“‘Love thy enemy’ does not mean kiss him and invite him into your country. It means stand up and fight, with grace.”
— Roy Masters, “Advice Line” April 29, 2013
He was speaking of what he refers to as the Dalai Lama’s cowardice in dealing with the Chinese, but the quote rang out to me as with regard to radical Islam. Years ago in Idaho, we had a Neo Nazi group calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian Aryan Nations. They were racist socialist revolutionaries who managed to use a bomb or two, causing some property damage. They were rooted out of Idaho for the most part, and good riddance. I didn’t like some of the methods used, but good riddance. They weren’t from around here, and they figured that since most people in Idaho were white, their white power, anti-Semite nonsense would be tolerated. They figured wrong. I bring them up only as a comparison to the even more virulent and dangerous radical Islamists, who’ve been allowed into this country, often welcomed with open arms. If we had the same recognition of bigotry, promotion of violence and power-lust regarding the Islamists that we had with the Aryan Nations we’d be raiding certain Mosques and other organizations in the U.S., but violent bigotry that hides behind Christianity is a vastly more convenient target than the exact same violent bigotry that hides behind Islam. The difference is of course a result of political subterfuge and we can’t fight it because we’re short on grace.
It’s like our societal immune system is degraded, leaving us open to all forms of infection.
Are there ways to address this that don’t require big government or giving up most of our Constitutional rights? All too often when this subject comes up, those are the “answers” we are given.
I would say a big part of the answer is that well armed citizens are a lot less vulnerable than the disarmed victims the left wants us to be. Come to think of us, just as widespread arms deter criminals and reduce crime — most of the time without defensive shots having to be fired — similarly, terrorists are less likely to try to infest a well armed population.
This picture: http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html is an illustration.
Joe, excellent analogy.
Paul, your cartoon does more than what you think it does.
It applies the principle of (I forget which) the First Amendment case in which it was held that the antidote for bad speech was more speech. This applies as well to the Second Amendment because lawyers say that the same course of analysis that is used to analyze one right in one part of the Constitution should be used to analyze rights in other parts of the constitution. The antidote for bad people armed therefore is more good people armed.
Thanks, you make a very good point. I’ll remember that.
Very good one, Windy.