Or: Everyone is equal, but some ideas are just too radical!
A case can be argued that at least some of the anti-war sentiment is based in bigotry, acknowledged or not. There is precedent for the premise; witness Captain Ed being villified for having the audacity to call someone 'articulate'. (how dare he?) It would seem that one gets to assign motivations to another's commentary/positionality.
Okay, I just will then.
It suddenly dawned on me that there may be something behind war protestors' positionality: particularly regarding how 'we' are apparently supposed to take it as a given that the religious fundamentalism of certain foreign sociopolitical entities is not subject to change; specifically: that efforts to introduce democratic governmental organization in the MidEast are doomed to failure, because 'it won't work there'.
... why not?
Is the argument that religious belief is not to be opposed? Or is the argument that religious belief is only not to be opposed when it forms a framework upon which government in some areas operates?
Consider:
'Here', religious belief in all aspects, (even,,, almost particularly, personal conviction, regardless its application, or not, outside the sphere of purely personal action/interaction) is fairly vigorously deprecated by the 'enlightened', nowhere more so than when it serves as an anchor point for a moral compass.
More correctly, 'here at home', religious belief is tolerated, barely, when it goes absolutely no further than the worship-house door on (insert your favourite day here). Once the weekly ordeal has been endured,,, and photographed, (publicity gambits are publicity gambits: all's fair in love and politicking) it must be put away, never to be allowed to affect one's 'public' existence, lest one be considered, somehow, anachronistic. The implication is, evidently, that 'we' are somehow 'above' all that.
'There', however, theocratic sociopolitical foundations are to be left alone, regardless the radical fundamentalist aspect of any one, because 'it's just not going to change'.
The implication 'there' would seem to be that 'they' are somehow not 'above all that'.
Which could lead one to think that perhaps, just perhaps, those ever-so-enlightened ones aren't quite as thoroughly 'embracing diversity' as they want everyone to believe.
"Everybody is human, and 'humanity' is 'advanced' enough that 'we' find it reasonable to expect them all to throw off the yoke of organized religion. However, those poor, unfortunate, downtrodden Middle Eastern Islamics are not going to change their ways, they aren't 'advanced' enough to embrace democracy and 'we' shouldn't try to introduce it."
... but I bet if I said that was bigoted, they'd get mad at me, too.
