http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5142
"Islamophobia"?
Political
correctness is running amok in American civilization. This irrational,
self-contradictory ideology is virtually ensconced in culture. Millions
have been victimized by this propaganda and intimidated into silence
when confronted by ideas and behaviors that are immoral or destructive.
This sinister ideology began to assert itself with a vengeance during
the turbulent 1960s. In seemingly conspiratorial fashion, socialistic
forces strategized means by which to bully mainstream Americans into
silent passivity. As Cuban producer, director, and author Agustin
Blazquez explains: “Change their speech and thought patterns by
spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to
others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and
injustices” (2002). While accusing the status quo of censorship,
attempting to stifle free speech, and oppress the left, ironically, the
left now uses the very tactics they mistakenly imagined in their
opponents. Hence, the social liberals in politics, education, and beyond
launched “a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and
oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of
manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society” (Blazquez). They
have worked their agenda with a shrewd precision that would be the envy
of the most sinister dictators of human history—from Nero to Hitler to
Stalin.
Strangely, the effort to silence the traditional Christian values that
have characterized America from the beginning has been accompanied by
inconsistent and self-contradictory accommodation of Islam. Immediately
after 9-11, the forces of political correctness sought to minimize the
obvious connection between Islam and the attack by insisting that Islam
is a peaceful religion, and by promoting Islam in public schools and
encouraging the construction of Mosques throughout the country. Even as
Christmas cards, Christian prayer, and allusions to Christianity in
American history were being challenged across the country, an elementary
school in Texas permitted a girl to present an overview and show a
video about her Muslim religion to her classmates; a public middle
school in San Luis Obispo, California had its students pretend to be
warriors fighting for Islam; and a school near Oakland, California
encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a
three-week course on Islam. Consider the attack by Islamic gunmen that
killed 12 people at the offices of a French satirical newspaper in
Paris. The event evoked reactions that sought to lay blame on
“disrespect for religion on the part of irresponsible cartoonists” and
“violent extremists unrelated to Islam,” rather than placing blame on
Sharia law, Islam, and the Quran (McCarthy, 2015; Packer, 2015; Kristof,
2015; “All in With…,” 2015; Tuttle, 2015).
The open promotion of Islam across the country has become widespread as
footbaths are being installed in universities and other public
facilities, traffic in New York City is disrupted by Muslims performing
prayer rituals in the streets, public school classrooms and
extracurricular activities are altered to accommodate Ramadan and daily
prayer rituals, and the capitol lawn is given over to a Muslim prayer
service involving hundreds. Any who dare even to question these
proceedings are instantly pummeled and castigated as intolerant and
“Islamophobic.”
As an example, consider the nationwide brouhaha that surrounded the
construction of a mosque near ground zero. Despite what the left
alleged, participating in a public rally to voice opposition to the
construction of a mosque was not “bashing Islam” or being intolerant and
“Islamophobic.” In 1941, the World War 2 generation was not being
“Japophobic” when they went to war with Japan because Japanese aircraft
bombed Pearl Harbor, killing some 2,400 of our young men, and wounding a
1,000 more. Nor were they “Naziphobic” when they sought to deter
Germany from its attempted conquest of Europe and eventually America.
Even to suggest such is ludicrous.
They were merely facing reality—an ability today’s social liberals seem
to lack, coupled with their complete naiveté regarding the sinister
threat posed by Islam. What if Japanese living in America had sought to
erect a Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine over the wreckage of the USS
Arizona?
Make no mistake,
true Christians do not hate Muslims,
nor harbor prejudice or ill will against them. Rather, informed
Christians and Americans simply recognize the fundamental threat that
Islam poses to the freedom to practice one’s Christian beliefs without
fear of reprisal. Indeed, taking steps to minimize the spread of Islam
is itself the exercise of First Amendment rights. It is a sincere
attempt to discourage the spread of religious views that are
antithetical to liberty and the Christian principles on which America
was founded—and on which her perpetuation depends.
