpreted literally and moderately.
These is a core weakness and danger, that I see, of progressive ideology; we should be literal and they won't be. Whoopie and Bahar motivated me to pursue this argument further. They are towering examples of this mind set in action. They are free to speak. They would not be in a Muslim nation. Not to a man. Not like that.
So much for yet another flimsy, and dangerous, progressive construct.