Banner

Islam/Muslims And The Origin Of Political Correctness In America

Contributor: Scott Allswang | October, 2010

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obama-bans-islam-jihad-national-security-strategy-document/

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/This%20is%20a%20Religious%20War.htm


Since I'm going to be doing a presentation on the Fort Hood shooting in a class I'm taking, the subject of political correctness has been strongly on my mind.  It was political correctness that allowed Nidal Hasan's "red flags" to be overlooked and as a result 14 people died and many more injured.  Make no mistake about it, political correctness is deadly!  How can this be happening?  Why is it happening?  What is the source of this political correctness regarding Islam and Muslims? Well, we need look no further than the president of the U.S.  It comes from the very top of our government as this video makes plain (click on first link above now).  When you listen carefully to some of president Obama's remarks in this video compilation, it's not hard to understand why we can't identify the true SOURCE of the Islamic threat to our nation. It's not hard to understand why certain words have been stricken from national security documents.  Words like "Islamic extremism", "radical jihadists", "war on terror", "Islamic jihad", "Islamic fundamentalism"etc.  Why would they do that?  The article above (second link) sheds light on that question.  It states that the U.S. or Obama "does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror."

"The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." (emphasis mine)  That's what was written under Bush and it was the TRUTH. Now we can't say the truth. This president and this administration that he leads have drank the "kool-aid of political correctness" which has blinded themselves and our nation to the true threat and have made us all the more vulnerable to attack and death.  As the president reaches out to the Muslim world with an olive branch, they seek our destruction through a worldwide jihad. As the president does everything possible to not make this a religious issue or a religious war, the Muslim jihadists seek to destroy western civilization for Allah. Obama's exact words from his Cairo speech are, "Let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can.  America is not and never will be at war with Islam."  Even Osama bin-Laden had stated that "this is fundamentally a religious war." In a March 1997 CNN interview, bin-Laden stated, "For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries..."  Did you get that?  It is their religious duty to make jihad against us.  To them it is a religious war and their marching orders come straight out of the Qur'an. However, under this administration you can't say that.  You can't speak negatively about a religion, especially Islam.  Why?  One look at Obama's background will answer that. Political correctness flows out of the dogmatic statement, "America is not and never will be at war with Islam."  From that standpoint, that conviction, that belief.......14 people died on that horrific day at Fort Hood!

The article continues, " That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egupt, and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas." What does that "new beginning" look like?  Well, it looks like the Arab Spring!  It looks like Benghazi!  It looks like Syria!  It looks like Egypt!  It looks like Iran!  We turn on our TV's and what does this "new beginning" look like?  We see the Middle East and Africa in chaos!  We see a foreign policy unraveling before our eyes! We see Americans being killed!

While our leaders do everything possible to avoid using "religious" words and terms, our enemy seeks our destruction and uses religion as their justification!!  This is madness!

The article continues, "But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a "crusade" and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" -- words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America's enemy as "Islamic extremists" and "radical jihadists.  (emphasis mine)

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.

"I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion," Hughes said. "Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have." An attack on their faith?  Faith in what? In Allah and the Qur'an?  The book that says to slay the unbelievers and to make war until Allah and Islam is supreme over all other religions and nations? Oh, I get it. We can't speak out against that even though they are acts of war as they follow these commands in the Qur'an because it's an attack on their faith.  Am I missing something here? Sounds like using religion as a justification for war and murder to me, but what do I know.  I'm just an infidel!

