Sunday, January 26, 2003

Tar is a sticky thing

Atrios does a perfectly fine job of responding to Glenn Reynolds' recent rip on an earlier Atrios post. But I wanted to add my two cents' worth to respond to Glenn's post:

And have you ever noticed how it's okay to show religious prejudice against Moonies, but not against fanatical Muslims? Nothing political there. Jeez.

Well, I don't know about you, but I too have a prejudice against fanatical Muslims, particularly those intent on killing thousands of people. This is a no-brainer. Is there anyone in any left-leaning blog who has indicated they don't have this prejudice as well? Good. I think in my previous remarks on fundamentalism that I also indicated a certain, well, unflattering view of Islamists, aka Islamic fundamentalists, for whatever that's worth.

But see, that's not a religious prejudice exactly. That's a basic-humanity prejudice. Now, if you're talking about people who are prejudiced against Muslims and Islam generally, then that's quite a different matter. Or is Reynolds just trying to muddy the waters by equating the two? You decide.

But in any case, I don't think anyone has displayed religious prejudice against Moonies in this debate (certainly not the eliminationist kind that exudes from, say, the smegmatic Michael Savage quadrant of the universe regarding Muslims). The followers of the Unification Church are to be pitied if anything -- for in fact having to endure unimaginable abuse -- and I haven't read any posts indicating anything otherwise.

What many people are quite legitimately concerned about is the activities of the Unification Church's leadership, particularly regarding their stated desire to install a theocratic state in America, with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon at its head. The Washington Times is only one of many facets of its campaign to achieve this end.

Really now, how does Glenn feel about "standing alongside" an operation headed by someone who derides America as "Satan's harvest"? I mean, how much more objectively anti-American can you get?

And let's not forget the Times' complicity both in the fact Osama bin Laden was alive long enough to effect Sept. 11 and in helping to prop up the corrupt North Korean regime that now actually does possess weapons of mass destruction. Just whose side is Glenn on here?

Here's a fact: When you start painting with a broad brush, it's always a nasty surprise to find that others can play the same game.

No comments: