The News-Gazette.com Weblog

Against the tide

Terrifying liberals

Posted by: Rhonda Robinson

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 7:22 AM

The commentary of our own Carol Lombardi, and that of Lally Gartel at the Daily Illini, in response to my last post; illustrates a liberal philosophy that is so shallow of reason it must elevate itself by stepping on its opponents crying "hypocrisy!" then repeats the empty chants of liberalism, as if to magically turn their rhetoric into truth. Case in point: equating the politics of conservative Christianity with hard line Muslims as "terrifying."

I found it interesting that Gartel and I agreed completely on the subject. Who took the analogy a bit further, by saying "& it presents a dangerous slippery slope; if Muslim taxi drivers can turn away passengers with alcohol, can they also turn away people of other faiths? What about mothers who have had children out of wedlock? Can Jewish drivers turn away someone eating a roast beef sandwich and drinking milk in their taxi?"

But obviously conservatives are not allowed to share this view according to Gartel, "What is interesting about conservative fear and commentary on this issue, and others like it, is its blatant hypocrisy."

Then both Lombardi and Gartel jump to the Christian pharmacist issue. Let's look at their comparison.

All pharmacists have a responsibility to make sure that the consumer is not harmed by the drugs they are dispensing and insuring that there are no interactions between medications. They have chosen a profession that serves people, and adheres to ethical standards, as does doctors.

There are countless doctors who will not perform abortions because of ethical reasons rather than religious reasons. As I understand it, 45 states have a conscience clause (not religious- conscience) that exempt doctors from performing abortions, and at least 4 states will allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds. However, there are no federal laws forcing pharmacies to fill any and all prescriptions that come through their windows.

In my view, this is an ethical question for all, and a religious question for some. The pharmacist is in direct line of this person's care, whereas the taxi driver is not. The taxi driver is not selling the alcohol, nor is he participating in the alcohol consumption in anyway.

What he is doing, is passing a moral judgment on a complete stranger, and shunning that person to the point of refusing to make a simple business transaction with him.

However, if doctors are forced by the federal government to abandon their oath to "first do no harm" and slaughter innocent children within the womb at the behest of their patients, and pharmacists are likewise forced to dispense medication that they know will result in death, albeit the death of an unborn child, or the euthanasia of the elderly, then Christians in these fields would be left with no choice but to leave their chosen profession.

This is also why Christians should not be eager to embrace socialized medicine.

Carol's sentiment that she is equally terrified by a Christian state as a Muslim state is an indictment against an educational system that has not taught its citizenry the depth and price of our stepping stones to freedom; the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. All were all founded on the Judeo-Christian concept of freedom that was once admired around the world.

Radical Muslims decapitate, and assassinate the innocent. Where they rule, the only choices offered for "children of dogs and pigs" or "infidels" is conversion or death.

Christians have a very clear obligation to their faith to protect all human life as a sacred gift from God. To care for the widows, orphans and those who cannot defend themselves in our culture, i.e., the unborn. That is what truly "scares" liberals. Conservatives want them to adhere to the standard morals that have been the foundation of American law for over 200 years–that's what "terrifies" them.

Carol writes, "&we don't expect the people who already live here to embrace the American ideas of freedom?"

Exactly! That statement exemplifies both the paradox and the beauty of the American "experiment in freedom." They don't have to embrace it, and while they are trampling on it, they are in fact exercising the vary freedoms they claim to despise.

Under this freedom, taxi drivers can be Muslims. And Christians can speak freely without fear of being stoned to death, and our government will be elected.

Are we moving more toward a Muslim state? No, I don't think so, but then I believe the Constitution is still relevant and vital today as the day it was written.

In the end, the question remains: Although taxi drivers can be Muslims, can Muslims be taxi drivers that set aside their intolerance long enough to get a weary traveler to his hotel?

Comments

Thank you, Thank you, Rhonda, for putting into words exactly how I, and so many other Americans feel! Liberals are continually defending the lifestyles, and beliefs of anyone, except Christians. Don't they have any fear of the God who created them? Yes, God is love, but he is also a jealous God, and He will not be mocked.

