Monday, March 27, 2006

Tolerance and you...

Ah, springtime. The flowers are blooming, the birds are singing, and the liberals are coming out of their holes to show off their new tolerance and inclusion coats.

Now, I'm pretty well numbed to the usual gaggle of protestors that come out of the woodwork any time some group of Jeebus-ites holds a rally, but it is new and exciting for me when an elected official jumps into the fray on the side of the protestors.

That's bad news to Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."


Isn't that a lovely sentiment? Here we have a group of young people, who are promoting clean-living, tolerance, and happy-times, and Mr. Leno wants to remove them from San Francisco. This really is stunning to me, as San Francisco has long billed itself as the city that tolerates anything and everything.

Granted, the Pals-of-Jeebus brought some of this down on them, by making it a drawing point that they were going to host a pre-rally event at the San Francisco City Hall where, "several months ago, gay marriages were celebrated for all the world to see", however, I don't think this gives Assemblyman Leno a free pass into passing an official condemnation of the group's activities.

All that aside, it is refreshing to me and my cold, black, empty, conservative heart, dear readers, that the inclusionary, group-identity liberals be the ones on the downwind side of this one. As paT and I have discussed many a time, on and off this humble blog, it's things like this that will keep the conservatives in power for eons, and eons, and eons, no matter how noble the grassroots changes are on the left.

2 comments:

Patrick Armstrong said...

We have spoken about this at length, and when folks like the Assemblyman do say things like that, they do hurt their own cause by running their mouth.

What he should have said would be along the lines of "I am glad to see so many young people interested in making a positive impact in their own lives and the lives of others. I welcome them to San Francisco with the spirit of tolerance that this city is so famous for, and with shared faith and fellowship that Americans can find positive ways to combat the alienation and self centered culture that is tearing apart our youth today. We may not agree on what paths we take to reach those goals, but I respect and applaud the fact that so many young Americans are here working to make a difference and work in positive ways to build a better nation for us all. Again, welcome to San Francisco."

That would get the point across a little better, wouldn't it? Then everyone watching wouldn't be so drawn to the bile that comes out of the mouths of the left.

What really concerns me, and I wonder why we don't talk about this more in America, is the rhetoric of the leaders of this youth movement.

This is from SAWB's own article:

"This is more than a spiritual war," Luce said. "It's a culture war."

"He tells young people of how "an enemy has launched a brutal attack on them."

"Luce told his mostly teenage audience that "terrorists of a different kind" -- advertisers -- were targeting them and that they were "caught in the middle of the battle."

"Are you ready to go to battle for your generation?" he asked, and the young people roared "yes!" and some waved triangular red flags flown from long, medieval-looking poles."


Maybe I'm just batcrap crazy, but after hearing that, some loudmouthed tin pot liberal Assemblyman is the least of my worries. Especially combining this with the rhetoric at the evangelical general staff meeting called the "First Things Symposium" covered here by Eric Alterman and here by the National Review.

"The Catholic theologian Russell Hittinger asserted that the country now lived "under an altered constitutional regime" whose laws were "unworthy of loyalty." Charles W. Colson maintained that America may have reached the point where "the only political action believers can take is some kind of direct, extra-political confrontation" with the "judicially controlled regime." And in a contribution titled "The Tyrant State," Robert P. George asserted that "the courts ... have imposed upon the nation immoral policies that pro-life Americans cannot, in conscience, accept."

"In Neuhaus's view, what was happening in the United States could only be described as "the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." Hence the stark and radical options confronting the country, ranging "from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution."


As someone who would end up on the recieving end of "long, mideval looking poles" in any fundamentalist revolution (and we won't even go over what they'll do to your black, heavy metal heart, SAWB), I feel like their rhetoric and tactics are what we should turn our attention to with far more scrutiny.

S.A.W.B. said...

Except for the fact that the rhetoric that Mr. Ron Luce is spouting is the same evangalistical rhetoric that has been spouted by the bible-thumpers for the last 30 years or so. I should know, as I was subjected to more than my share of it during my time in the Methodist Church as a youth.

Amazingly enough, except for a few die-hards, most of these kids go on to lead healthy, normal, hedonistic lives.

If this sort of rhetoric was a harbinger of massive social change, Billy Graham would have been elected president 10 times by now.