Multi-Culturalism Vs. Morality And National Survival

From The American Thinker:

December 28, 2010


Multiculturalism vs. Morality and National Survival

By Pieder Beeli

For the sake of analysis, let's consider a hypothesis: The texts of Islam are a terror manual, and the Prophet of Islam is the world's terror-commander.





For the purposes of this article, this is only an unsubstantiated hypothesis. But let's entertain the hypothesis and see some possible consequences in our political culture.





Clearly, the more physically benign behavior of moderate Muslims appeals to the egalitarian sensibilities of the multiculturalists. The multiculturalists -- who cannot stomach the thesis that Islam is evil -- look to resurrect a morally palatable picture of Islam by any means possible. While epistemologically, Islam should be defined by its texts and its Prophet -- whom Koran 33:21 identifies as an excellent example of conduct -- the multiculturalists are only too willing to sacrifice epistemological primacy for their "good" of declaring Islam just as virtuous and legitimate as any other religion out there.





In other words, multiculturalists look for any good -- or even merely the avoidance of some bad -- anywhere in the neighborhood of Islam, and when they find it, presto! Islam itself is declared morally virtuous.





If Islam were a religion of terror, such interplay between moderate Muslims and Western multiculturalists would be lethal. Moderate Muslims would present a moral veneer of Islam which multiculturalists would use to prohibit the moral legitimacy of Islam from being challenged. Reflexive declarations of "Islamophobe!" upon those challenging the multiculturalists' creed would serve to prevent or inhibit the West from ideologically attacking Islam and depriving the jihadists of their noble self-perception.





While it is obvious that one should not be tolerant of evil, to the multiculturalist, the highest virtue is tolerance, and especially tolerance of Islam. Standing prominently in Obama's speeches, including the "A New Beginning" speech in Cairo and his September 11 "Day of Unity and Renewal" speech, are references to "tolerance." One such statement on the passing of Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi praises Tantawi -- who called Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs" -- as "a voice for faith and tolerance." Would Obama so eulogize a member of the KKK who said that black people are "descendants of apes and pigs"?





By the magic of multiculturalism, the once "self evident [truth] ... that all men are created equal" has been superseded.





According to a Department of Homeland Security recently declassified report, "[A signature of r]ightwing extremism in the United States ... [is] hate-orient[ation] (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)." Even though the Islamic world's Jew-hatred is clearly the greatest inspiration to racism today, the word "Islam" or "Muslim" is nowhere mentioned in the document.





It seems that instead of our academic a priori "Islam is evil" hypothesis, the U.S. government has adopted an a priori "Islam is good" hypothesis...and runs with it.





But not just political theory is overthrown by multiculturalism; mathematics is, too. Given that Muslims constitute around 20% of the global population and that 27 of the 28 FBI most wanted terrorists are foreign Muslims, mathematically, Muslims are -- by very conservative estimates -- over one hundred times more likely to commit an act of terror against the U.S. than are non-Muslims. But the equipoise nature of multiculturalism apparently operates on a higher level of mathematics, enabling Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to say in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre that Nidal Hasan "does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."





Political theory, mathematics, and yes, even war are hijacked by multiculturalism. Citing that one does not war against a tactic, but an ideology, the Obama administration wisely criticized the Bush administration for the label "War on Terror." But in saying "our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us," Obama replaces the tactic of "terror" with the tactic of "killing." Whereas Bush led the quixotic "War on Terror," Obama leads the quixotic "War on Killing."





The Obama White house forwarded that the ideological objective in "al Qaeda's case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate." But isn't this objective shared by most countries of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)? For that matter, isn't it the objective of the U.N. to provide some sort of supranational political domination to achieve their ends? How, then, is it that when al-Qaeda pursues the end of a global caliphate, al-Qaeda is bad, but when the OIC attempt to do so, the Obama administration assists them?





According the DHS report, "Rightwing extremism in the United States ... reject[s] federal authority in favor of state or local authority." In other words, DHS is going to war against the Tenth Amendment.





The Obama administration has no objective ideological criterion by which it distinguishes al-Qaeda and the Taliban from any other organization. But identifying and attacking the ideology of your opponent is the first and primary task of war. The administration's clearest statement of ideological warfare has been against the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.





Is the U.S. ideological campaign countering terrorism more interested in exempting Islam from ideological and moral scrutiny -- so as to protect delicate Islamic sensibilities -- than in engaging in meaningful ideological warfare? Indeed, what is the meaning of the phrase "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if those making this oath are unwilling to consider whether or not a certain ideology seeks to put those of us who "[do not] hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger" under subjugation "until they pay the Jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29, Yusef Ali translation)?





Clearly, it would be unfair to say a priori that Islam is evil. Such an assertion would itself be evil. But despite our multiculturalist proclivities, perhaps it is no less evil to say a priori that Islam is not fundamentally evil. Even then-Senator Obama once said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason."





Nearly ten years after 9/11, it just might be time to start a debate on the matter. Resolved: the texts of Islam are a terror manual, and the Prophet of Islam is the world's terror-commander. Given both the disproportionate representation of Muslims on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list and the mantra of American Muslims -- who assure us of the compatibility of critical thinking, self-examination, and moral virtue with Islam -- one might logically, but naïvely, think such a debate would be welcomed by the Islamic community.





Based on the above recent hypocritical, incoherent, treasonous, and racist remarks from the White House, it seems that some critical thinking is long overdue. If we cannot even entertain debate about the moral character of Islam, then the war is already over.





Pieder Beeli, Ph.D. (Physics) is a homeschooling father of five beautiful children. His work has been published at WorldNetDaily.com.