   |
  
Follow the Middle
East Forum
|
||||
|
Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your
area.
Congressman Calls for Hearings on 'Radicalization' of White Christian Women
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
During a Homeland Security committee hearing
last week on the "Radicalization of Muslim-Americans," Texas
Congressman Al Green (D) criticized the hearings as biased and unfair to
Muslims, suggesting that the only way to justify them is if Congress would
also conduct a "hearing
on the radicalization of Christians."
Though his position may seem balanced, in
fact, it reveals a dangerous mix of irrationality, moral relativism, and
emotionalism—all disastrous traits in a U.S. Congressman. Consider some of
Green's assertions:
I don't think that most people oppose
hearings on radicalization. I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on
radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don't focus on the entirety of
radicalization…. [W]hy not have a hearing on the radicalization of
Christians?... People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing
on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, "Why is
this missing?"
Fair question—"Why not have a hearing on
the radicalization of Christians?" Before responding, we must
acknowledge that the word "radicalization"
simply means "to go to the root or origin of something," in this
case, religion: a Muslim radical goes to the root teachings of Islam; a
Christian radical goes to the root teachings of Christianity. Accordingly,
there are certainly "Christian radicals" in America. The question
is, do they pose the same risks to America as Muslim radicals?
Green and all moral relativists naturally do
not want to pursue such a question, opting to pretend that any form of
"radicalization"—regardless of the "root teachings"—is
evil. They are certainly not interested in determining the fundamentals of
Christianity and Islam, and whether they are equally prone to violence,
terrorism, conquest, etc. While this is not the place to contrast modern
Christianity's apolitical and largely passive nature with modern Islam's
political and largely aggressive nature—a theme elaborated here—suffice
it to say that, while thousands of modern-day Muslim leaders are on record
quoting Islamic scriptures to justify
violence and hate, one is hard pressed to find examples of modern
Christian leaders preaching violence and hate—and justifying it through
scripture.
The Saudi Grand Mufti, the highest religious
official of Saudi Arabia, Islam's holiest nation, called
on the destruction of all regional churches, quoting Islamic texts. Can
Green find an example of an equally authoritative Christian leader calling
for the destruction of mosques—and supporting it through the Bible?
Green went on to ask "Why don't we go to
the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female
in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of
wanting to do harm to this country? We don't have that type of hearing.
That's the problem."
Thus, not only does the Congressman
irrationally conflate the teachings of all religions together, he also
conflates religion with race (and gender) implying that the only reason there
are hearings on Muslim radicalization is because Muslims are not white,
whereas those "equally-dangerous" blue-eyed, blond-haired female
Christian "radicals" are apparently getting a free pass to
terrorize America.
This logic is flawed on many levels. Islam is
not a race; there are Muslims of all colors, just like there are Christians
of all colors. Moreover, there are indeed "blue-eyed, blond-haired"
terrorists in the world, including females—yet these, too, are overwhelmingly
Muslim. It is dishonest for Green to try to take the focus off of Islamic
radicalization and pin it on that all-purpose bogeyman, "racism."
Regardless, this argument of Islam as a race
is popular and was, for example, used by Congresswoman Jackie
Speier, who also called these hearings "racist." Likewise, a
former American
soldier discussing the Fort Hood shootings lamented that "When a
white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal. But when a
Muslim [namely, Nidal Hasan] does it, they call it jihad."
Notice the confusion; as if a "white
guy" and a "Muslim" represent different races. Of course, if a
person of any color goes on a random shooting spree, it would be racist to
pin it on his race. But if a person of any color goes on a shooting
spree—while waving the Koran, screaming the jihadi paean "Allahu
Akbar!" or otherwise rationalizing his actions in Islamic terms, as did Nidal
Hasan—then we are talking about a shooting spree motivated by a learned ideology
or worldview that has nothing to do with the murderer's race.
From beginning to end, Green—like his
congressman colleague Keith Ellison, whose objection to these hearings
culminated in a teary-eyed
breakdown—relied on emotionalism to make his point: he opened his
statement by offering the Islamic greeting assalama alikum to Muslims
present, dreamily observing: "Isn't it wonderful that the grandson of a
Christian minister can sit on the Homeland Security Committee and say assalama
alikum?"—a meaningless point that does not change the fact that in
Islam, Muslims are only allowed to say "Peace upon you" to fellow
Muslims, never
to non-Muslim infidels, who by nature are deemed undeserving Muslim
well-wishing.
Finally, Green concluded his sanctimonious
attack by saying "I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in
the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue…. I look
forward to the day that we'll have that hearing that deals with the
radicalization of Christians in America"—again, all meaningless
race-related rhetoric and moral relativism, the sole value of which is to
obfuscate the issue at hand: the real threat of "radicalization of
Muslim-Americans."
Raymond
Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
|
|||||
|
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php |
|||||
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment