Skip to comments.The Left's Inability to Confront Evil
Posted on 08/08/2006 4:51:41 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
On July 28, 2006, a Muslim entered the building of the Seattle Jewish Federation and shot every Jew he saw, murdering one woman and wounding five others.
On the same day, Mel Gibson was arrested on DUI charges and while intoxicated let loose with anti-Semitic invective at the Jewish police officer who arrested him.
Question: Which story has most troubled the Left?
The answer is known to any American who can hear or read.
So, the real question is: Why? Why has the shooting and murder of Jews elicited less angst from the Left than the anti-Semitic statements made by Mel Gibson when drunk?
The answers are very troubling. As Time magazine said about global warming (but never about Islamic terror), "Be worried, very worried."
We should be worried about this: The liberal world fears -- and much of it loathes -- fundamentalist Christians considerably more than it does fundamentalist Muslims.
This is as true of most Jewish liberals -- even though conservative Christians are Israel's and the Jews' most loyal supporters and even though Nazi-like anti-Semitism permeates much of the Muslim world -- as it is of most other liberals, certainly including the mainstream media.
That is why Jewish writer Zev Chafets wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "On the same day Gibson got into trouble in Malibu, a fellow named Naveed Afzal Haq brought a pistol to the Jewish Federation office in Seattle and shot six women, killing one. Two days later, this personal jihad -- one of the most gory anti-Jewish crimes in American history -- got second billing on the ADL website, under "Mel Gibson's Apology for Tirade 'Insufficient.' " (For the record, the ADL later announced it had accepted Mel Gibson's apology.)
This is one more example of the greatest flaw of contemporary liberalism -- its inability to recognize and confront the greatest evils. Since the 1960s, when liberalism became indistinguishable from the Left -- e.g., when New York Times positions became indistinguishable from those of The Nation -- liberals tended to attack opponents of evil far more than those who actually committed evil. The Left (around the world) was far more antagonistic to Ronald Reagan than to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, and far more disturbed by anti-Communism than by Communism.
So, too, today. For example, with few exceptions (the liberal columnist Thomas Friedman being one of the most notable) one only hears conservatives use the term "Islamo-fascism." Nearly the entire academic world that discusses the issue is far more concerned with the threat of "Islamophobia" than of Islamo-fascism. Liberal and left-wing anger is largely reserved for conservatives and especially conservative Christians, while analogous antipathy about Islamic groups with genocidal designs on Israel or America is largely to be found on the Right.
The liberal doctrine on fundamentalist American Christians is that they are the moral equivalent of fundamentalist Muslims and constitute a similar threat to our republic. As bestselling author Karen Armstrong said to Bill Moyers on PBS, "Fundamentalists are not friends of democracy. And that includes your fundamentalists in the United States."
Regarded by the liberal media as perhaps the greatest living historian and commentator on religion, Karen Armstrong does not even see the Muslim fundamentalist support for murder of innocents as a distinguishing feature. According to Armstrong, "Christian fundamentalists in the United States have committed fewer acts of terror than the others for two main reasons: they live in a more peaceful society . . . [and they] believe that the democratic federal government of the United States will collapse without their needing to take action: God will see to it" [beliefnet.com].
The antipathy toward Christian fundamentalists and conservatives is why Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic statements trouble the Left more than Naveed Haq and the genocidal anti-Semitism permeating the Muslim world. And what is it about those Christians that most disturbs the Left? That they talk in terms of good and evil and believe the former must fight the latter, precisely the area of the Left's greatest weakness.
The Left HATES being reminded of their own moral cowardice.
The 9-11 terrorists lived in this country for some time and many of them also spent time in Europe. It didn't slow down their terrorist views.
The left is unhinged. Completely unhinged. I confronted one liberal Jew with the quote from the Hiz leader that he was glad the Jews had moved to Israel because it meant they didn't have to be hunted down around the globe. He STILL was unable to let go his notions of trying to reason with Hiz to have a lasting cease-fire and peace.
If you cannot confront evil when it has said it seeks to hunt you down and kill you, I don't know what will force such.
Yep, liberalism always seems to take the wrong side.
Even then, he would try to see why the terrorists were so mad at us. Try to reason with them. Engage in a few conflict resolution exercises.
I'm not kidding.
A very frightening article.
"Yep, liberalism always seems to take the wrong side."
It is easy to understand. Liberals are Anti-American and therefore side with any group America opposes. The enemies of America are the Liberal's friends.
"If you cannot confront evil when it has said it seeks to hunt you down and kill you, I don't know what will force such."
