Greenwald falls into the Campbell trap toward the end of the article. Greenwald starts with the rampant Islamophobia in the US and can’t stop until you either agree with him on all Islamic issues or you are one.
At their strongest, Greenwald and Campbell, they simply toss a tragic event off to a few local idiots, ask the community to correct the situation and move on without getting into the preachy screachy “I’m surrounded by people who don’t agree with me” which makes them Islamaphobes, or Homophobes, or Mosogynists, or worst yet–”One Percenters”.
Then again I’ve never had to hustle interest groups for speaking fees, ads, appearances, and so on and used polemic to do so. My idiocy is free of charge: no financial strings attached.
Oh Kristallnacht how history repeats itself. This time against the core semetic culture and hopefully will not spread like a crack in a windshield.
All of this reveals a broader truth: Islamophobia in the United States is pervasive and intense, and worse, is as ignored and tolerated as it is destructive.
I do think it fair to ask how pervasive and intense may be America-phobia, anti-Christianity, and overall intolerance (i.e., belief in sin) in the Islamic-American “community.”
The broader truth indicated to me is that, regardless of rights and wrongs, who started it, or which group hates most… in diversity is not our strength. The movement to multiply the cultures to prove how open, enlightened, and nice we are is about as suicidal as gay marriage, and at least as dumb.
“The movement to multiply the cultures to prove how open, enlightened, and nice we are is about as suicidal as gay marriage, and at least as dumb.”
Ah, but is it wrong?
is it wrong?
Well, of course not. Nothing is wrong, at this point, except judgement and intolerance.
But what if Confucius was right; filial piety is basis of civilization. How does a diverse society, one with no preference for any particular metaphysic or moral code maintain itself through time. Homogeneity, as the Chinese and Japanese demonstrate, is easier to manage with minimum muss and fuss. Yugoslavia is a counter-example showing difficulties inherent in diversity.
What’s obviously queer about where the open-society guys are taking us at present is that we are simultaneously to endorse gay marriage (because it’s not “wrong”), while also to be hush-hush about Muslim terrorists (Fort Hood was work-place violence.), Sharia, “honor” killings, Muslim sexism and homophobia. To mention these things is hate.
“To mention these things is hate.”
I’m not sure what gay marriage has to do with Muslim (or any) terrorists, but of course it’s not wrong to mention these things so long as it’s not based on the assumption that ALL Muslims subscribe to these things. And so long as we acknowledge that terrorism comes in all colors and shapes and religious flavors.
ALL Muslims subscribe to these things
No. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But is there an Islamic doctrine or set of doctrines that set(s) it apart from, for example, zen Buddhism? I mean it no disrespect when I say that it is intolerant, at least of sin, if not of other religious outfits. My point is only that it’s a bit nutty to deliberately ditch one’s tradition in favor of the (purportedly rational)non-tradition of all questions are open questions. It’s even nuttier in the name of open-ness to deliberately diversify the culture with cultures that are in tension, at least, and to some extent hostility with our own.
Not to say that diversity without any benefits, just that it seems to me the risks far outweigh them.
I don’t know any Buddhists who would decide others aren’t worthy of living and pick up a gun to help them out of the world, no. But some others of our contemporary (or relatively so) extant religions have done a good bit of killing in The Name of …. whatever.
And, while I’m glad you think “it’s not wrong to mention these things,” the problem is that many liberals do. This is why Colonel Hasan, born Arlington, Va. to immigrant parents, shouting God is Greatest while slaughtering 13 and wounding 29 gets labeled a disgruntled worker. And, while it’s not so bad in the US, perhaps, consider the limitations put on speech in Canada, UK, Netherlands… Cartoons, novels, political commentary all subject to violence from Muslims and prosecution by open society bureaucrats.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things this does raise, though, is the special challenge paused to all of you by Muslims in the military.
There are only about 3,000 Muslims in the military right now, and on the one hand, you want to recruit Muslims. There is a great need for Muslims in the military right now. On the other hand, this is not the first case we’ve seen of fratricide by someone with a Muslim background in the military. How do you deal with this challenge?
CASEY: Again, I think that’s something else we need to be very careful about, and I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it’s not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society.
And that gives us all strength. So again, we need to be very careful with that.