The Outstater
Muslim Sensitivities
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” — G.K. Chesterton
WE HAVE WAITED long enough for someone in the GOP leadership to defend the lieutenant governor’s right to describe Islam as “demonic.” That none has done so says a lot about the Indiana Republican Party.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations took immediate umbrage and dismissed his concerns as “imaginary.” But the lieutenant governor’s characterization, on his reading of Muslim statements, including those from Muslims in Congress, struck some as at least arguable if not demonstrable.
I would have preferred he had used “traitorous,” something a court could define. For Muslims, please know, are not of the same social construct as the Bible-carrying civil-rights marchers who crossed the Edmond Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, six decades ago.
Given the chance, the lieutenant governor might have cited Dr. Peter Hammond’s “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam,” a work of pattern recognition, not prejudice. It sets out a demographic model of the political behavior of a Muslim population within a non-Muslim society escalating in stages from invisibility to dominance to oppression. It goes a long way in explaining why nobody wants to move to the 50 or so Muslim-majority countries in the world.
Anyway, if you cannot argue that it is demonic to wish death on others because they don’t believe what you believe, then what can you argue? And if that is not the view of “moderate” Muslims, then why don’t they loudly and spontaneously condemn it rather than dismiss what is a predictable reaction?
And finally, considering the gauntlet Muslims in general insist on laying at the foot of American society — hijabs, jibabs, demonstrative and disruptive public prayer, calls for jihad and insularity — the lieutenant governor can be commended for beginning a necessary discussion, that is, whether Islam is compatible with a constitutional republic and its Christian founding.
I am willing to put aside the “death to America” chants and the expressed disdain for American values. I will even grant that the passages in the Quran ordering the slaying of nonbelievers are being misconstrued by the numerous faithful Muslims trying mightily to carry them out. My brief, rather, is with a Republican Party that cannot stand up for its constituency.
In Indiana, a good part of that constituency is made up of heritage Americans increasingly expected to accept and abide those who openly hate them, who have reduced civil-rights law to merely an anti-white canon. Indeed, it is acceptably woke to think kindly of Muslims solely because they reject traditional America, especially the Christian part.
But again, we expect somebody, particularly somebody in GOP leadership, to stand up to such suicidal empathy. My guide on these issues is Dr. David Azzerad, a professor of political philosophy and a contributor to the influential collection of essays, “Up From Conservatism”:
“The only reason we all get nervous at the mere mention of defending white Americans against injustice is because the Holocaust, slavery and to a lesser extent, colonialism, are the only real instantiations of evil the impoverished American mind can imagine . . . (It) does not seem to be able to compute the possibility that great injustices could be committed against white people.”
Today’s Democrats, of course, thrive on such envy-driven contention. But Azzerad expects Republicans to find the courage to uphold impartial laws, standards and social norms, regardless of what disparities they may produce. He suggests that if Muslims or other groups have a hard time complying with these standards or reject them altogether, then the solution is not to pander to their sensitivities.
So, is it OK for a duly elected state official to confront those who in his view threaten the well-being of his family, friends and neighbors? More than OK, some will say. — tcl
Comments...