Leftist Confusion, Part 1

Read this post from Body and Soul:

''After the terrorist attacks, I was so angry that I really didn't care to learn anything about Muslims. But I know now that refusing to learn is what causes more anger and confusion.'' -- Matthew Dale, 18, a freshmen at the University of North Carolina after a discussion of Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations, a book a conservative Christian group asked the court to block.

No wonder they wanted to block the book. If it weren't for anger and confusion, who would vote Republican?

Yes, those narrow minded conservatives. Not like those broad-minded liberals who are attuned to the zen-like truths of the universe. Ah, but how do they explain this post by the The Culture Curve:

My own Christian legal advocacy is guided by the following, simple principles:

i) I will never argue that Christians should have more rights or greater religious freedoms than other religious individuals (in other words, our nation's heritage does not grant Christians a privileged position in national discourse);

ii) I will always oppose government actions that discriminate against Christian (or other religious) speech;

iii) I believe it is appropriate for government to acknowledge the religious heritage and beliefs of its citizens, but it is inappropriate for the government to establish any specific religious practice (like school prayer);

iv) Because I believe in equality, I will not try to silence opposing viewpoints, and I will not oppose the dissemination of opposing viewpoints -- so long as I have equal opportunities to speak and spread my own message;

v) Because I have confidence in my message -- and believe it to be empowered by the Holy Spirit of the Living God -- I will not fear the free exchange of ideas. I welcome that exchange.

Following those simple, easily understood principles, I think we can transform the religious debate in our country. With an equality emphasis, some of the left's favorite arguments regarding the legislation of morality and the imposition of ideas lose their sting. By emphasizing freedom, we can reclaim the moral high ground in the debate and leave the left as the only side that seeks to silence dissent or opposition. By rejecting fear, we can truly engage our neighbors and do what we do best -- embrace other human beings and share with them the love of Christ.

Amazing. A Christian conservative who believes that the marketplace of ideas is the best test of truth. How thoroughly unusual a concept that must be for the Left. One can well imagine them shutting down when forced to confront an idea that doesn't fit their narrow, neatly ordered view of the world, just like the computer on Star Trek when asked to compute Pi. Not that I expect the Left to be reading anything that might make them feel uncomfortable about their belief that they have the last word on truth.

Postscript: Another interesting site that "d'arc" might have wanted to sample before making her broad generalization that opposition to the Q'uran reading requirement was motivated by a "Republican" agenda to foster "anger and confusion" was Kyle Still Free Press, whose author is a real live UNC student who raises not unfamiliar First Amendment objections with the reading program. The same objections that are traditionally raised by the ACLU when the book being read is the one that favors the small and harshly criticized group called Christians. You know, I've been reading Mr. Still's blog on the UNC reading issue, and while I suspect Mr. Stil is a Republican - he seems far too well acquainted with the National Review - I haven't noticed the "anger and confusion" that allegedly is his motivation for opposing the Q'uran requirement.