She thought of it in reference to the current universal brouhaha about resettling migrants from Syria and other Muslim places. A whole lot o' posturin' goin' on. Her comments are similar to my own thoughts
This refugee issue is a study in how many things become news solely because of a desire to slam the other side. I am actually stunned how many people I know are posting about this. Guys, this all existed in the same form last week. Not one of the images you're sharing of the refugees was unavailable prior to this. If this is the great moral issue of our time, where were you 7 days ago? Yes, there are millions of refugees, and a week ago we were all ok with the US taking 10,000 over the next year or two. The difference between Barack Obama and Chris Christie's plan is 10,000 out of about 4 million.
I'm not against taking refugees, but the posturing is really irritating me on this one.I'm not against taking some refugees either, but the way this is playing out bothers me as well. When a cause becomes more fashionable this week than it was last week, I get curious as to why. In this case, there was already some mid-level complaining about Obama's declaration we were going to take some of these migrants, without consulting with anyone else. The terrorist acts in France escalated that, as conservatives ramped up over it. "See? See? We shouldn't be doing this! Obama is endangering the country. He refuses to acknowledge that Islamic extremism exists." Predictable.
That in turn gave liberals a chance to ramp up, claiming that the conservatives were only objecting because they are racists and bigots. As their entire electoral hopes for the last thirty years have depended on painting conservatives as bigots, they couldn't let that go by. "We're not going to be that kind of nation. Not on my watch. We are going to be generous and openhanded, pretending that 99% of the migrants are persecuted and desperately poor. We are going to call them refugees, and bully the media sources into doing the same. We will also claim that you are calling all of them terrorists."
Cue pictures of bombed-out buildings and cute children with sad faces. Other causes can go pound sand, the eyeballs are going to This Week's Social Justice Cause.* Liberal Christians are going to get on it, because hey, you wouldn't want to be devoted to some loser cause that no one's talking about, would you? That's Jesus there that you're rejecting. We've got Jesus on our side, because we love him and you don't. I find that evil, and don't mind stating it that strongly. The people writing these things doubtless have many good intentions - I don't call them evil to the core or beyond redemption or anything like that. But that particular tactic is evil. It is arrogant. It sets up a hierarchy of popularity of which causes will get our attention, forcing causes into an arms race for headlines. Worst of all, it pretends that God has told Charles what James should do. Very dangerous.
*Missouri students protesters know the rules and picked up right away that they were going to be pushed into second place or worse, and they didn't like it.