The American Founders recognized this fact.
the founders on islam
Father of American Jurisprudence and New York State Supreme Court Chief
Justice James Kent noted that “we are a Christian people, and the
morality of the country is deeply ingrafted [
sic] upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those
imposters”—referring to “Mahomet and the Grand Lama” (
The People…,
1811, emp. added). Did you catch that? The moral fabric of America is
“deeply engrafted” on Christianity—not the false religion of Islam.
Labeling founders of false religions “imposters” is not “hate speech;”
it is simply describing reality.
James Iredell, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George
Washington, felt sure that Americans would never elect Muslims, pagans,
or atheists to political office when he demurred, “But it is never to be
supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to
persons who have no religion at all, or
a religion materially different from their own”
(1836, 4:194, emp. added). Father of American Geography, Jedediah
Morse, explained the intimate connection between America’s freedom and
the Christian religion:
The foundations which support the interests of Christianity, are also
necessary to support a free and equal government like our own. In all
those countries where there is little or no religion, or a very gross and corrupt one, as in Mahometan
and Pagan countries, there you will find, with scarcely a single
exception, arbitrary and tyrannical governments, gross ignorance and
wickedness, and deplorable wretchedness among the people. To the
kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom,
and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy (1799, p. 14, emp. added).
Here is an extremely wise, insightful, and sobering admonition—if we
will listen and learn. The portrait that Morse painted has not changed
in the intervening 200
+ years. Muslim nations across the world are
still
“very gross and corrupt,” with “tyrannical governments” and “deplorable
wretchedness among the people.” Is that what Americans desire for their
own lifestyle? Does even the politically correct crowd wish to live in
such a country? They do not. Yet, they foolishly hasten the deleterious
transformation of our country.
In his masterful refutation of Thomas Paine’s
Age of Reason,
Elias Boudinot, who served as one of the Presidents of the Continental
Congress, offered a blistering assessment of Islam in its
contradistinction to Christianity:
Did not Moses and Christ show their divine mission, not only by the
nature and effects of their doctrines and precepts,...but also by doing
good, in the presence of all the people, works, that no other men ever
did…? But Mahomet aimed to establishhis pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government;
while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of
his followers, and all pretences [sic] to foretell things to come…. [The
laws] of Mahomet and other impostors have generally
been compiled by degrees, according to the exigencies of the states, the
prevalence of particular factions, or the authority who governed the
people at his own will. Mahomet made his laws, not to curb, but humor
the genius of the people; they were therefore altered and repealed from
the same causes…. [W]here is the comparison between the supposed prophet
of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together? The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied (1801, pp. 36-39, emp. added).
Ethan Allen exposed a fallacy of Islam in his discussion of the fact
that the providence of the God of the Bible “does not interfere with the
agency of man,” whereas
Mahomet taught his army that the “term of every man’s life was fixed
by God, and that none could shorten it, by any hazard that he might seem
to be exposed to in battle or otherwise,” but that it should be
introduced into peaceable and civil life, and be patronized by any
teachers of religion, is quite strange, as it subverts religion in general, and renders the teaching of it unnecessary… (1854, p. 21, emp. added).
He also warned against being “imposed upon by
imposters, or by
ignorant and insidious teachers, whose interest it may be to obtrude their own systems on the world for infallible truth,
as in the instance of Mahomet” (p. 55, emp. added).
When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were appointed and authorized by
Congress to negotiate a treaty with the Muslim terrorists who
continually raided American ships off the coast of North Africa, they
met in London in 1786 with the Ambassador from Tripoli. On March 28,
they penned the following words to John Jay, then serving as Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, reporting their conversation with the ambassador:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of
their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,
and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done
us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador
answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it
was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have
acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make
slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman who
should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. That it
was a law that the first who boards an enemy’s vessel should have one
slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive
to the most desperate valour and enterprize [sic], that it was the
practice of their corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to
take a dagger, in each hand, and another in his mouth, and leap on
board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against
them, that he verily believed that the Devil assisted his countrymen,
for they were almost always successful (“Letter from the…,” emp. added).
