Should legislators be forced to attend Muslim prayers?
The Virginian Pilot editors this morning came out with an editorial condemning 10 members of the Virginia legislature for avoiding a prayer by a Muslim cleric whose mosque was one that the 9/11 Jihadists highjackers attended. That seems to be a strange position to take for a member of the MSM that has in the past voiced opposition to prayer in public venues on the theory that a prayer said on public grounds is a slippery slope to the establishment of theocracy in America.
The Virginian Pilot’s editorial board has always been a haven for Lefties and it seems that they have taken up the cudgel for forced attendance at prayer, as long as it isn’t Christian prayer.
It also illustrates an insidious mindset that explains the atheist Left’s antipathy toward Christians expressing their faith in public. We have all read about the class valedictorian whose expression of belief in Christ was censored. But the media appears to consider it an outrage that ten members of the Virginia legislature chose not to participate in a religious ceremony by an Muslim cleric. They seem to believe that people should be forced to attend a ceremony that is devoted exclusively to a public prayer.
It’s not as if the legislators made a show of leaving the room, or made the kind of rude display that President Obama did when he chided the Supreme Court in his State of the Union speech. If we are to believe the outraged squawks coming from the Pilot’s editors, they went to the bathroom or dawdled in another room during the Imam’s prayer. Imagine the outrage if atheists or Buddhists or Muslims should be forced to attend a prayer breakfast sponsored by a Christian group.
I have a lot of admiration for the “Richmond 10.” Perhaps the next time the Imam speaks, more would join them. If we cannot be allowed to show our displeasure with a religious sect that inspires mass murder, terrorism as its primary weapon, killing on religious grounds and the stated desire to subject the world to its belief, not through persuasion but through force we have lost the war of ideas.
But of course in other acts of displeasure the Pilot editors are totally consistent. They are all for boycotts, demonstrations and walk-outs … as long as they are conducted by one of their pet groups.
Hypocrisy is not the exclusively at home on the Left - and its MSM wholly owned subsidiary - but it has moved in and left its toothbrush there.
The strange role of Sex on the Left.
Meanwhile in an adjacent part of the forest, the Virginian Pilot editorializes against Virginia’s Attorney General Cuccinelli’s letter advising Virginia’s schools and colleges that it is against the law for them to classify homosexuals as a protected class. And he’s right. Virginia law forbids it. And it’s the Attorney General’s job to make sure that the laws of Virginia are observed. But the editors believe that laws are for little people, that their sense of moral entitlement trumps the law. And of course, Virginia’s school administrators have been among the first to include gays in their list of people with special status.
Since gays are one of the Virginian Pilot’s protected pets, inveighing they go against Cuccinnelli and Governor McDonnell for contributing to Virginia’s “culture of intolerance” by not supporting a bill that would give the Governor power to create another class of protected pets.
Without the slightest sense of irony, on the Op-Ed page they publish a column by Margaret Carlson which accuses Conservatives of making a hero out of Democrat Eric Massa. For those who have been in a coma for the last week, Massa accuses the Democrat’s leadership and White House aides to Obama of forcing him out of office because he opposed ObamaCare. He tells a titillating story of being ambushed by Presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the House shower room while both men were naked with Emanuel poking a finger in his chest.
Since Emanuel’s in-your-face slash and burn tactics are no secret, Massa’s description of Emanuel as the “devil’s spawn” who would “sell his own mother for a vote” sounds about right for a Chicago pol. But for some reason, Massa is now the subject of editorial scorn on the Left. Why? It turns out that the married Massa is a homosexual – or at least swings both ways.
Under the Virginian Pilot rules, you would expect Lefties to rush to the side of their oppressed pet. That these ad hominem attacks should cease. Someone should be interested in finding out why the accusations against Massa have been held back until just before the ObamaCare vote. But no; the guy’s gay and what he claims has no credibility whatever. For some reason, gays who are outed lose their credibility if their accusations are made against the Left.
The Virginian Pilot editors this morning came out with an editorial condemning 10 members of the Virginia legislature for avoiding a prayer by a Muslim cleric whose mosque was one that the 9/11 Jihadists highjackers attended. That seems to be a strange position to take for a member of the MSM that has in the past voiced opposition to prayer in public venues on the theory that a prayer said on public grounds is a slippery slope to the establishment of theocracy in America.
The Virginian Pilot’s editorial board has always been a haven for Lefties and it seems that they have taken up the cudgel for forced attendance at prayer, as long as it isn’t Christian prayer.
It also illustrates an insidious mindset that explains the atheist Left’s antipathy toward Christians expressing their faith in public. We have all read about the class valedictorian whose expression of belief in Christ was censored. But the media appears to consider it an outrage that ten members of the Virginia legislature chose not to participate in a religious ceremony by an Muslim cleric. They seem to believe that people should be forced to attend a ceremony that is devoted exclusively to a public prayer.
