A liberal supports theocracy

RenewAmerica ^ | May 28, 2005 | Rudy Takala

[Tailgunner Joe]

Democrats generally claim to be fervent adherents to the doctrine of church-state separation. And they usually are; unless, that is, they can find a religion detrimental to the interests of America.

Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) recently introduced H. Res. 288. The resolution condemns "bigotry and religious intolerance, and [recognizes] that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect." That sounds innocent enough, but it doesn't take the resolution long to turn in to a sycophantic flattering of one particular religion.

The resolution begins expounding upon the virtue of a certain book, stating that "the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality." It proceeds to assert that "mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity."

Apparently, prisoner abuse is now the moral equivalent of disrespecting books. That absurdity aside, what is the precise purpose of this resolution? The section declaring "that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected," for example, isn't a controversial opinion. As a resolution, it doesn't hold the weight of law. As such, it would have no effect on our society. So why, exactly, should we pay our representatives to waste their time voting on it?

It was inspired, said Rep. Conyers, by recent incidents of Quran defacement. Most people are aware of recent allegations concerning incidents of "disrespect" for the Quran at Guantanamo Bay. But another case, more relevant in its implications for Americans, included a Muslim woman who received a Quran through Amazon.com. She claimed that she found the phrase "Death to all Muslims" written in the book when she opened it.

Now Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, says his organization wants an investigation and a public apology from Amazon.com. He also wants Amazon.com to fund educational programs that foster religious tolerance.

However, the Quran wasn't sold directly by the Amazon Website. It was sold as a used book from another user. Amazon simply facilitated the transaction. Still, Amazon paid the woman for the cost of the book, apologized, and gave her a gift certificate. She's demanding more, however, with the explanation, "I couldn't even go near this book for a couple of days."

Her emotional instability is unfortunate. However, it isn't Amazon's fault. American Muslims may be "peaceful," but only relative to the Muslims of the Middle East. In terms of their fellow Americans, they still seem to be militant and hard-pressed to coexist with the rest of society. They'll find reasons to be offended and explain that their religion augments the effect of insult on their being. They'll also claim that, so long as fellow adherents of their religion continue to commit acts of terrorism, the rest of us have a special responsibility to demonstrate our lack of prejudice. This means they have an extra, extra special right not to be offended, and they will legally annihilate anyone who disagrees.

There are certainly some nice, truly "peaceful" Muslims living within America. But this woman, along with members of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the people that Rep. Conyers seeks to appease with his resolution, are not it.

Leftists may not want a theocracy led by Christians, but they wouldn't mind some type of theocracy so long as it was led by anti-Americans. For the right to establish a theocratic way of governance, in the eyes of progressive intellectuals, a religion must first prove its worth by slaughtering Americans.

It would be wrong to murder American Muslims, if murder is all Rep. Conyers claims his resolution is supposed to be against. Of course, he could also propose a resolution in honor of the Ten Commandments to achieve his purpose of opposing murder. But his intent isn't to oppose the violation of rights; it's simply to pay tribute to his special friends.

Arbitrarily abusing prisoners is wrong. However, it is also wrong to pay homage to a specific group just because a segment of its followers were courageous enough to declare war on America. The proposal to honor a group simply on account of its frequent decisions to riot and kill people is utterly bizarre. While he's at it, Rep. Conyers should propose a resolution recognizing the humanity of Neo-Nazis; after all, not all National Socialists are necessarily violent.

Regardless, we have the right to do whatever we please under the Constitution so long as we aren't violating anyone else's rights. That includes the defacement of books. Unless its purpose is to work toward the systematic destruction of our Constitutional rights, a resolution declaring the mistreatment of books to be "against civilized humanity" is worthless. After Islam has managed to purge itself of its most disreputable components and to become a respectable religion, perhaps we can honor it with a Congressional resolution. But until that happens, the proposition of doing any such thing is absurd.

[expatguy]

bttt