While the Founders were supportive of “freedom of religion,” they were
not for encouraging false religions (i.e., all non-Christian religions)
to spread in America, or to be given “equal time” with Christianity, or
allowed to infiltrate civil institutions (see
Miller,
2013). Consider U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story who was
appointed to the Court by President James Madison in 1811, and is
considered the founder of Harvard Law School and one of two men who have
been considered the Fathers of American Jurisprudence. In his
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Story clarified the meaning of the First Amendment as it relates to religious toleration and Islam:
The real object of the [First—DM] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity;
but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any
national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy
[of one denomination—DM] the exclusive patronage of the national
government (1833, 3:728.1871, emp. added).
Samuel Johnston, Governor of North Carolina and Member of the
Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, attempted to allay fears that anti-Christian ideologies may infiltrate our elected officials:
It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans,
or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can
never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in
one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the
Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves (as quoted in Elliot, 1836, 4:198, emp. added).
John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams and distinguished for his
significant contributions to the Founding era and thereafter, summarized
the attitude of most Americans and Founders toward Islam in his
brilliant “Essays on the Russo-Turkish War” written in 1827. In these
essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has
posed throughout world history:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the
lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent
genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor,
proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation
and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the
sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent
God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood,
that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new
Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future
retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and
sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He
poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain by degrading the
condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he
declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his
religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE
WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF
HUMAN NATURE. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their
characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is
yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet
shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon
earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against
every man, and every man’s hand against him [Genesis 16:12—DM]. It is,
indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should
have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of
human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and
benevolent Jesus (1830, 29:269, capitals in orig., emp. added).
Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in
contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he
further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine,
including the degrading practice of polygamy. A few pages later, Adams
again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the
Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that
Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives,
by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and
delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet,
may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to
propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it
can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed
alike, by fraud, or by force (29:274).
No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated
the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing
atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that
one must go
against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation
of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even
towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or
misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge
its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine
Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians,
it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon
the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has
softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of
social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed,
suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too
powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it,
except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation
of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without
trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open
proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (29:300, emp. added; see Miller, 2005).
These observations by a cross-section of the Founders of the American
Republic represent the prevailing viewpoint in America for nearly 200
years. Only with the onslaught of “political correctness” have so many
Americans blinded themselves to the sinister threat posed to their
freedom and way of life.
When General George S. Patton was waging war against the Nazis in North
Africa during World War 2, he had the opportunity to observe what Islam
does for a nation, particularly the female population. In his
monumental volume
War As I Knew It, writing from Casablanca on June 9, 1943, Patton mused:
One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women
is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He
is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on
developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 49, emp. added).
The Founders of the American republic were hardly “Islamophobic.”
Rather, they wisely recognized the fundamental threat posed by the
teachings of the Quran to the American way of life. As pursuers of
truth, they believed Islam to be a false religion that should no more be
encouraged to thrive in society than belief in Peter Pan’s Neverland.
They viewed Christianity as the one true religion (see Miller, 2010).
Indeed, mark it down, if Islam is given free course to alter the laws
and public institutions of America, it logically follows that America
will become
just like the Islamic nations of the world.
It is naïve and foolish to think that Islam can eventually become
widespread in America and America remain the same country she has been.
It is only logical and obvious to conclude that when America’s
institutions are altered to accommodate Muslims, Islamic influence will,
in time, dominate the nation. Then how will Christians be treated? The
answer is self-evident. Look at how Christians are treated even now in
Muslim countries around the world. Ask yourself this question: “Is there
any Muslim country on Earth where I would choose to live?”
When clear thinking Americans examine Islam’s doctrines, and assess the
behavior of its adherents over the centuries, they are merely doing
what any rational person does every day with respect to a host of ideas.