We are fools!  While we bend over backwards to avoid the "language of religion", they are planning our destrution in the name of their religion! This is suicide folks. Political correctness has so blinded us that we bow down to it so that, God forbid, we cause any offense and thus be labeled an "Islamaphobe" or a racist.  Political correctness has instilled FEAR in us so that we are AFRAID to speak the truth and thus we are unable to take the necessary steps to deal with this worldwide plague of terrorism.  The best our president can do is to say that we are at war with al-Qaeda.  Listen to what Osama bin-Laden said on 12/23/98 in an interview with Time Magazine. Bin-Ladan was asked if he was trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons, to which he replied, "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." (emphasis mine).  Does that sound like religious motivation to you?  It certainly does to me.  They are simply following the dictates of their religion to destroy us, while we avoid any talk of religion in dealing with this threat.  THAT BLINDS US AND PREVENTS US FROM IDENTIFYING THE CAUSE OF THIS ISLAMIC TERRORISM WHICH IS THE IDEOLOGY THAT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE QUR'AN AND OTHER HOLY BOOKS OF ISLAM. The shackles of political correctness blinds us to this cause and even for those who can see it....they can't publicly say it!  For those who do, they suffer the consequences in a number of ways including death.  In the same interview on 12/23/98, bin-Laden, when asked if he was worried that the world's number one superpower (U.S.) has called him "public enemy number one", responded by saying, "Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God. To call us Enemy No. 1 or 2 does not hurt us. Osama bin Laden is confident that the Islamic nation will carry out its duty. I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America." (emphasis mine).  To our enemy, this is a religious war and they do what they do in the name of their god and their prophet.  Rather then winning this war, we're more concerned about not offending Muslims. This is a policy of suicide.

I included another article in this E-mail (third link above), entitled, "This Is A Religious War", dated 10/07/01 and written by Andrew Sullivan of the New York Times.  If you have the time and the interest he makes some very interesting points.  Here's a few quotes from the article:

"The only problem with this otherwise laudable effort (to not refer to this as a religious war) is that it doesn't hold up under inspection. The religious dimension of this conflict is central to its meaning. The words of Osama bin Laden are saturated with religious argument and theological language. Whatever else the Taliban regime is in Afghanistan, it is fanatically religious. Although some Muslim leaders have criticized the terrorists, and even Saudi Arabia's rulers have distanced themselves from the militants, other Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere have not denounced these acts, have been conspicuously silent or have indeed celebrated them. The terrorists' strain of Islam is clearly not shared by most Muslims and is deeply unrepresentative of Islam's glorious, civilized and peaceful past. But it surely represents a part of Islam -- a radical, fundamentalist part -- that simply cannot be ignored or denied."

But we are ignoring and denying it under this administration. That's the whole point.  That is political correctness.  To deny reality so as not to offend. I also would take issue with Mr. Sullivan's statement, "Islam's glorious, civilized and peaceful past", unless he is being sarcastic!

"In that sense, this surely is a religious war -- but not of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. Rather, it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity."

"Osama bin Laden himself couldn't be clearer about the religious underpinnings of his campaign of terror. In 1998, he told his followers, ''The call to wage war against America was made because America has spearheaded the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two holy mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control.'' Notice the use of the word ''crusade,'' an explicitly religious term, and one that simply ignores the fact that the last few major American interventions abroad -- in Kuwait, Somalia and the Balkans -- were all conducted in defense of Muslims."

"In 1998, he (bin-Laden) also told followers that his terrorism was ''of the commendable kind, for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah.'' He has a litany of grievances against Israel as well, but his concerns are not primarily territorial or procedural. ''Our religion is under attack,'' he said baldly. The attackers are Christians and Jews. When asked to sum up his message to the people of the West, bin Laden couldn't have been clearer: ''Our call is the call of Islam that was revealed to Muhammad. It is a call to all mankind. We have been entrusted with good cause to follow in the footsteps of the messenger and to communicate his message to all nations.''

Hmm, not a religious war?  "Enemies of Allah", "Our religion is under attack", "Our call is the call of Islam that was revealed to Muhammad"

"This is a religious war against ''unbelief and unbelievers,'' in bin Laden's words. Are these cynical words designed merely to use Islam for nefarious ends? We cannot know the precise motives of bin Laden, but we can know that he would not use these words if he did not think they had salience among the people he wishes to inspire and provoke. This form of Islam is not restricted to bin Laden alone."

