|
I |
don’t quite believe that Liberals hate gays. Yet, I think that liberals are not nearly as committed to gay equality, as one might first suppose. In fact, I think that I can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. For if liberals were really committed to gay equality, then the utter intolerance of gays in the Muslim Arabic world be an enormous source of contention for liberals.
As we know, gay marriage is the big issue in many Western countries, including France and the United States. Gays in the Muslim Arabic world would be absolutely thrilled if circumstances in their countries permitted gay marriage to be the primary concern. No, simply being gay—let alone committing a gay act—is the primary concern. One can be hanged for committing a gay act.
|
|
In this regard, Muslim Arabic countries take a far more hostile position regarding gays than the Catholic Church, which distinguishes sharply between having homosexual feelings and acting on them and then claims that one may not act one those feelings. As for those who act on such feelings, the Church does not recommend hanging. Again, gays in the Muslim Arabic world would no doubt consider the Stance of the Catholci Church as representing a sort of paradise, as the image to the left makes abundantly clear. For the record, the death penalty is illegal in the European Union.
But I ask: Where are the liberals? Where is their sense of uncontrollable rage over the treatment of gays by Muslim Arabic countries? I have heard some gays refer to the United States as a bigoted and homophobic country because it will not permit gay marriages. From this it ought to follow that the lowest rung of Hell, itself, is barely good enough for Muslim Arabic countries.
So why aren’t liberals making precisely that claim? Why don’t liberals have uncontained hostility towards Muslim Arabic countries for their brutal mistreatment of gays? At the risk of raising all sorts of criticism, it is arguable that in some respects being gay in a Muslim Arabic country is presently as bad as being black was during the era of slavery.
It took nothing during the era of slavery to incite a lynching of a black. A so-called suspicion that had no basis in reality sufficed. The same holds for being gay in Muslim Arabic countries. And just as due process for blacks was at best a joke during the era of slavery, so it is now for gays in Muslim Arabic countries.
Liberals, then, ought to be livid.
|
|
.jpg)
In his speech to the United Nation in September 2005, the President of Iran, H. E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, spoke of spiritual depravation as a threat to the world. What sort of things might he have meant in talking about spiritual depravation? Unquestionably, the wrong of homosexuality is one of them. And there isn’t a savvy politician in the United Stated or, for that matter, the world who did not realize this. Not only that, at every turn Ahmedinejad talked about the will of the Almighty. Why this ought to have sent liberals and the European Union into a tailspin of utter despair.
Act-Up and every other gay organization ought to have been out there protesting the very idea that homosexuality constitutes a form of spiritual depravation. And surely every liberal ought have been right there amidst these organizations.
And judging from the anti-war protests against being in Iraq, one would think that in point of fact a democracy had been invaded, and thus a country that masterfully respects human rights. And the vicious mistreatment of gays in Muslim Arabic countries is a most brazen and visible example to the contrary.
As I have already noted, the European Union is against the death penalty. So hanging gays for consensual sex just has to be considered an inexcusable wrong. But, alas, the EU cannot seem to bring itself to say much about that, because after all, it is busy criticizing American foreign policy. And notwithstanding their undying love for gays, liberals cannot seem to find fault with the EU’s silence regarding the horrendous mistreatment of gays in Muslim Arabic countries.
On the one hand, it never ceases to amaze me just how consistent those who do evil can be. On the other, I am floored by the blatant inconsistencies on the part of tolerant liberals.
Only a fool could not have known what Ahmedinejad was talking about in his speech before the United Nations when he spoke about spiritual depravation.
From where I stand it looks like this: Liberals would much rather that Bush be wrong about anything, no matter what is, than that the influence of the United States be used to protect gays through out the world. Likewise for the European Union. From this it follows that liberals do not care as much about gays as they say that they do. And that is what I set out to show.
I suppose that “dirty hands” is an ineliminable feature of politics. The point of dirty hands, though, is not just to sully oneself, but to do so in order to achieve what is by all accounts a much greater good. But when we are willing to sacrifice the greater good in the name of vindictiveness, wrongdoing is no longer a means to morally good end. Rather, wrongdoing has become the end in itself.
Here is an insight that surely the Muslim Arabic world has: Liberals and the European Union would rather that Bush be wrong and that they, the Muslim Arabic world, be right than the other way around. And it is that insight that Muslim Arabic world is masterfully exploiting to their advantage and our disadvantage.
Liberals may not hate gays, but they are more than willing to sacrifice them the altar of hate. The silence of liberals with regard to the mistreatment of gays in the Muslim Arabic world is proof par excellence that this is so. That silence is occasioned by hate, which is always an impediment to our moral vision. While Iran is hanging gays, we are with our hate, hanging ourselves. Now, whom do you think will be victorious?