Posted by FofR on October 31, 2006 at 10:43 AM

1. Whether or not the country was founded by Christians is irrelevant. The people who formed the constitution did so in order to protect the rights and opinions of all people: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics all have the right to believe what they want. Our government will never be allowed to legislate religion.

2. What both Rhonda and FofR fail to remember is that they, and all other people in this community, are entitled to their rights as American citizens they can be angered by the Roe v Wade decision, they can be disgruntled by the recent decisions to keep science and religion in separate classes but they are expected to obey the laws (and maybe try to understand why they are instead of crying Liberalism!). If the Muslim cab drivers that have caused you such a tizzy are told they have to allow all people to ride in their cabs regardless of religious differences then they too will be expected to uphold the laws. But dont let us forget Muslims are allowed as much an opinion as Christians are. Every citizen in this country deserves their opinion even if you dont like what they have to say.

Posted by ThinkMore on October 31, 2006 at 1:47 PM

I tried to take issue with Rhonda's comment on our constitution. I was going to make a reference to our Habeas Corpus guarantees being suspended. The News Gazette however, found something in my post that was objectionable. I made no personal attacks, used proper language, and I quoted factual material. I still keep getting:

"The comment you enter contain words, which are consider abusive and violate our user policy."

Apparently, the Gazette wants to control the content of responses on this seldom viewed web-page. Anyway, I guess I'll get used to my first ammendment rights going away as well. So much for constitutional "vitality".

Posted by BillD on October 31, 2006 at 2:35 PM

It must have had something to do with my comment about the administration and this congress doing away with Habeas Corpus.

Basically (among other things), I said:

If your president labeled you an "enemy combatant", you could be held without charges or trial indefinitely. Technically speaking, our Habeas Corpus rights have been suspended. You, me, all of us, let them get away with that, while we argue differences in religion or ideology.

We live in a nation that's crumbling because people are buying into the divisive "liberal-conservative" smokescreen. We pick sides and attack each other while our rights are whittled away. We need to work together to restore the "common good".

Posted by BillD on October 31, 2006 at 2:39 PM

The news gazette wont print anything that does not promote their own political agenda. If you dont believe this try running for public office as a Democrat, you'll learn the conservative definition of "truth in print". Or is it "Fair and balanced"?

Posted by Exbricklayer on October 31, 2006 at 8:20 PM

An interesting post, one to which I have a response, but it is lengthy, so here is the link the entirety of it:

http://lallyandreevna.blogspot.com/2006/10/problem-with-hypocrisy.html

Posted by lallygartel on October 31, 2006 at 11:21 PM

So many half-truths, so little time. So I'll just take a moment to refute one item, and use it as an example of the authors inability to put together a well reasoned logical argument.

"I believe the Constitution is still relevant and vital today as the day it was written."

So you believe that non-white, non-male Americans should still be worth only three-fifths of a whole (ie, white, male) person and should not be allowed to vote? And that is relevant and vital to today's society?

No, being female (and one that obviously likes to exercise her freedom of expression), seems to proove you believe in the US Constitution PLUS the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments, the majority written many years after 'the day it was written'.

Thereby proving that if you believe in the amendments you cannot possibly believe that is still relevant and vital today as the day it was written.

Portions of the original document are relevant today, and portions of it were amended later, and still other portions are still yet in need of amending.

All of the argument aside, BillD's "common good" plea is most compelling to me... however to be able to recognize the "common good" one has to be able to put away one's strong moral/religeous convictions and have empathy and respect for not only the Muslim cabbie, but the Conservative Christian Pharmacists, as well as the woman desiring the morning after pill.

From my experience, empathy -- the ability to visualize things from another persons' perspective that is quite different if not opposite of your own, study it and understand it -- is not a quality that Conservative Christians or Radical Muslims or Left or Right-Wing nutters have very much of. They are too locked into an us versus them mentality.

But THAT is what our country is in dire need of -- empathy and understanding prior to running one's mouth off, from everyone all sides of the politial and religeous spectrum. And that requires listening, true shut-up-and-just-listen listening.

Freedom of speech is worthless if no one is listening. -- Author unknown

Posted by dw on November 1, 2006 at 4:42 PM