Think of Nick Berg, God rest his soul.
Raised by an American-hating American Jew, whom to this very day slanders America as being "the real terrorist," he was completely unequipped to understand the venal muderousness of the Muslims.
His Western acquaintances in Baghdad thought he was utterly off his rocker, cruising around Baghdad and elsewhere in taxicabs and with no security whatsoever. Apparently Nick thought he could reason himself out of any difficulty.
We know the rest, and that is how far some must go to finally understand the danger.
How can you even appease such a view? It's amazing they can't see that it's not possible to practice appeasement as a negotiation.
I honestly do not believe that liberals are anti-American. I do believe that they are anti-confrontational. THis means that any time America confronts its enemies, they are opposing us. They are, in essence, cowards. They are scared to fight, insult, or confront any enemy. They prefer that everyone likes us. They cannot understand (or refuse to) why anyone would hate us, and therefore they blame us for not communicating our viewpoints properly.
Liberals are cowards in the worst way possible. Our enemies know how to take advantage of that.
What do I feel about Mel Gibson and what do I feel about Jihadists.
I feel a great disappointment with Mel Gibson, one of the actors I liked very-very much. I never thought about him as a great actor, but I've seen him as a genially likable and enjoyed his movies. It pains to discover him as an anti-Semite. I do feel betrayed. For all those who'd use his drunkenness at the time as an excuse, do remember that alcohol is one of the best truth serums. There is a reason why spies of all ages used alcohol as a first tool of trade. A Russian saying goes: "What sober has on his mind, the drunk has on his tongue". So, yes, he is an anti-Semite. 100% no doubt. Can he recover? Who knows? He did all the right steps so far: he admitted that he was wrong and apologized; he apologized directly to the people he offended (the Jews), and he wants to do something good to repent. How genuine is he or is he just hoping to maintain a decorum? I don't know, and as I like to say, I don't want to be a thought police: let's judge the actions.
Which brings me to this. Speaking about the actions: if only thing Hitler ever did was to verbally abuse Jews - you know, millions of people would still be alive. When Jihadists express their anti-Semitism, I feel worry as well. But it is many magnitudes bigger. For the very simple reason: they WILL KILL me if they get a chance.
Can the truth be any simpler than that?
...We should be worried about this: The liberal world fears -- and much of it loathes -- fundamentalist Christians considerably more than it does fundamentalist Muslims.
...This is one more example of the greatest flaw of contemporary liberalism -- its inability to recognize and confront the greatest evils. Since the 1960s, when liberalism became indistinguishable from the Left -- e.g., when New York Times positions became indistinguishable from those of The Nation -- liberals tended to attack opponents of evil far more than those who actually committed evil. The Left (around the world) was far more antagonistic to Ronald Reagan than to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, and far more disturbed by anti-Communism than by Communism.
Moral Clarity BUMP !
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.
Christian fundamentalists live in a society they created. Not only they but British fundamentalists. It was the pervasibe influence of evangelicalism in the Britiain in the early 19th Century that kept the English lower classes from following the violent path of revolution that scarred most of the Continent.
THe Left can't see the forest for the forest.
"Over the years, I have come to understand a critical difference between the world of fear and the world of freedom. In the former, the primary challenge is finding the inner strength to confront evil. In the latter, the primary challenge is finding the moral clarity to see evil."I think that the Left can no longer see evil, and therefore does not, can not, confront it.
While there is truth in that statement, there is an important difference which I think can be illustrated by this example. If a fundamentalist Christian CCR permit holder witnesses an Hindu convenience store owner being violently robbed by a nominally Christian perpetrator, the fundamentalist will not hesitate to draw his gun to defend the Indian and even shoot the robber dead. And he would likely be backed by elements of his government in doing so. On the other hand, if a fundamentalist Muslim in Pakistan with an AK-47 over his shoulder witnesses a nominally Muslim jihadist burning down a Hindu temple, he will say "Well done, brother!" and perhaps even contribute a can of Ronson lighter fluid. And he would likely be backed by elements of his government in doing so.
The American Christian fundamentalist, aside from a few Fred Phelps-type wackos who really aren't Christians anyway, has an appreciation for his country and its laws. He may be conviced the Hindus are going to Hell, but he sees them as fellow citizens and isn't going to allow them to suffer arbitrary violence if he can prevent it. The Muslim fundamentalist views everything through the prism of Islam, and doesn't care about countries or rule of law - if The Book says you are an infidel, you must die. There is no reasoning, no talking out of differences, no buying of peace possible. This is what liberals just don't get.