felt sad…

Posted on Monday 10 January 2011


I’m going to make a political point now
REDSTATE

by Erick Erickson
January 10, 2010

… those of us on the right, we have an obligation to be responsible on something else. There have been a lot of false statements over the last twenty-four hours about Mr. Obama calling for a “Moment of Silence” instead of a “Moment of Prayer.” While he did call for a moment of silence instead of prayer, he followed up by saying, “It will be a time for us to come together as a nation in prayer or reflection, keeping the victims and their families closely at heart.”

On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush, before leaving the elementary school in Florida, asked for a “moment of silence.” We should not be bashing this President for asking for one. But I feel the need to make a political point here about why this President is getting bashed for his “moment of silence” when other Presidents, from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush, did not.

He recently made people mad by quoting the Declaration of Independence and leaving out the bit about the Creator. During his inaugural address he mentioned atheists and subsequently proclaimed us not a Christian nation. In yesterday’s “moment of silence” he wanted prayer or reflection. Here’s the problem — when conservatives push for school prayer and advocate for a “National Day of Prayer,” they include “or reflection” to get around namby-pamby atheist objectors. But the left uses it too. The left uses it to accommodate atheists.

President Obama’s statement stands out because it is just another verbal telling that he’s ideologically of the left. He already has problems with a public perception of him and his faith. That things like this keep coming up suggests the general public is right in their skepticism of the sincerity of his faith. If you are on the left, you are seeing red right now. Everyone else is nodding slowly in agreement.
What’s an aging, balding chronic democratic voter like me doing visiting REDSTATE? I was there yesterday when I was nosing around about the Arizona assassination attempt. I even went so far as getting a username and password because I wanted to comment [about the vitriolic comments], but it’s like buying a gun – there’s a waiting period after you register. So I went back, but reading today’s article and the comments that followed made me realize that commenting would simply make me fodder, so I "unsubscribed."

I’ll admit that I found this post from the REDSTATE Chief surprising. Apparently, Obama has been "flamed" for saying "a moment of silence" rather than "a moment of prayer" in his remarks about the Arizona tragedy. I gather that this accusation has been countered by examples of Bush saying the same thing. Erickson’s response is that "conservatives … include ‘or reflection’ to get around namby-pamby atheist objectors. But the left uses it too. The left uses it to accommodate atheists." That’s probably true. I guess the only acceptable response would be to treat non-Christians with contempt. This is an invitation to fight ["If you are on the left, you are seeing red right now"]. I might respond with "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "turn the other cheek" or "judge not that ye be not judged," but that’s just another way of fighting.

In Erickson’s world, tolerance is apparently not a Christian virtue, and Obama’s well known tolerance is cause for him [Erickson] to question the "sincerity of his [Obama’s] faith" and brands Obama as "ideologically of the left" [which is also sort of true]. In this system, proving that Obama is more ideologically liberal than conservative is important for some reason. I have no response to that. I’m not even sure I know why it matters or what it means. We all already know that – that Obama is a tolerant Christian who is more left than right – though nowhere near left enough to satisfy the "real left."

So the reason that I didn’t comment is obvious. If Barack Obama can be discounted because he didn’t say "come together as a nation in prayer or reflection" with the right attitude, I can imagine being ripped to shreds by commenting that I hoped that the Arizona tragedy might lead people like me and the people who follow REDSTATE to try to find a more civil dialog in the political arena. I would’ve simply been missing the point that what he wants is for me to "see red." I didn’t see red, I felt sad…
  1.  
    January 10, 2011 | 1:35 PM
     

    The only response on any of these questions that will satisfy them is for you to come around to thinking like they think. He says it all in his contrasting what the more inclusive words mean when they use them.

    They don’t believe in pluralism or tolerance or inclusiveness. They just say the right words to “get around the namby-pamby athiest objectors.” The idea of actually believing in pluralism, tolerance, and inclusiveness is not what they’re about.

    There’s is the only way, the only answer that will get you accepted.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.