?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Steve Likes to Curse
Writing, comics and random thoughts from really a rather vulgar man
Tim Rowland, I owe you a Coke 
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 | 03:24 pm [commentary, hagerstown, politics, religion]
Steve's New Userpic
For years Tim Rowland has been our local version of Dave Barry. (Not precisely. There are differences. Dave Barry was funny, for example — but I kid! I kid Tim.) Recently, Tim’s been writing more often in the “not funny on purpose” genre. It hasn’t gone down well with a few in the Herald-Mail‘s readership. But those people can kiss my ass. With his most recent column, printed Saturday, Tim shows himself to be a commentator capable of real insight and eloquence.
 
High praise indeed from the guy whose blog contains
a photo comic depicting the alcohol-drenched sexual relationship between a German Shepherd and an (inexplicably) Irish bear.
 
Anyway, here’s an excerpt from the end of Tim’s Saturday column. The subject is how the Founding Fathers might have reacted to a certain real estate project in lower Manhattan that has been the subject of some controversy. (And that’s all I’ll say, except that this project has been frequently referred to by a term that rhymes with “found hero bosque.”)
 

Olden-day conservatives might have sputtered a bit about the New York City mosque, but they would have understood the truth: Religion is none of the government’s business. In this area, government is specifically directed to “make no law.” And beyond that, they would have understood that the best way to stick it in the eye of our enemies would be to allow the mosque to be built.

 

Radical Islamists do have the Internet. And when the bloggers shoot off at the mouth, what they’re saying to the terrorists is this: We’re afraid of you. You have gotten so far inside our heads that we will abandon our fundamental beliefs because of your actions.

 

Might not a better message be this: You can shake bricks and mortar, but you can’t shake our beliefs. We stand for freedom on all counts, and you have not managed to nick these freedoms in the least. You do not scare us, you do not intimidate us. You are not able to make us change our ways.

 
Tim Rowland, I owe you a Coke.
 
Read the entire column at the Herald-Mail.
Comments 
Friday, September 3rd, 2010 | 02:03 pm (UTC)
Anonymous
heh. "Found hero bosque." Cute.

I didn't read the whole article. But, hey, why don't I comment on it anyway, since I just can't seem to quit the debate over a certain poorly located meeting place of Islamic persuasion?

I might be opposed (with the intensity of a thousand suns)to the real estate venture that shall not be named, but I have no wish for the government to obstruct anyone's rights. Seriously.

If it came down to something like that, where the actual rights of Muslims were being threatened by the government, I wouldn't want any part of it.

I read an article (I think it was at Reason) that argued the same point about the founding fathers. If I remember correctly, it pointed out that the founding fathers were not oblivious to quirky or even extreme religious beliefs. They understood very well the challenge to freedom that such beliefs, like say Puritanism, could pose. But, they knew that giving the government the power to pick and choose what beliefs are acceptable would be an even bigger threat to freedom than any religious movement. Thus, we get "shall make NO law."

I completely agree with that logic. (Thanks, Founding Fathers!) But, to me, it doesn't mean that the public, the people, can't have an opinion about certain religious beliefs, or even the real estate investments of religious leaders. The people not only have a right, but a duty, to decide what is and is not acceptable. Let's take female genital mutilation for example. (No, I'm not insinuating that Rauf or his followers condone it) The people have a duty to voice their disgust for such a practice. (So does the government in a case like FGM, but you get my drift.)

Hey, did you notice I got through saying all that without ever once mentioning by name the...eh..."religious facility" in question?
Friday, September 3rd, 2010 | 09:07 pm (UTC)
As you know Steve, I'm a big fan of Tim Roland, but I thought he was off the mark with this column. I mean, it seemed an awful lot like a straw-man argument in that to the best of my knowledge, the government isn't stopping Rauf from building his mosque. If anything, the government is going out of it's way to promote Rauf. The State Department, going back to the Bush administration, has sent Rauf on four different paid trips to the Middle-East. They are doing that solely because of his stupid and repressive religion.

I wish they would stop doing that.

As far as bloggers shooting off at the mouth about radical Islamists, it's not that I'm afraid of them like Tim Roland suggests. On the contrary, I think most radical Muslims are cowards.

I just don't like them.
Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 | 02:07 pm (UTC)
Anonymous
Bigots who are proud to be bigots are the bestest kind.
This page was loaded Sep 26th 2017, 4:23 pm GMT.