"My original intention was mere to defend, on moral grounds, the now fully born opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. The Left has framed any forthright censure of the project as xenophobic and unjustified; I was primarily concerned with offering a counter argument based on the practical effectiveness of nationalism and patriotic symbolism:"It was a meager attempt. Many would also doubt the "practical effectiveness of nationalism" and cite WWI and WWII as instances of nationalism and if they wanted they could throw in the conflicts in Former Yugoslavia too, just to name a few. The patriotic symbolism is empty too.
"Further, leftists purvey the specious claim that any opposition tacitly castigates all Muslims. This romantic statement ignores the inherent ethos of Islam, a religion premised on military conquest and a Holy book rife with diktats to that end and lacking in allegorical sentiments that now underpin Christian liberalism. But ignoring the sickening argument of America's culpability in the attacks, Muslims undeniably did it. Opposition to the mosque doesn't impugn all Muslims, but simply notes the correspondence between the attacks and the religion that supported their actions."The last sentence is pretty funny.
Notice he states, "…and the religion that supported their actions." So, Islam supports terrorist actions. Then it should follow that all muslims support terrorist actions.
P1) All Islamic people support terrorist actions
P2) All muslims are islamic
Cn) Therefore all muslims support terrorist actions
Aside from that many would claim the first premise (P1) is false and the conclusion (Cn) would be too.
This ties in with his second sentence which he claims he knows the "true" nature of islam, or in his words, "This romantic statement ignores the inherent ethos of Islam,...". How he comes to know this"inherent ethos" is beyond me, but I would assume it would probably be based on a literalistic and fundamentalist viewing of islam. If that's the case then I really don't see why other religions would be exempt from a literalistic and fundamentalist approach. Plus I also think any sort of justification for this would probably end up being ultimately question begging.
"Basically, mosque opponents view this as an unnecessary symbolic gesture. Perhaps the mosque's backers repudiate this extreme ideology, but nonetheless, you can't fault people for making the trivial jump given such an emotion charged situation. Is it logical? Maybe not. But again, reductionist and naively philosophical thinking ignores the primacy of emotion in our personal and national lives."Uh...yes we can fault them. I also lulz at the, "Is it logical? Maybe not." comment. Of course, it isn't logical it's like saying Some X believe Y therefore All X believe Y. I assume we are suppose to ignore that so he can make his "point." However, going back to my previous paragraph, he already believes that all muslims support terrorists. His last sentence is a straw man.
"A nation must maintain a cohesive narrative and spirit to prosper. It must imbue its citizens with an unshakable patriotism and a collective loyalty, pragmatic values that admittedly don't always vibe with rigid logic. Allowing a foreign entity to erect such a structure implies we no longer have that backbone. It showcases the complete enervation of our national solidarity. It illustrates how we've lost the ability to differentiate between ourselves and our nation and that of another peoples.""Cohesive Narrative"? I assume this probably means ethnic identity. Also again with the spirits? Really? "Unshakable Patriotism" sounds downright dogmatic. "Collective loyalty" isn't anything unusual under a nationalist framework. The rest is kind of blah blah, but the "foreign entity" comment is weak. What exactly makes muslims or islam a "foreign entity"? However, since he's a nationalist I assume he has his own vision of the national identity, more likely based on an ethnic identity, of America and islam or muslims don't belong so they would be rejected as inherently un-american. His last sentence helps support that view point.
"The mosque fits squarely in with this gradual decay of American sovereignty, commenced with the degradation of private rights and now continuing with the stigmatization of any conservative view as well as the political and popular glorification of foreign peoples. The elite have perverted the American narrative, once a celebration of our singular success, morality, and daring, into a globalist doctrine that consciously denigrates the Republic's creators and fully lacks a cultural tradition. This paradigm demands we ignore our own emotional desires because a foreign entity intends to insensitively trample on them. And a nation that sees itself merely as a vehicle for others, a nation that has no loyalty to its own peoples or traditional institutions, is doomed to fail due to its own divisiveness and delusional Marxism."Blah blah blah. This whole paragraph pretty much reinforces my earlier points. I got a good chuckle with the throw in of "Marxism" which seems to be a standard cry anymore.
"The solution is rather simple. Protest this until they can't handle it and then outlaw Muslim immigration."Well at least it's clear where Onestdv is coming from and that is ethnocentric nationalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment