The “moral equivalency” red herring flops around again
“What’s wrong with Christians and Muslims having mutual respect? Seriously. I don’t see anything wrong with that.”
That’s the response of most people before they give any thought to that urge.
How about these urgings – anything wrong with these?:
- Luigi urges Christians and Nazi’s to have “mutual respect”
- Luigi urges Christians and Satanists to have “mutual respect”
- Luigi urges Christians and the LGTB community to have “mutual respect”
- Luigi urges Christians and the Man/Boy Love Association to have “mutual respect”
“But Moochie, not all Muslims are bad people!”
But are “all Muslims” worthy of respect? Declaring every individual in a group IS worthy of respect is just as ignorant as ignoring that an entire group may NOT be worthy of respect. Just because one is Muslim, should he be worthy of respect? Just because one is Christian or atheist, is he automatically worthy of respect? Of course not.
True, there are some fine Muslims out there. But because of the nature of their belief system, Islam, one never knows which Muslim to respect. Respect ALL Muslims? That depends on how devoutly they practice their anti-Christian, anti-western, anti-civilizational, pro-terror, coercive, Jew-hating, woman-abusing, supremacist ideology. Taliban Muslims? al-qaeda Muslims? Hamas Muslims? Muslim Brotherhood Muslims? There are 145 terrorist organizations identified by nations around the world . Over 75 of them are Islamic/Muslim-affiliated and inspired. Most of the rest are Communist related with a small minority dealing with Irish independence.
Which Muslims who aren’t directly involved with one or more of these 120-plus Muslim terror groups indirectly supports or sympathizes with them? Are these Muslims worthy of “respect?” Do you know which ones?
Are Muslims who insist on remaining associated with the Islamic ideology and the terror and evil that “religion” represents worthy of respect?
And yes, there are some mighty nice lesbians, gays, transgender and bi-sexual folks out there. Some child predators, even in the church, appeared quite nice and “respectable.” But does their superficial appearance require us to respect them? Might knowing the truth about their preferences, allegiances, deeds and lusts require something other than “respect?”
There is a word used to describe a “good person.” That word is “respectable”: A person worthy of respect. That presumes there are people who are not worthy of respect. Shouldn’t we be allowed to choose which of these people to respect? Should we be required to respect the unrespectable?
An individual who appears to be a good person based on a shallow acquaintance may appear respectable. But if we knew his seditious associations and preferences for evil, would he still remain respectable?
It has recently become standard operational procedure in churches to refuse to call out evil for fear someone would be offended, that the church or pastor might be called “intolerant”, and lose their culturally polluted members and financial base. To avoid that possible outcome, that same church adopts a new doctrine of “tolerate” everything and offend no one for any type of behavior because if we do, we are “uncharitable.”
There were periods in Christian history when the Christian faith was worth defending, and aggressively defended itself and its ideals. Defense of the Christian faith today is ostracized, even within the Church. THIS PAPAL PRONOUNCEMENT is one example. All religions are worthy of respect? Really? Unfortunately, this lack of discernment runs throughout most Christian denominations. Several key considerations are ignored.
The first ignored consideration: Individuals who hate and who promote evil and immorality are not worthy of respect. Those who espouse hateful, evil, or immoral ideology or religion are not worthy of respect. Note to defenders of “respect everything and everyone”: Choosing not to respect does not mean “hate.” It means know what you’re dealing with. We can still be kind and tolerant - up to a point. We tolerate, as in “put up with”; accept their existence. We don’t “tolerate”, as in “respect” and “agree with.” I don’t respect evil or those who promote or defend evil.
The second ignored consideration is: Islam is evil. Muhammad was an evil man. Islamic leaders today are evil men. The Islamic ideology demands and promotes evil actions. Those who don’t recognize these evils have chosen to remain ignorant. They have other priorities. They go blissfully along seeing/hearing/speaking “no evil.” And they criticize those who know anything on this topic as “uncharitable” or “hateful” or “incendiary.” Among liberals, truth is the new hate speech. Among Christians, truth is the new “uncharitable.” Rather than promote “respect” for evil they know nothing about, it is better for them to keep their ignorance to themselves rather than feed us false propaganda excusing or promoting evil. Unfortunately, too many of these people are leaders of our churches.
Jesus is characterized as being “full of grace and truth.” God is described as One who metes out “mercy and justice.” There were times in Christian history when “truth” was as important as “grace” and when “justice” was as importanct as “mercy.” Not anymore. Today’s church promotes “grace and mercy” with little “truth and justice.” Some have described modern Christianity as “the church of nice”, the “feel good church”, the “ego-building and guilt-ignoring” church. Eliminate personal guilt by declaring there is no such thing as sin. Self-esteem and “feel good” are now partners with “tolerate everything” as the highest value.
Mutual respect based on ignorance is like letting a Trojan Horse into your home. On the other hand, if you don’t have any values or standards worth defending you can respect just about anything.