The honest heart naturally desires truth. Truth has nothing to fear.
The God of the Bible wants truth contrasted with error so that all
sincere persons can discern the truth and distinguish truth from
falsehood (1 Kings 18:21; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Christianity is inherently a religion of truth, reason, and logic (John
8:32; cf.
Miller, 2011).
conclusion
"Islamophobia” is an irrelevant, concocted notion. It is a prejudicial,
“red flag” word created by the left to stifle any hint of an inherent
threat posed by Islam to the American way of life. In the words, again,
of Agustin Blasquez: “It’s one thing to be educated, considerate, polite
and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say
things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary
dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda” (2002). As the
deterioration and complete breakdown of traditional American (Christian)
values climax, the destructive perpetrator—the left—is strangely eager
to enable Islam to trample underfoot any Christian vestiges that remain.
[NOTE: Ironically, if Islam were to take over America, many of the
pluralistic ideologies championed by the left would be the first to be
eliminated—from feminism to homosexuality.] To borrow the title of James
Burnham’s book (1964), the suicide of the west is nearly complete. Or
as D.T. Devareaux’s disturbing political cartoon depicts, Islam is happy
to serve as the hammer finger on the weapon of Liberalism used by Uncle
Sam (who upholds Western Civilization) to terminate his own existence
(“The Art of…,” n.d.).
REFERENCES
Adams, John Quincy (1830), “Essays on Russo-Turkish War,” in
The American Annual Register, ed. Joseph Blunt (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402,
http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.
Allen, Ethan (1854),
Reason, the Only Oracle of Man (Boston, MA: J.P. Mendum).
“All In With Chris Hayes” (2015), “Terror Attack in Paris,”
MSNBC, January 7,
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/terror-attack-in-paris-381379651841.
“The Art of D.T. Devareaux” (no date),
http://plancksconstant.org/es/blog1/2009/06/the_art_of_dt_devareaux.html. See “The Study of Revenge: The Polemical Artwork of D. T. Devareaux,”
http://plancksconstant.org/es/blog1/2008/02/devareax.html.
Blazquez, Agustin (2002), “Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times,” NewsMax.com, April 8,
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml/.
Boudinot, Elias (1801),
The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickens).
Burnham, James (1964),
Suicide of the West (New York: John Day Company).
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836),
Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina, On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury), second edition,
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html.
Iredell, James (1836),
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot).
Kristof, Nicholas (2015), “Is Islam to Blame for the Shooting at Charlie Hebdo in Paris?”
The New York Times, January 7,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/nicholas-kristof-lessons-from-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-in-paris.html?_r=0.
“Letter from the American Peace Commissioners (Thomas Jefferson &
John Adams) to John Jay March 28, 1786” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson
Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827,
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849.
McCarthy, Andrew (2015), “Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism,’”
National Review, January 7,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395876/dont-blame-charlie-hebdo-mass-murder-extremism-andrew-c-mccarthy.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Violence and the Quran,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491&topic=44.
Miller, Dave (2010),
Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Logical?”
Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:50-59, June,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977.
Miller, Dave (2013), “Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam?”
Reason & Revelation, 33[3]:26-28,32-35, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1116&article=2128.
Morse, Jedidiah (1799),
A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin),
http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.
Packer, George (2015), “The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders,”
The New Yorker, January 7,
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders.
Patton, George (1947),
War As I Knew It (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.
Story, Joseph (1833),
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.).
Tuttle, Ian (2015), “The Rush to Blame the Victims in the Charlie Hebdo Massacre,”
National Review Online, January 7,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395912/rush-blame-victims-charlie-hebdo-massacre-ian-tuttle.
Practically
everyone understands that the term “day” can be used in various ways,
both within and without Scripture. It can be used to refer to the
opposite of night (Genesis 1:5). It can be used to refer to a literal,
24-hour period (or even a part of that 24-hour period—cf. Matthew 12:40;
