Sarah Palin recently stated that “(a)cts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6211162/sarah_palins_blood_libel_speech_refudiates.html?cat=62
But doesn’t this position undercut the basic argument to oppose the Islamic center that is to be constructed near ground zero?
Only to an objective moderator of the argument. People are perfectly capable of holding contradictory opinions depending on the particular issue. Those who oppose construction of the Islamic center using the label “Ground Zero Mosque” argue in terms of respect and propriety, even though it rhetorically conflates the terrorist actions with Islamic faith as a whole. But they can also argue that venomous and violent political rhetoric is wholly unconnected to* random acts of violence* against politicians even though it rhetorically disassociates political thought with political action.
The converse is also true; proponents of tolerance for Muslims should logically also be restrained in tarring their political enemies, rather than jumping to (now unjustified) conclusions. But politics in its actual manifestation is about justifying what you already believe, and in this tribalistic setting whatever argument helps you win is the one that counts.
It should be noted that Palin has conceded that they have the right to build the mosque, but thinks they shouldn’t. So presumably she won’t go to Arizona any time soon, although she has the right.
I don’t follow this. If someone opposes violent rhetoric, I would imagine that person would want politicians to tone it down and to support the kind of Muslim community center that may be built in downtown Manhattan. The leader of that group of Muslims is also trying to cool the rhetoric.
Bogus comparison. Palin and her ilk actually wanted to take people’s civil rights away because of their religion. That goes beyond rhetoric. Opposing attempts to deprive citizens of their legal rights is not in any philosphical conflict with calling somebody an asshole for using violent rhetoric.
Philosophical inconsistency in an American Politician?
I am shocked. Appalled!
No, wait. How is this news? Who was debating the premise that such a thing as philosophical consistency has ever existed?
On this score at least Sarah Palin is certainly not outside of normal distribution for lack of intellectual rigor. Someone who has an internally consistent philosophy cannot get elected in the United States, because they will inevitably disparage some highly popular form of jingoism, or cherished national self delusion.
To put it bluntly, if you won’t whore for the mob, you won’t be elected.
We get exactly the government we want. That’s democracy. We never like it, but that, too is democracy.
The converse is true if it can be demonstrated that the builders of the Islamic center used militaristic imagery and rhetoric similar to that used by Palin.
I wonder though if conservatives that are opposed to the construction of the center haven’t fatally undermined their argument against it.
Can anyone point to Palin blaming the builders of the WTC mosque for 9-11? A valid comparison would be if someone wanted to build a center for the study of government mind control using grammar in the same shopping center where the shooting occured. Maybe some people would find that insensitive even if the builders of the center did not advocate violence.
I can never figure out if Palin bashers can not understand her arguements or are just pretending not to because hating her is so much fun.
Man, get it through your head. The right wing in recent years has elevated hypocrisy to levels that were previously unimagined. These folks would take a dump on the American flag and wipe their asses with the Constitution if they thought it would help them score points about how evil liberals are.
Sarah Palin is physically incapable of self-reflection on this level. Of course it undercuts her opposition. She doesn’t care, neither will the morons who like her
I never said that Palin blamed the Islamic center builders for 9-11.
I pu up a quote from her and asked if it undermines her oppostion to the center. As noted above, her oppostion to the centre has been more muted than that of others.
If I broaden the question: do recent events regarding the fallour from the Arizona shootings and the way conservatives have reacted undermined the argument from conservatives who are opposted to the Islamic center in NYC?
Conservatives are always hypocritical when it comes to free speech. They call Obama every conceivable name and accuse him of every conceivable evil, but then get all butthurt and offended if someone asks Sarah Palin what she likes to read. Of course they undermine themselves. It’s true of religion too. They reserve the right to villify and demonize all non-Christian beliefs (except Judaism, which they pretend to be tolerant of, even though they know all Jews go to Hell), but think they’re being persecuted if someone tells them “happy holidays” instead of "Merry Christmas.
If anyone protested an attempt to put up some kind of Christian community center a few blocks away from where a doctor was murdered for providing abortions, the sarah Palins in the world would play it up like it was a genocide.
Yeah, those religious Muslims are always demonizing their own beliefs. I’m sure you meant that as case of the Christian religion, which has it’s counterparts in other religions. But isn’t this really true for the general category of ideologies? I believe the practitioners are known as ideots.
Since Palin never said that the builders of the Islamic center should be blamed for 9-11, who does she blame? The people who carried out the murders and the people who supported them. In other words the exact same people she says should be blamed for monstrous crimes in her statement about the Tucson murders. So she made a consistent and rational arguement. You Palin bashers should try it some time.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Why does she think the Islamic center should not be built near ground zero if she isn’t laying at lease some blame at the feet of the builders?