Certainly one of the most discouraging thing about politicians is the number of them who have been in office for decades in spite of having flunked high school Civics and never having read the US Constitution. Or if they have, they have sold out every principle they may have learned for the sake of the interests of a special-interest constituency—in this case, CAIR and other pro-jihadist pressure groups who have political leaders such as John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi in their pockets. As an example, take a look at H. Res. 288, introduced by Michigan Representative John Conyers last year, the man who is going to be the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.
Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;
Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;
Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;
Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;
Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States:
Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;
(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;
(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and
(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.
Like the silly resolution sponsored, in part, by Dearborn’s state representative to the Michigan Legislature, Gino Polidori, Conyers’s resolution has nothing to do with promoting freedom of religion. Instead, it is an explicit endorsement of one particular religion, Islam, and one particular holy book, the Quran, as deserving of protection from criticism or “intolerance,” a term conspicuously absent from, and nowhere prohibited in, the US Constitution.
Anyone who pays attention to recent trends in the law and popular culture knows there is a huge wave of animosity towards religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular. In its most simplistic form, (and it never rises far above a most simplistic argument), the good guys want a secular government, by which they mean one with policies cleansed of the influence of repressed persons who believe in kooky supernatural law-givers like Yahweh, Jesus, or Moses, and their wacky laws about honoring your parents, and not committing murder or stealing. (You can enjoy a “faith-tradition” in private, as long as you keep it at home, and ensure your public, political acts are always inimical to that faith tradition as a remnant of a bygone pre-enlightened era).
The bad guys are “theocrats,” a term that is scrupulously never defined by the people using the insult. One commentator I heard described Thomas Jefferson as a “secularist,” and John Adams as a “theocrat.” The description of Jefferson as a secularist is at least imaginably accurate, but tarring John Adams as a theocrat is nothing more than petulant ignorance.
But the really fascinating thing about these secularists is that, as much as they fear theocracy (whatever they mean by that), they never have a negative thing to say about the world’s biggest, most belligerent, and probably only, actual theocracy—Islam.
Anti-Christian secularists distinguish Islam as harmless, because, after all, Islam is all about “peace.” When they are forced to remark on Islamic violence, it is always as a defensible response to Christian and Jewish provocation and persecution. While secularists take it as dogma that Christianity especially has been responsible for war after war and massacre after massacre at some ill-defined point in the murky past, current and numberless examples of vast populations ground under the bloody heel of the Islamic theocracies go by without comment.
For those of this secularist ilk, James Dobson’s views on queer marriage are a clear and growing danger to America, while there is no threat at all from Islamic clerics and leaders of genuine theocratic dictatorships, like Iran, who are promising to force their religion on us, or kill us in the process.
I wish my only point was that the people who have adopted the secularist vs. religion model being popularized today simply can’t be taken seriously as thinking people. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, because silly people in high places make very powerful tools. (Could anyone be sillier, for example, than Jimmy Carter, and yet still such a handy weapon for our enemies? And silly me, I voted for him. Twice).
It's the people behind these useful idiots who are serious, and skillfully use these dupes as useful tools. In fact, it makes the tools more dangerous, because they can influence national policy. Of course John Conyers didn't draft this resolution on his own! it was dictated to him by his jihadist puppeteers. That means John Conyers is not just a very silly man. He is a very silly man with a powerful Congressional committee under his control, and who himself is under the control of someone no American ever voted for.
And though already dull, these tools will not rust from lack of use.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't get it. So, in the name of tolerance we have to protect Muslim religious rights and their civil rights. But, in choosing to follow Islam haven't they already surrendered their civil rights? I mean the religion itself allows no individual rights for any of its followers. So how are we supposed to protect them?
It seems to me that in assuring they have their religion accommodated we are going to have to convert ourselves. Then, we will all be equal victims of this cruel and mirthless religion.
No Thanks
Right. The religion of peace and submission. Recent history shows us that Muslims are not interested in peace, so all that leaves is submission: ours.
With politicians like Conyers and others living in "La La Land," like Bush, America is in real danger. The Islamofascists may ultimately win through guile and deceit, but only over my dead and lifeless body.
Post a Comment