It’s not as if the legislators made a show of leaving the room, or made the kind of rude display that President Obama did when he chided the Supreme Court in his State of the Union speech. If we are to believe the outraged squawks coming from the Pilot’s editors, they went to the bathroom or dawdled in another room during the Imam’s prayer. Imagine the outrage if atheists or Buddhists or Muslims should be forced to attend a prayer breakfast sponsored by a Christian group.
I have a lot of admiration for the “Richmond 10.” Perhaps the next time the Imam speaks, more would join them. If we cannot be allowed to show our displeasure with a religious sect that inspires mass murder, terrorism as its primary weapon, killing on religious grounds and the stated desire to subject the world to its belief, not through persuasion but through force we have lost the war of ideas.
But of course in other acts of displeasure the Pilot editors are totally consistent. They are all for boycotts, demonstrations and walk-outs … as long as they are conducted by one of their pet groups.
Hypocrisy is not the exclusively at home on the Left - and its MSM wholly owned subsidiary - but it has moved in and left its toothbrush there.
The strange role of Sex on the Left.
Meanwhile in an adjacent part of the forest, the Virginian Pilot editorializes against Virginia’s Attorney General Cuccinelli’s letter advising Virginia’s schools and colleges that it is against the law for them to classify homosexuals as a protected class. And he’s right. Virginia law forbids it. And it’s the Attorney General’s job to make sure that the laws of Virginia are observed. But the editors believe that laws are for little people, that their sense of moral entitlement trumps the law. And of course, Virginia’s school administrators have been among the first to include gays in their list of people with special status.
Since gays are one of the Virginian Pilot’s protected pets, inveighing they go against Cuccinnelli and Governor McDonnell for contributing to Virginia’s “culture of intolerance” by not supporting a bill that would give the Governor power to create another class of protected pets.
Without the slightest sense of irony, on the Op-Ed page they publish a column by Margaret Carlson which accuses Conservatives of making a hero out of Democrat Eric Massa. For those who have been in a coma for the last week, Massa accuses the Democrat’s leadership and White House aides to Obama of forcing him out of office because he opposed ObamaCare. He tells a titillating story of being ambushed by Presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the House shower room while both men were naked with Emanuel poking a finger in his chest.
Since Emanuel’s in-your-face slash and burn tactics are no secret, Massa’s description of Emanuel as the “devil’s spawn” who would “sell his own mother for a vote” sounds about right for a Chicago pol. But for some reason, Massa is now the subject of editorial scorn on the Left. Why? It turns out that the married Massa is a homosexual – or at least swings both ways.
Under the Virginian Pilot rules, you would expect Lefties to rush to the side of their oppressed pet. That these ad hominem attacks should cease. Someone should be interested in finding out why the accusations against Massa have been held back until just before the ObamaCare vote. But no; the guy’s gay and what he claims has no credibility whatever. For some reason, gays who are outed lose their credibility if their accusations are made against the Left.
Don't get me wrong, opinion leaders on the Right, notably Limbaugh and Beck both consider Massa has serious problems and neither is a fan of his politics or his ethics. But thieves and criminals often give each other up, and that may be what we're seeing here.
There’s a principle here. To the Left, what they do, say and think is right and if you disagree you are not merely wrong but evil. The editorial board believes that if you disagree with them that gays should be a protected pet you’re a bigot. On the other hand, if you accuse the Obama administration of forcing you out of office because you are gay, you’re a nutcase. The pleasant thing about the new age is that these people are being exposed for the pompous fools they are, their platform is discredited and the impact of their own hateful bigotry is lessening.
1 comment:
I love the left. They are so predictable. For them it seems easy to live in a relative world where your principles do not depend on logic or consistency but rather ideology.
So it was fine for the Clinton administration under Attorney General Janet Reno, to snatch a terrified six year old, Illian Gonzales, with soldiers in full battle dress, at gunpoint. His mother lost her life trying to bring him out of Castro's Hell Hole to live a life of promise in America. The same Hell Hole that the Black Caucus raved about after visiting and meeting the Great Leader, and Michael Moore deems an example of health care we should emulate. If this place is so great why do people risk their lives in rickety boats to escape for a land deemed the Great Satan by our Muslim friends.
This same Janet Reno, who Clinton hid behind, after she burned down the Branch Davidian Compound and many of its inherents. The poor deceived nuts who lived there, somehow were found to be a profound threat to America and worthy of attack by the FBI.
But the present Attorney General, Eric Holder, hires attorneys for the Justice Department who have shown to have a great interest in defending Gitmo detainees from the Great Satan, but he doesn't want to tell us who they are. So when Liz Cheney calls him out on it, she is the one who is demonized.
Just living up to the template.
Post a Comment