[lit-ideas] Soft as Charmin
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:27:50 -0500
LH: "...that fact is troubling when we think about this Cordoban Mosque
being built where it is."
It's not a mosque, Lawrence.
LH: "Lefties and pacifists are undoubtedly in favor of giving in to this
bullying."
Undoubtedly???? Well then, no sense in discussing this. But I'd suggest
that most Lefties put the Constitution of the United States over rightwing
fears.
LH: "Do we in the U.S. really want to live in the 21st century? If so we
need to enforce our views about tolerance."
I laughed when I read this. Then I realized you were serious.
LH: " If we get in the habit of giving in each time intolerant Muslims
threaten us with their rage and violence then we have a sorry future to look
forward to."
I think it's more an Constitutional issue than cowardice, Lawrence. Have
you ever heard of the First Amendment?
LH: "Another inference to be drawn from Rauf's "fears" is that we as a
nation no longer have the backbone to stand up to threats"
What a bizarre comment. The United States military has been continuously
engaged somewhere in the world since 1941. Unfortunately most of the
engagements have not been in response to threats, but threatened others.
Demonstrably soft,
Mike Geary
Memphis
The above AP article, entitled "Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame
tension" was published a day or so ago. If the Mosque is not moved, the
above may express Rauf's motives for wanting keep his plans unchanged.
Assuming that Rauf really does fear that moving the Ground Zero Mosque might
cause a "violent backlash from Muslim extremists and endanger national
security," we can draw some interesting inferences. The first is that he
fears an Islamic reaction more than he fears an American reaction.
What is at stake for the Muslim extremists, we might ask? We know from their
history that Islam has a pattern of building victory mosques over defeated
enemy's national structures, and for those of us who bother to read Muslim
history that fact is troubling when we think about this Cordoban Mosque
being built where it is. But are the Muslim extremists Rauf is worried about
familiar with that aspect of their history, the building of victory mosques?
Of course they needn't be scholars of Muslim history (as is almost mandatory
in the U.S. if an American wants to gain an accurate view of such
implications) to be fed that bit of Islamic bravado.
In effect what Rauf is saying is that if they don't go ahead and build the
Ground Zero Mosque right where it is, then lots of Muslims are going to
throw tantrums, scream invectives against the U.S., kill some innocent
people, and blow up a few things. Lefties and pacifists are undoubtedly in
favor of giving in to this bullying. I think that is a mistake. Do we in the
U.S. really want to live in the 21st century? If so we need to enforce our
views about tolerance. We can't give in to intolerant people just because
they threaten us. We once had leaders who when threatened could say
"Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute." I wonder whether
many in our present crop of leaders could say something like this.
Of course Rauf is not an American leader. He has his own agenda, but we as a
nation should not put ourselves into a position of caving in to a threat of
a "violent backlash." If we get in the habit of giving in each time
intolerant Muslims threaten us with their rage and violence then we have a
sorry future to look forward to. Leftists and Pacifists think wonderful
things can happen when we give in to threats of violence, but history
doesn't support them.
Another inference to be drawn from Rauf's "fears" is that we as a nation no
longer have the backbone to stand up to threats. Early on Osama bin Laden
argued that we could drop bombs from high altitudes (referring to what we
did in Bosnia) but didn't have the guts to fight on the ground. Our Marines
and soldiers have proved him wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq, but our
politicians and other civilians may yet prove him right back here in the
states. We have become soft like Europeans protected during the cold War.
I've begun reading the 1918 classic by Charles E. Chapman, *A History of
Spain, *and just today found a case in point: "In the third and fourth
centuries Spain suffered, like the rest of the empire, from the factors
which were bringing about the gradual dissolution of imperial rule.
Population declined, in part due to plagues, and taxes increased; luxury and
long peace had also softened the people, so that the barbarians from the
north of Europe, who had never ceased to press against the Roman borders,
found resistance to be less and less effective. . . ."
Chapman's history was based to a great extent upon the much larger history
in Spanish written in 1911 by Rafael Altamira. What I have quoted will
surprise no reader of history. It is well known that a soft people used to
luxury cannot stand very well against a tough more barbarous people. When we
consider our military, we can see that militarily we aren't soft, but bin
Laden isn't interested in targeting our military. Islamists targets our
Left-ridden civilians who are demonstrably soft. Would that our civilians
would quit whining and elect leaders willing to stand up to barbarous
bullies.
Other related posts:
