Recently, I was accused of choosing a stance on an issue because I was favoring my own situation. Specifically, since I have married a formerly illegal immigrant Mexican, my moderate stance on immigration (which is different from my more conservative positions on most issues) was questioned, and I was accused of making my stance based on convenience, not conservative conviction.
Such an accusation, if taken seriously and without being defensive, forces one to examine the reasons WHY they take stances, and how those stances compare to one’s current habits, as well as one’s history. And how our stances, compared to our history and current practices determines whether we are hypocrites, virgins, or sinners.
Actually, to examine the relationship between our stances on issues and our own righteousness, we need to separate what we are FOR from what we are AGAINST.
1. AGAINST Stances: hypocrite, virgin, or sinner?
If we create a matrix to compare our past and present activity in relation to our anti-stance on an issue, it might look like this:
Past History
Present
Result
TRUE
Committed the opposed actionTRUE
Commits the opposed actionHYPOCRITE
FALSE
Never committed the opposed actionFALSE
Do not commit the opposed actionVIRGIN
TRUE
Committed the opposed actionFALSE
Do not commit the opposed actionSINNER
FALSE
Never committed the opposed actionTRUE
Commits the opposed actionHYPOCRITE
So, for example, if I oppose premarital sex, I fall into one of three categories – a virgin (V), who has never done said action, a hypocrite (H), who currently engages in such (whether or not I did it in the past is immaterial if my present is bad), and sinner (S) – someone who admits it was wrong, and has ceased ‘sinning’ (and so in that sense, being an admitted sinner is a good thing ;).
Of the three, the most believable is the sinner, the virgin a bit less, and the hypocrite, not at all. So, for the following issues (if you are against them), which are you? My results below:
- Abortion – V
- Drug use – S
- Homosexuality – V
- Gay marriage – V
- Lottery – H
- Porno – S
- Premarital Sex – S
2. PRO-stances: hypocrite, advocate, or convert?
On the pro side, we have results that are in some ways analogous to the the categories above. For clarity, the things we support below are NOT indisputable rights (like helping the poor), but questionable things (like being anti-immigration or pro-gay-marriage).
Past History
Present
Result
TRUE
Performed
the proposed actionTRUE
Willing to perform
the proposed actionADVOCATE
FALSE
Did not perform
the proposed actionFALSE
Unwilling to perform
the proposed actionHYPOCRITE
TRUE
Performed
the proposed actionFALSE
Unwilling to perform
the proposed actionHYPOCRITE
FALSE
Did not perform
the proposed actionTRUE
Willing to perform
the proposed actionCONVERT
So, for example, lets say you are pro-abortion. If you have had an abortion or supported it in the past, and would be willing to have one now, you are an advocate (A). If you support abortion, but are unwilling to have one now (or allow your own daughter to, for example), you are a hypocrite (H). Now, I admit that you may, for instance, not want your daughter to have one, but you would not take that choice from others, and so in some way be consistent in your values. But for the sake of argument, tentatively accept that such a position may be viewed as hypocritical. Lastly, if you were unwilling to have an abortion in the past, but are now, you are a convert (C).
So, how would I stand on issues I am FOR?
- Abstinence – C / H
- Contraception – A
- Day after pill / Plan B – A
- Faithfulness in marriage – A
- In-vitro fertilization – C
- ESC research – C
- Pathway to citizenship for aliens – C
- Speed limits – H
Now, I know this analysis works better for things you are against than for. Mostly, because when you are against something, it’s really actions that count. When you are FOR something, there are more variables. I think that willingness AND action are probably worth looking at. Many of us are willing to support a cause, but in actuality, don’t take much action on it. Am I a hypocrite because I am pro-in-vitro fertilization, but have never used it? Not necessarily.
But what is important about willingness is, if we are unwilling to take an action ourselves, yet support the action for others, we are probably being hypocritical.
Even more importantly, we should consider our actions in relation to causes we support. If we are FOR something (ADVOCATES), the question is, have we actually DONE it in the past or present. If so, we may have a conflict of interest – that is, we may be justifying our behavior, not taking an independent stand. In such cases, whether it be pro-gay or pro-immigrant, if we have something to directly gain from our stance, we are less believable.
I think each of us ought to at LEAST look at what we are for and against, and see if we are being hypocritical or not, and if we are possibly at risk of having a conflict of interest, and end up justifying our behavior, or having less credibility because of our conflict of interest.
Seeker, would you be in favor of a law that uses religion to determine whether or not people can become United States citizens? For example, if one is a Muslim, then should there be a law that prevents them from becoming U.S. citizens? Why or why not?
By the way, no one accused you of anything. I only asked you if this was the case, right? You're simply addressing my question, not an accusation.
Seeker, would you be in favor of a law that uses religion to determine whether or not people can become United States citizens? For example, if one is a Muslim, then should there be a law that prevents them from becoming U.S. citizens? Why or why not?
Good question. Perhaps yes, for security reasons, because Islam is not just a religion, but a political philosophy that has proven to be racist (specifically, anti-semitic, and in many cases, anti all races that are not arab), violent, and totalitarian.
But based on religion alone? I find no other religion that, whether or not it translates into a political philosophy, is dangerous like Islam.
So I would support something that singles out Islam and other violent racist ideologies (like nazism), but none others that I can think of. Yes, innocent Muslims would suffer, but unfortunately, the prevalence of violence in Islam is so high that it is more than a marginal extreme. If Europe is any indication, I would guess that a SIGNIFICANT minority, if not majority, of Muslims are either active or passive supporters of Sharia and other anti-human-rights ideas.
If they are already here, then they should have the right to become citizens. But if not here yet, I would support severely limiting their immigration based on the risk.
How would you determine if someone is Muslim and therefore, does not meet the qualifications to become a U.S. citizen? Would you ask them if they believe in Allah as part of the citizenship test?
For those Muslims who overcome their compulsion to lie for Allah and do admit belief in Allah, do you think that perhaps we should put some kind of identifying symbol on their clothing, perhaps a crescent moon, that would indicate to all others that they are violent, dangerous, racist and untrustworthy?
Of course not, but I think we should
a) limit their immigration to near nil
b) monitor mosques the way we monitor the mob
"Of course not…"
I'm glad to finally hear this from you. I had hoped this would be your answer to the first question.
I have to ask though, if Muslims truly are as dangerous and violent as you say, why shouldn't we mark them as such with a crescent on their clothing? Wouldn't it help our national security against terrorism?
You see, it was the jew-hating *Nazis* who forced people to be labeled, and the bold Allied powers that used stern measures (and almost too late) to stop them.
Today's Jew hating extremists are the *Muslims*, not the stern conservatives who are saving western civilization from Islam while the libs like you are pandering to them the way liberals pandered to Hitler.
No one wants to persecute or round up Muslims. What we do want to do is, like Holland,
1. Keep them out of the country, and
2. If they are here, monitor them for seditious behavior.
Islam is not just another religion like Buddhism or Hinduism. It has been, since near its inception, an enemy of Judaism, Christianity, and of peace and freedom loving peoples everywhere. It has historically been an enemy of the west, and always will be.
Conservatives are the only ones preserving us from the evils of Islamification of culture, and really, only *American* conservatives, hence books like:
– America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
– While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within
– The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations
– Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
So rather than demonizing and Nazifying those who are resisting the wicked ideologies of our day, why don't you get on the right side of the issue? Your allusions to Nazi methods and conservatives is historically backwards.
Now, I know that some people went way overboard fighting the 'red scare' of Communism, or the internment of Japanese Americans after WWII. We need to be sure not to needlessly or unjustly persecute peace-loving Muslims, but the fact is, we also have a real enemy to fight, who kills people EVERY DAY around the world.
All you have to do is look at the No-go areas in France to see where your 'multicultural tolerance' will get you with Islam.
So rather than demonizing and Nazifying those who are resisting the wicked ideologies of our day, why don't you get on the right side of the issue? Your allusions to Nazi methods and conservatives is historically backwards.
1. Keep them out of the country, and
2. If they are here, monitor them for seditious behavior.
Not good enough. Why not institute tougher measures like having them wear a crescent moon on their clothing? This will certainly facilitate your #2 suggestion!! It would also make it much more cost effective. This is totally humane, certainly much more so than water boarding, right? Why not treat Muslims realistically, like dangerous and violent people they are? They've earned that moniker, have they not?
"We need to be sure not to needlessly or unjustly persecute peace-loving Muslims"
The term peace loving Muslims is an oxymoron. If you think Muslims are peace loving then you are simply deluding yourself. You are blinded to the threat this pernicious ideology presents to America. It's like a cancer eating away at the heart of our society, inciting greater and greater extremism. If the cancer is not cut out in the early sages, the disease will spread. Don't you remember the lessons of 9-11? Wouldn't it be the antithesis of patriotism to coddle Muslims by just monitoring them? Why not be more proactive in defending our freedom against the clear and present danger Muslims represent?
So, I ask again, why shouldn't we mark Muslims as such with a crescent on their clothing? Wouldn't it help our national security against terrorism? The reasoning is, although it's a minor inconvenience for them to endure, America has every right to defend itself from Islam by whatever means necessary.
This will certainly facilitate your #2 suggestion!! It would also make it much more cost effective. This is totally humane, certainly much more so than water boarding, right? Why not treat Muslims realistically, like dangerous and violent people they are? They've earned that moniker, have they not?
I don't follow your logic. Are you proposing this? If not, why not? Do you object just to labeling people, or do you also object monitoring Mosques?
I think that we must always strike a balance between public safety and civil liberties. I think it is perfectly fine for the government to, for instance, infiltrate possible criminal organizations, even if they are churches or mosques. Don't you?
I think that making people wear labels, while it *might* help with public safety and law enforcement, would also lead to discrimination, perhaps violence, and would violate civil liberties. I do NOT think that controlling immigration, and monitoring organizations is too much of a violation of civil liberties, any more than the govt wiretaps on people who call known alqueda criminals.
The term peace loving Muslims is an oxymoron. If you think Muslims are peace loving then you are simply deluding yourself. You are blinded to the threat this pernicious ideology presents to America.
The problem with your straw man of my logic is that, in one sentence, you conflate Islam the ideology with Muslims, the people. Maintaining this distinction is critical in remaining fair to people, while not being naive about the consequences of their ideologies. If you make this mistake of conflating the two, then by all means, you will end up with a cruel and fascist approach to Muslims.
While the *ideology* of Islam is pernicious and evil, the *people* are not necessarily so. But the more closely they follow Islam, the more oppressed, and often evil they get. Peace-loving Muslims is NOT an oxymoron, in my opinion, but a peace-loving *Islam* pretty much is a contradiction. As I've explained at length previously, the reason that ALL Muslims are NOT murderous is because their conscience and basic humanity and desire for peace keep them from following their prophet faithfully. But a significant number of Muslims DO follow Mo's teachings, and we get 9-11 and such.
Why not be more proactive in defending our freedom against the clear and present danger Muslims represent?
I see that you are trying to (a) present what you see as the inescapable logic of my position, which is something facist, and (b) you are unwilling to see that there is a balance of principles that keeps us from going to the extreme – in fact, you are making the same errors I discussed in What is an extremist?
Now, rather than put up a caricature of my position, why don't you counter it with your own plan, so that we can examine it. I have presented my case. Do you disagree? I think that labeling of people is too far. But perhaps you do not.
I think that making people wear labels, …would also lead to discrimination, perhaps violence, and would violate civil liberties. .. While the *ideology* of Islam is pernicious and evil, the *people* are not necessarily so.”
Spoken like a true left wing radical!
You pander too much to Islam by allowing it’s followers to have the same freedoms as those who don’t follow the hate filled philosophies of Islam. Your position is extremely liberal toward Islam. The reasoning is, although it’s a minor inconvenience for them to endure, America has every right to defend itself from Islam by whatever means necessary. That’s why we can water board. That’s why we have Gitmo. That’s why we can also place crescent moons on their clothing, which if your honest with yourself, is far more humane solution to Islam. Though some civil liberties may be violated by putting crescents moons on the clothing of Muslims, it is the price we must pay to defend truth, freedom, justice and the American way from Islamo-fascism.
