****** UPDATE ******
Okay, here's the latest on the brouhaha with Sykes and the Interfaith Conference.
WTMJ management is standing behind Sykes. Good call.
While I linked him below, Rick at Shark and Shepherd has (in my opinion) the best post on the issue. Read him again.
Professor McAdams at Marquette Warrior has blogged about this, providing some insight into the Interfaith Conference.
Owen at Boots and Sabers has been on the issue for a while.
Patrick McIlheran offers his perspective.
Mary from Freedom Eden is covering this, too.
I think we've made it exceedingly clear that we won't be bullied by the Politically Correct Police. Not when we bring to the table an issue - however passionate or tumultuous it may be - that needs to be discussed.
There is a lot that can be said about this, but there is ultimately a correct answer: You cannot coexist with those whose final goal is worldwide supremacy over those who do not agree with their ideology (and that includes moderate Muslims), unless you're willing to take everything you hold dear and throw it in the trash.
And, given the linkage associated with this issue, no one has commented on the points I bring up below - which are the heart of the matter. The comboxes are still open, folks.
*****************************************
Charlie Sykes, Tom McMahon and any blogger who picked up on McMahon's brilliant rebuke of the condescending "COEXIST" bumper sticker is in hot water with the perpetually offended crowd.
Read the letter and Syke's response here.
See McMahon's original post here.
This is the original bumper sticker:
And here is McMahon's version:
Not only are they perpetually offended, they apparently cannot comprehend the not-to-subtle intention of McMahon's original post:
You cannot "coexist" with someone who wants to blow you up, destroy you, force you to submit to their power, or is just plain evil, just as you could not "coexist" with ideologies (Communism and Nazism) that were responsible for approximately 170 million deaths in the 20th century. That's 1.7 million deaths per year for those of you who are math challenged. And that's not even including those victims of terror attacks in the 20th century, and the 3000 Americans killed on 9/11.
Most of the 170 million who died were killed for standing up against those ideologies, and many were killed simply because they - unlike the dictators running the regimes - had faith in God. Droves of faithful, hardworking folk who dared stand up for their rights and the rights of their fellow man were taken into the streets and unceremoniously shot, dragged of to concentration camps, or chased bodily from their homes and native lands while their churches were looted and destroyed and their homes burned to the ground.
McMahon was not trying to equate Judaism with Nazism.
I would love to "coexist" with people. See this story for an example of what I mean. I'm all for free expression of religion, and sharing religion in the public sphere. But the notion we should overlook the very real, very dangerous, very violent threats radical Islam makes toward non-Muslims and other "infidels" makes that coexistence impossible at this time. The only way a "peace" would be made now is if we threw up the white flag and welcomed the caliphate with open arms.
I am sick and tired of the perpetually offended demanding we kowtow every time something makes them feel bad. Especially when they turn around and tell us Christians, justafiably offended by something intentionally offensive like the Folsom Street Fair, need to suck it up and deal because that's "free speech" and "free expression." The hypocrisy is startling and sad.
I'm not advocating being offensive, mind you. There are people out there who are offensive, ignorant, and rude. They've existed for eons before today, and they'll exist long after we're gone. Just because they abuse the right to free speech doesn't automatically mean everyone loses the right.
But it's pretty sickening when the "offensive" label is slapped on things that - while controversial - aren't offensive in intent or motive, but when things (like the Folsom Street Fair advertisement) are intentionally designed to offend and mock, they're passed off as "free speech". This double standard cannot continue.
I've got a deal for you - the second it becomes unacceptable for liberal bloggers to call conservative women the "c" word and the "b" word, and the moment liberals stop playing the "I'M OFFENDED" card and start debating issues on their merit rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against conservatives - then perhaps things can change.
So, to debate the issue at hand:
Do you who are offended by McMahon's "COEXIST" bumper sticker believe it's possible to have "dialogue" and peacefully exist with an ideology whose followers have made it explicitly clear that their goal is either our submission to their ideology or our destruction? How do you suggest we do this? Surrender? Stripping of our rights via diplomacy? What are your solutions?
Do you believe it was possible to peacfully coexist with Nazism and Communism, given their track record regarding human rights and the death toll from both of those ideologies, and that entering WWII was a mistake that should have been remedied by diplomacy?
There's the issue. Debate it. Comments are open. Free speech still exists here, so long as respectful tones and language are used. And, unlike Sykes' blog, there's no annoying character limit.
Other blogs covering this topic:
Fred at Real Debate Wisconsin
Rick at Shark and Shepherd
Peter at Texas Hold 'Em
and I'll update as more blogs start covering this.
|