"Its roots lie in an extreme and violent strain in Islam that emerged in the 18th century in opposition to what was seen by some Muslims as Ottoman decadence but has gained greater strength in the 20th. For the past two decades, this form of Islamic fundamentalism has racked the Middle East. It has targeted almost every regime in the region and, as it failed to make progress, has extended its hostility into the West. From the assassination of Anwar Sadat to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie to the decadelong campaign of bin Laden to the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues and the hideous persecution of women and homosexuals by the Taliban to the World Trade Center massacre, there is a single line. That line is a fundamentalist, religious one. And it is an Islamic one."  (emphasis mine)

"But it would be naive to ignore in Islam a deep thread of intolerance toward unbelievers, especially if those unbelievers are believed to be a threat to the Islamic world."

"But there are also passages (in the Qur'an) as violent as this: ''And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush.'' And this: ''Believers! Wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous.''

"It seems almost as if there is something inherent in religious monotheism that lends itself to this kind of terrorist temptation. And our bland attempts to ignore this -- to speak of this violence as if it did not have religious roots -- is some kind of denial. We don't want to denigrate religion as such, and so we deny that religion is at the heart of this. But we would understand this conflict better, perhaps, if we first acknowledged that religion is responsible in some way, and then figured out how and why." (emphasis mine)

"The first mistake is surely to condescend to fundamentalism. We may disagree with it, but it has attracted millions of adherents for centuries, and for a good reason. It elevates and comforts. It provides a sense of meaning and direction to those lost in a disorienting world. The blind recourse to texts embraced as literal truth, the injunction to follow the commandments of God before anything else, the subjugation of reason and judgment and even conscience to the dictates of dogma: these can be exhilarating and transformative. They have led human beings to perform extraordinary acts of both good and evil. And they have an internal logic to them. If you believe that there is an eternal afterlife and that endless indescribable torture awaits those who disobey God's law, then it requires no huge stretch of imagination to make sure that you not only conform to each diktat but that you also encourage and, if necessary, coerce others to do the same. The logic behind this is impeccable. Sin begets sin. The sin of others can corrupt you as well. The only solution is to construct a world in which such sin is outlawed and punished and constantly purged -- by force if necessary. It is not crazy to act this way if you believe these things strongly enough. In some ways, it's crazier to believe these things and not act this way."   (emphasis mine)

"In a world of absolute truth, in matters graver than life and death, there is no room for dissent and no room for theological doubt. Hence the reliance on literal interpretations of texts -- because interpretation can lead to error, and error can lead to damnation. Hence also the ancient Catholic insistence on absolute church authority. Without infallibility, there can be no guarantee of truth. Without such a guarantee, confusion can lead to hell."

Therefore, deep religious motivations lead these Islamic radicals to follow the violent dictates of their sacred texts.  To them heaven or hell depend on their obedience or lack of obedience.

"Mercifully, violence has not been a significant feature of this trend (of American fundamentalism entering politics) -- but it has not been absent. The murders of abortion providers show what such zeal can lead to. And indeed, if people truly believe that abortion is the same as mass murder, then you can see the awful logic of the terrorism it has spawned. This is the same logic as bin Laden's. If faith is that strong, and it dictates a choice between action or eternal damnation, then violence can easily be justified. In retrospect, we should be amazed not that violence has occurred -- but that it hasn't occurred more often."

"The critical link between Western and Middle Eastern fundamentalism is surely the pace of social change. If you take your beliefs from books written more than a thousand years ago, and you believe in these texts literally, then the appearance of the modern world must truly terrify. If you believe that women should be consigned to polygamous, concealed servitude, then Manhattan must appear like Gomorrah. If you believe that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, as both fundamentalist Islam and the Bible dictate, then a world of same-sex marriage is surely Sodom. It is not a big step to argue that such centers of evil should be destroyed or undermined, as bin Laden does, or to believe that their destruction is somehow a consequence of their sin, as Jerry Falwell argued. Look again at Falwell's now infamous words in the wake of Sept. 11: ''I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, then A.C.L.U., People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'''  (emphasis mine)

And why wouldn't he believe that? He has subsequently apologized for the insensitivity of the remark but not for its theological underpinning. He cannot repudiate the theology -- because it is the essence of what he believes in and must believe in for his faith to remain alive."

