Radical - a useful adjective

Cal Thomas, one of our nations foremost proponents of the "Muslim Menace," continues on that vein in his latest article. But he touchingly adds an adjective - radical - to make it clear that he's not against Islam itself. Just radical Islam. Of course even a shallow reading of his work reveals that Radical Islam is a term so broad as to include most of the Islamic world and certainly the bulk of American Muslims.

Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as "tolerance," which is being used against us?

. . . Instead, they build their mosques with minimal opposition from the squishy politicians and elites who could stand against them if they had any backbone. And so those radical Islamists who would dominate America move forward with plans to subjugate us all to their religion and way of life.

See that sounds like it's not just Radical Islam that is the problem. Or to put it more clear, it's seems like Thomas is incapable of recognizing a non radical Islam. But on some level he recognizes that others would be upset at the bigotry of attacking Islam (not to mention the logistics of such an illogical approach), so he adds Radical as a fig leaf.

The Muslim Menace

Here's the story, as near as I can tell. Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, both Australian Ministers, held some meetings on what the Koran teaches. Members of the Islamic Council in Victoria reported on what was said and brought legal action under the religious and Racial Toleration Act. The Judge found in favor of the Islamic Council.

The problem with this story is that it is a Conservative Cause Celebre. Not on the level of Terry Schaivo (yet), but still pretty far up there. And the Conservatives tell the story the same way. These two ministers were just quoting the Koran and repeating what Muslims believe; how can that be construed as an attack? And even if it is an attack, why not let free speech have it's day?

As for the first part of that, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that the seminar may not be as innocent as conservatives are claiming.

Judge Higgins said that during the seminar Mr Scot had claimed the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.

Mr Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.

Part of the problem is that there is a core question that can't be discussed but which people have different opinions on. We are trained by society to place religions on a graduated scale. At the top is our religion (whatever it might be) and then there are religions that are like ours. And somewhere down near the bottom of the scale are what we consider Cults and Illegitimate Religions. Muslims (and many others) see Islam as a legitimate religion; Pastors Nalliah and Scot as well as many Conservatives do not seem to. They can't actually state that openly, but if their actions make it clear, what are we to assume?

Actually I think the second argument, about free speech is the better one. Rather than taking these Pastoral Punks to court, expose their nonsense for what it is.

Anyway something to keep in mind. For those interested in a conservative take on this issue, check out this article by Diana West (the article that started me down this path).

Confusion

I have to admit to being a bit confused in my reaction to Mona Charen's latest article.

On the one hand she says things I agree with, and that are, by inference, very critical of the Bush Administration. She rights about the overly incestuous relationship we have had with Saudi Arabia. No person better exemplifies that relationship than President Bush, who seems unlikely to ever hold Saudi Arabia to task.

On the other hand her article is filled with the "Islamic Menace" rhetoric that drives me up a wall. In particular she points to the African American Islamic community as something fearful. And, parenthetically, her article begins with the standard, "I know what really happened to Ms. Clinton better than she does, even if I haven't read the book."

The problem is that some conservatives seem unable to understand that one can support actions against Islamic Terrorists without wanting to condemn Islam.

The Failure to Provide a Solution

Cal Thomas writes an alarmist piece today at Townhall. It's one of those "Muslim" menace articles, about how terrible the Muslims are and how we should fear them.

For one thing, they are trying to take over this nation and establish a theocratic state. Cal Thomas states that he has the names of 67 known Communists in the state department. Oh wait a minute, he actually states "What if their intentions are the eventual destruction of this nation through its democratic processes and the imposition of a theocratic state? Would that be enough to get our attention?

In at least 16 states, Muslim groups, by their own admission, are organizing voter-registration drives and political consciousness-raising events for this express purpose."

Of course Thomas provides no names or the opportunity to double check his work--but why would he? We might find out that some of the groups have four or five members. Or we might find out that these groups only want to promote Muslim values, in the same way that Christian organizations want to promote Christian values.

He states, "If politicians succumb to pressure from Muslim activist groups and equate Islam with the religious and political heritage of this country, we will know that an important beachhead has been attained by our enemies. From their behavior in other parts of the world, one can safely predict they will use this beachhead to advance their cause."

And what does he propose we do about the crisis? Nothing. Well, not nothing, he does want us to close the borders. But he doesn't propose any real solution to the "problem." Instead his purpose seems to be to make us worried. To scare us. To make us think twice before welcoming Muslims into our lives. Perhaps to think about letting Muslims know they aren't welcome here.