I suppose that anyone who struggles seriously with ideas accepts that the main stream media (MSM) is biased. How exactly does that bias work to morally disarm us before the Islamic threat? A particularly insidious example of pro-muslim MSM bias is an article about muslims in the military in the NYT. It works by portraying the muslims as one of us, just regular guys. This propaganda is written to makes us seem mean spirited to attack the article and by extension, the people in the news story.
There are, of course, many ways that article attempts to make us identify with the muslims starting with the good photography. Sadly, I can't address all of them, but wish to address the intellectually most difficult one for many people. The article appeals to the rule we've been taught that a person's religion doesn't matter--which certainly is a valuable way to help people get along in the workplace and in social situations. We may even feel noble about protecting this rule as one of our civilization's greatest treasures, our learned habits of religious tolerance. We are thus left defenseless when we should be combating an evil imperialist religion like Islam. We must reflect deeply on our Western practices of religious tolerance and see how they apply in the case of Islam.
Let's revisit how we came to value religious tolerance. After a long period of religious warfare, Europe was exhausted. In England, John Locke wrote the foundational essay on religious diversity and tolerance, A Letter Concerning Toleration. Locke explained how permitting religious diversity can prevent civil unrest. A part of his essay that has received less attention is the part where he argues that Catholicism should not be tolerated because Catholics are "soldiers against his own Government." Locke's argument was right at his time, but Catholicism has changed since then. Islam is like Catholicism back then. As the Islamic community has made clear over and over again, for Muslims in Western countries, the Muslim loyalties lie with the Ummah (Islamic community), and not with Western Civilization.
At this point, there will some readers who will if Catholicism can change, why can't Islam change? They hope for an easy way of our current war. Sadly, there is no way Islam can change quickly enough. One muslim country already had nuclear weapons and other crazier muslim countries are seeking nuclear weapons. Catholicism's changes took a long time and we don't have a long time. There is also the detail that muslims kill people who try to reform their religion with much more ferocity than Christianity has usually shown. These murders greatly slow any process whereby Islam could grow to be more peaceful--if there is any such process.
Let me return to the muslim Marines in the New York Times article. The reporter doesn't distinguish between someone who happens to born in muslim family and someone who is a devout muslim. The Koran is absolutely clear about the need to fight the infidels, and that would be us! As long as a muslim hasn't thought seriously about Islam, I'm sure he could make a fine soldier. But the moment he starts thinking about his faith and consulting his faith community, he becomes a potential traitor who is unsafe to have in the military. Just ask the parents of Scott Seifert, who lost their son to grenades thrown by muslim in the Army in Kuwait in 2003. We must challenge the patriotism of Muslims or there will be many more deaths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Patriotism is a crutch my friend. Nothing more, nothing less. The flag is a symbol used to generate a picture in the mind of country. The problem with jingoism and nationalism is a very large problem facing the world. The same can be said of the cross used as a symbol when it is indeed a piece of wood, if you will. If the principles that lie beneath the symbol are dead then the symbol is of no use, albeit it never is worth much except for, lets say, selling tennis shoes.
I have known and still know many Muslims and you are correct in assessing a difference between them and a radical faction. The same, of course, can be said of Christians, Jews, etc. More people have died in the name of the Christian God than have died in the name of Islam.
I understand some of your feelings regarding these certain types, but remember that the US is as responsible for the factions of growing hatred toward her as the "terrorists" are. Make no mistake; the war on "terror" cannot be won. A war on a tactic is shamelessly and willfully ignorant of the truth. The funding of and support of these same factions in the 70s 80s and 90s is the reason enough that should give you pause in assessing the source of terrorism. If you do not see that our creation of Al Qaeda, or nearer yet, its leader(?), Osama, as the hypocrisy that flips your idea on its ear then I do not think there is much hope of you seeing it.
I hope you do. I hope Bush does. I know the world sees it for what it is.
I welcome your reply and am delighted you could share your ideas in a civil way. Sadly, there is too much lack of civility. Obviously, our disagreements could not be more extreme. Sadly, I'm unable to respond at length. I'm on vacation with my mother for the next five days and have to use the public library for internet access.
So let me address, the most challenging thing that you said from my perspective. "More people have died in the name of the Christian God than in name of Islam." I don't have the historical knowledge or wisdom to know if that is true or not. It's sometimes hard to know how much to blame Christianity and how much to blame other factors in the many evil acts that Christianity has been implicated. The typcial Christian response here is to defend Christianity by talking about the good Christianity has done. I cannot participate in that move. The good has too often come with the bad. For instance, we have been told that we shouldn't attack Mother Teresa, but I do attack anyone who tells the poor in India not to use birth control.
The true Christian answer to what you to have to say lies elsewhere and would only be acceptable to Christians. There is, however, one factor I can offer in strong defence of Christianity that even an atheist should accept as it is the truth. Christianity has cleaned up its act considerably in the last two centuries. It has become tolerant. There were no Christian bombings of The Da Vinci Code movie. South Park gets away with mocking Jesus. Christians have learned to accept that they live in a world where some people aren't Christian. And not only have they learned, they've acted consistently on it for a couple of centuries--except for small numbers considered as freaks by other Christians. This change of heart matters far more than crimes ridiculously ancient.
On the other hand, hatred and terrorism are the mainstream in today's Islam as they always have been. Given how hateful and vicious the Koran is--read the Ninth chapter--I see little reason to hope for progress in Islam. Furthermore, in an era of nuclear weapons, we can't simply wait around Islam becomes a loving sect. They'll nuke us all a thousand times over before such a miracle occurs.
Post a Comment