Posted on 09/10/2010 2:10:45 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I remember growing up in a conservative movement that, reacting to the rampant permissiveness of the 1960s and '70s, stressed the virtue of civility. Sure, you have the right to flagrantly offend your neighbors and your community. But should you? Conservatism used to answer "no."
It was one of the cultural demarcations between the right and the left. If you were on the right, you generally thought it unacceptable to excuse boorish behavior with the utterance, "but it's my constitutional right!" Conservatives understood that self-restraint reduced the pressure for government-imposed restraint. We understood that with our civil rights came civic responsibilities. We understood that the United States of America was a land of tremendous religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity and that the peaceful coexistence of all of these people of such varying backgrounds and beliefs required tolerance, and tolerance meant treating others as you would have them treat you. In short, the republic itself relied upon civility.
Most conservatives still get this, I think. But sometimes I wonder how much the self-indulgence of the left has seduced our side. In the last few days, we've seen many on the right come out in defense of a proposal that once would have been almost universally considered indefensible, at least on the right -- the burning of hundreds of Korans in a deliberate attempt to anger and provoke Muslims around the world.
How can we condemn the constant and never-ending anti-Christian provocations of the radical, secular left and then rise to Terry Jones' defense on the lame excuse that he has the right to free expression? Or worse, that not going through with his planned incitement amounts to somehow giving in to the terrorists? No, it doesn't. It amounts to a belated display of common decency.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
We’re civil to the left, and step back while they encroach.
We’ve noticed that we’re standing on the edge of a precipice.
There is no more room for “civility” with the left or with Islam.
George Washington’s rules of civility.
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/rules-of-civility-by-george-washington-1744.html
Is it not interesting to anyone that we are forced to accept the burning of our Nations flag, but we can’t accept the burning of a book? And why is this? Support of Islam?
Thank you. This needed to be said.
Thank you. This needed to be said.
|
The author unwittingly makes the opposite argument.
When bibles or flags are burned, or crosses defiled or virgin mary’s depicted with feces, did americans/ christians repond with violence, or threats of violence? no not at all.
The sad truth is the left and some fools on the right have just given the muslims exalted status. now they are the only religion in the world with the right to shut others down with threats of violence.
Utterly shameful and a giant step backwards for this country. the founders must be puking in their graves.
I light my koran at 8:34am 9/11/10
Enjoy becoming one of them!
So you are going to become the thing you supposedly are against? Great strategy.
Because we need a boiling point other wise the left will bury/Barry us.
The left gives space to Islam, if we crush the left, then Islam has lost its biggest source of support from unfair leftist sympathy.
It is not support of Islam so much as the leftists don’t get what WAR is. Smooching up to the enemy like Obama has doesn’t change much. It doesn’t change the losses inflicted upon Afghanistan, and it’s embarrassing to Americans like me what he has said. Obama doublespeaks to Muslims on a daily basis. IMO, he offends them a whole lot more than a single Koran burning threat.
My father died a few years ago, and his father nearly thirty years ago. But I think of them often.
He was from a generation that went to school, then served in Korea—that’s just what you DID. He returned home, met my mom at a party, and on that first night they met said he was going to marry her, and did. He got a decent job, saved his money, got a better job that he kept for thirty years, bought a house, bought a house in the suburbs for his four kids.
He wasn’t perfect, but he went to church often, worked ridiculous hours to put food on the table, volunteered, was a good member of the community. He watched FOX and read conservative books, but he wasn’t a real ideologue, I guess. Oddly, I think I made him more conservative. As a veteran, he supported the troops and felt great pride at his brother’s son who’s in Iraq now.
He had certain friends he knew for decades, and was always polite to women, and a fast friend to decent people. He had his demons and his problems, and things didn’t work out the way everyone would have hoped, and we weren’t as close as both of us would have liked.
But he was a MAN.
I think of him, and his father, and a few other older relatives. I think of how they would react to these people saying “Well Islam doesn’t respect US!” and “They burn BIBLES, so we’ll burn Korans!” and getting giddy at the idea of pissing off strangers who already hate us.
He would listen to all of this, but he wouldn’t let the hatred of Muslims for him, for his faith, for his God, for his country, shift him one inch from his beliefs. He didn’t believe in burning books, or emotional outbursts, or getting into shouting matches. He was very pro-WOT, but he would look at a preacher lighting up someone else’s holy book in the same way he’d look at a Muslim burning Bibles.
Men in his time had emotions but knew when to show them and with whom to share them, usually in moderation. The “strong silent” type may be a cliche, but there’s some truth to it, and it’s not about the repression of emotions, or not feeling them, but having control over them. It means they didn’t lash out emotionally, and they kept their own counsel when it came to what’s right and wrong. Oddly, though, whatever the differences in politics or religion, there was a certain line these men didn’t cross when it came to self-discipline and self-restraint, and judgement about what’s just right and wrong.
We need more real men these days. Real men don’t burn books.
Nickcarraway, you’ve posted threads I’ve really enjoyed over the years. Thank you for posting this and making me think about my dad and the kind of man he was, and the kind I hope I am.
So this ‘jerks’ argument is that this act is unacceptable to polite society because it is an ‘uncivil’ act?
I wasn’t aware that being civil to those who’ve sworn to kill you was acceptable either.
I read a study several years ago having to do with bargaining strategies. Essentially, the study posed situations where people could cooperate and win a prize. If person A choose to not cooperate, then that person would win a bigger prize. Person B would still win a prize but it would be less than in the first case. If both persons A and B did not cooperate, then they would win nothing. The question was, what was the optimum strategy?
Of course, the best strategy involved both persons cooperating but how should person B act if person A choose not to? The answer was that B should forgo the smaller prize and also not cooperate until person A choose to cooperate even though he was worse off than settling for the smaller prize. IOW, if someone slaps your face, then the best response is to slap back.
The violent extremists must be slapped a few times before we can ever reach a peaceful agreement.
No, I think it was the slow realization that said civility is unappreciated; indeed, it is perceived as admission of fault and thence concession. So I think that the conservative movement is coming to the slow conclusion that a change in situational tactics is necessary; IOW, we must employ a language our adversaries understand.
The left has devolved into a pack of ravenous animals, hence...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.