So, I think yes, innocent Muslims would suffer, but unfortunately, the prevalence of violence in Islam is so high that it is more than a marginal extreme. If Europe is any indication, I would guess that a SIGNIFICANT minority, if not majority, of Muslims are either active or passive supporters of Sharia and other anti-human-rights ideas. So, we are justified in defending ourselves against Islam in such a way.
Um, ok, so if I analyze your obnoxious parodying, what you seem to be saying is that my logic and reasoning seem no better than the crazy right winger you are presenting here. In your mind, there is no difference between my measured and reasonable stance and this one – no real principle or logical step separates my stance from this one. Am I correct in my analysis? If not, you'll have to come out from behind your sarcasm and say so.
If that is your intent, I would say that I have already drawn a logical, principled line that separates my approach from the 'nazi' approach you are presenting here. And that principle is, once people are INSIDE the country, they have our system of rights. But keeping them outside due to their national and political affiliations is NOT a violation of their rights, it is OUR right as a country to protect ourselves.
Once inside, the government does have a right to investigate questionable people and organizations, but not the right to harass people or force them to identify themselves.
I'm sorry you don't seem to like that stand, but I highly doubt you have any solution to the problem if Islamofascism. Do you? If you use the same 'tolerant' position as France or Britain, what makes you think the results will be different?
You can stop the parody now, I think I understand it. Now, do you have a position / solution? Put up or shut up.
"…but not the right to harass people or force them to identify themselves."
Why not? If harassing the followers of Islam and forcing them to identify themselves by wearing a crescent moon on their clothing would help monitor their seditious behavior. I think that's a small price to pay for our national security.
Seeker, that may sound inflammatory, but I believe Islam to be as dangerous and insidious as the doctrines of the Nationalsozialismus.
"Um, ok, so if I analyze your obnoxious parodying…"
I want to show you whats it's like to listen to Seeker. Pretty obnoxious, huh?
It's obnoxious to listen to a parody by someone who not only creates straw men based on what he *hears* (regardless of what is actually said), but who has no solution himself.
As I said, principles do not exist in isolation, and you can't, like an extremist, emphasize national security to a fault. Like it or not, there are other valid principles here, which I have already outlined to you. That's why. Sometimes national security concerns must be limited by civil rights concerns. And the balance between the two is something to debate.
But your suggestion that we should forget about civil rights is not the conservative position, even if you think that such activities as wire tapping cross that line too much.
I think you're defending Islam too much, Seeker.
Regarding placing crescent moons on the clothing of Muslims to monitor their seditious activity…
I think, innocent Muslims would suffer, but unfortunately, the prevalence of violence in Islam is so high that it is more than a marginal extreme. If Europe is any indication, I would guess that a SIGNIFICANT minority, if not majority, of Muslims are either active or passive supporters of Sharia and other anti-human-rights ideas. So, we are justified in defending ourselves against Islam in such a way. That may sound inflammatory, but I believe Islam to be as dangerous and insidious as the doctrines of the Nationalsozialismus.
Seeker, are you familiar with Nationalsozialismus? Don't let your liberal inclinations get in the way of what must be done for national security. Habeus corpus and personal liberty got in the way, so we got rid of them. We can torture people now and you need to understand that personal liberty is a small sacrifice compared to our freedom. It's for your own good. So, I just want you to realize that putting crescent moons on people's clothing is much less an infringement upon personal liberties than what has already come to pass. Don't be such a bleeding heart for once.
When you get serious about presenting your own ideas and solutions, let me know.
I'm using your own quotes to justify putting crescent moons on Muslims' clothing, Seeker…
I think, innocent Muslims would suffer, but unfortunately, the prevalence of violence in Islam is so high that it is more than a marginal extreme. If Europe is any indication, I would guess that a SIGNIFICANT minority, if not majority, of Muslims are either active or passive supporters of Sharia and other anti-human-rights ideas. So, we are justified in defending ourselves against Islam in such a way. That may sound inflammatory, but I believe Islam to be as dangerous and insidious as the doctrines of the Nationalsozialismus.