Monday, September 27, 2004

So Charles Colson argues here (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/010/18.152.html), with Anne Morse apparently helping him spell the hard words, that we should curtail American freedom, because if we don’t, the terrorists win.

Colson says, in part,

Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America's decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.
One vital goal of the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism, is to bring democracy to the heart of the Islamic world. Our hope is to make freedom so attractive that other Muslim countries will follow suit. But when radical Islamists ….see news coverage of same-sex couples being "married" in U.S. towns, we make our kind of freedom abhorrent—the kind they see as a blot on Allah's creation.
Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it's also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us.


Colson misses the point. This is the “destroy the village in order to save it” argument. What is important about this country is that we have freedom to live in different ways, which not every single one of us will necessarily approve of. See, if you destroy that important bit of America, Mr. Colson, then what you actually “save” isn’t America, but some other country I’m not terribly interested in preserving.

Which I do realize is the point: these guys don’t actually want to preserve the real America, but a theocracy they’re planning to build after they wreck the really good country we had going here for awhile.

To quote a little Steve Earle now…

People tell me that I’m paranoid
And I admit I’m gettin’ pretty nervous, boy
It just gets tougher every day
To sit around and watch it while it slips away
Been called a traitor and a patriot
Call me anything you want to but
Just don’t forget your history...
From “F the CC”

2 comments:

GeoX said...

Well, obviously, if the terrorists don't like gay marriage, we can't be having it. Here in America, we're all about doing exactly what the terrorists want. I mean, come on.

zelda1 said...

"American women abusing Muslim men," is what he said. Give me a break. I mean the same sex marriage thing is a far reach, but he adds the sexists remark about the women abusing the Muslim men. Who is to blame for the Muslim men's abuse by both men and women? Why are they there? Who put them there? Who is in charge of these men and women who find sport in humiliating their captives? And last, did they get the orders to do so from their immeidate supervisors? Those questions and their answers need to be investigated before he attacks the gay marriage issue. I do believe the sadistic treatment of those prisoners is at issue of concern for the feelings of the Muslims and the rest of the world. How in the world can he justify his inflammatory remarks about same sex marriage flamming the terriosts incentives for attacking us and barely talk about what those men and women did. If he wants to blame the downfall on the family to same sex marriage he better first look at the family structure. Gay people are not wanting to break up straight families. Staight people do that. And as far as corrupting family values that can't be blamed on homosexuality. They were in the closet for decades and have only recently made their appeal to be treated equally. He is missing the entire picture. They don't want to destroy the family, they want to build their own families; they want insurance rights, adoption rights, safety rights, and the right to have a say over their spouses treatement in the event of an emergency. Why deny a couple that? How is that seen as immoralizing America? He is one step above being a round head. If people like Colson were allowed, there would be mass trials and mass graves. We would be going back in time instead of forward. Forward is better.