The exact same thing can be said of bin-Laden and those like him. "He cannot repuidiate the theology--because it is the essence of what he believes in and must believe in for his faith to remain alive."
 
"Similarly, Muslims know that the era of Islam's imperial triumph has long since gone. For many centuries, the civilization of Islam was the center of the world. It eclipsed Europe in the Dark Ages, fostered great learning and expanded territorially well into Europe and Asia. But it has all been
downhill from there. From the collapse of the Ottoman Empire onward, it has been on the losing side of history. The response to this has been an intermittent flirtation with Westernization but far more emphatically a reaffirmation of the most irredentist and extreme forms of the culture under threat. Hence the odd phenomenon of Islamic extremism beginning in earnest only in the last 200 years."

"With Islam, this has worse implications than for other cultures that have had rises and falls. For Islam's religious tolerance has always been premised on its own power. It was tolerant when it controlled the territory and called the shots. When it lost territory and saw itself eclipsed by the West in power and civilization, tolerance evaporated. To cite Lewis again on Islam: ''What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society and to the flouting or even the abrogation of God's law.'' (emphasis mine)

Bingo!  Thus you see such a violent backlash from the Islamic world all over the globe.  The religious underpinnings of this violence cannot be denied!

Thus the horror at the establishment of the State of Israel, an infidel country in Muslim lands, a bitter reminder of the eclipse of Islam in the modern world. Thus also the revulsion at American bases in Saudi Arabia. While colonialism of different degrees is merely political oppression for some cultures, for Islam it was far worse. It was blasphemy that had to be avenged and countered."

Can you see the religious thread running all through this?  It is very clear.  We deny it at our own peril.

"That is why this coming conflict is indeed as momentous and as grave as the last major conflicts, against Nazism and Communism, and why it is not hyperbole to see it in these epic terms. What is at stake is yet another battle against a religion that is succumbing to the temptation Jesus refused in the desert -- to rule by force. The difference is that this conflict is against a more formidable enemy than Nazism or Communism. The secular totalitarianisms of the 20th century were, in President Bush's memorable words, ''discarded lies.'' They were fundamentalisms built on the very weak intellectual conceits of a master race and a Communist revolution." "But Islamic fundamentalism is based on a glorious civilization and a great faith. It can harness and co-opt and corrupt true and good believers if it has a propitious and toxic enough environment. It has a more powerful logic than either Stalin's or Hitler's Godless ideology, and it can serve as a focal point for all the other societies in the world, whose resentment of Western success and civilization comes more easily than the arduous task of accommodation to modernity. We have to somehow defeat this without defeating or even opposing a great religion that is nonetheless extremely inexperienced in the toleration of other ascendant and more powerful faiths. It is hard to underestimate the extreme delicacy and difficulty of this task.

In this sense, the symbol of this conflict should not be Old Glory, however stirring it is. What is really at issue here is the simple but immensely difficult principle of the separation of politics and religion. We are fighting not for our country as such or for our flag. We are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution -- and the possibility of free religious faith it guarantees. We are fighting for religion against one of the deepest strains in religion there is. And not only our lives but our souls are at stake."

Let that last quote sink in: "We are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution--and the possibility of free religious faith it guarantees."  It is not a coincidence that our Constitution is under attack by the very government that has sworn to defend it.  Freedom of speech and the press in particular are under assult and Muslim anti-blasphemy laws will soon be enforced upon America and the world.  It will soon be a crime to criticize Islam or Muhammad whether by speech or print.  Will we wake up in time or is the hour already too late?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same." ~ Ronald Reagan