|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
A Question of Religious Bigotry? Barrett Kalellis In the ramp-up to the 2008 presidential election, a number of controversial and sensitive issues are receiving more scrutiny, in particular that of religious belief. Unfortunately, serious discussion of this matter is hampered by having the topic put on the taboo list any time it strays from the orthodoxy. Many of these taboos can be placed at the doorstep of the unexamined institutional adherence to multiculturalism. According to the First Amendment and its interpreters, the United States government is supposed to remain agnostic to religious belief, neither endorsing a particular creed nor prohibiting "the free exercise thereof." Religious expression was to remain outside the ken of policy-making, regardless of individual beliefs and practices, whose antisocial excesses could be held in check at the state and local levels, if need be. Should a candidate's religious beliefs matter to the electorate? There are no easy answers to this question. Received multicultural opinion is that individual beliefs should have no bearing on voting decisions, because, well, everyone has a right to his own beliefs and besides, religious dogma cannot inform public policy because of the "separation of church and state." This non sequitur is repeated so often by media spokespersons that it almost sounds true, but in fact, it is not. People's religious beliefs, and how strongly they are held and acted upon, in large part determine their character. Does anyone need reminding about the character issue when it was raised during Bill Clinton's term in office? Exactly what a person believes also seems to be fair game for scrutiny. Tennessee snake handlers, Wiccans, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians all have various beliefs that contrast markedly with those of mainstream religions and for this reason, the general public might have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of adherents of these. Mitt Romney's Mormonism falls into this category. Although the Church of Latter Day Saints has been around since 1829, it is still regarded as a cult in some quarters and its sub rosa ties to the former advocacy of polygamy still remains controversial. Story Continues Below
Rev. Al Sharpton's slight against Romney during a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens was greeted with charges of bigotry by the media and even Romney himself. Today, it seems that one cannot publicly criticize religious teachings without being called a bigot. Like "racist," "nativist," and "homophobe," the word "bigot" is used as a haphazard invective simply to side-step debate, instead of preserving its original meaning of unreasonable intolerance. Again, multiculturalism dictates that all religions be respected, without regard as to whether their creeds are true or not, simply because a person has the right to hold them. This seems to me to be a serious abdication of honest intellectual inquiry. Scholars are wont to say that it matters little if a theology is true, but rather what social and psychological factors combined to produce the religion, and how well it succeeds as a mode of moral government, among other things. This long view of history, and the influence religious belief has had upon men and societies, helps us little in determining whether individuals are mature, sensible and self-controlled enough to make public policy, or whether the beliefs that motivate them serve other purposes. This all becomes clear when considering Islam, an Arabic supremacist religious and political belief system characterized throughout its history by intolerance and violence. Unsuited to democratic societies where freedom of the individual is paramount, Islam is a collectivist ideology that despises free intellectual and skeptical inquiry, and promotes despotism as a ruling principle. Ignorant American politicians and liberal media are doing great harm to the country by lumping Islam in with other religions as simply a matter of cultural identity that should be neither encouraged or discouraged. CAIR and other pro-Muslim propaganda groups are happily throwing around the term "Islamophobe" to suggest bigotry against Muslims. Again, this invective is meant to side-step debate. In a very real sense, we should all fear Muslims. Like communism, Islam is a system that ultimately seeks the overthrow of the American form of government, a prospect that Western Europe now faces, given the large Muslim demographics that will sooner or later seek Sharia law, an imperative in all Islamist societies. Although not every Muslim is willing to actively devote himself to this goal, there are enough crackpot imams throughout the world to incite their followers to violence. Not a day goes by without reading about a bombing here, a beheading there, and always accompanied by endless threats of continuing strife if Muslim demands are not met, particularly in regions where Muslims predominate. In the U.S., even the recent Pew Foundation study reveals that large numbers of Muslims here are not surprisingly in favor of suicide bombings and Osama bin Laden's objectives. The civilian and military leadership of the U.S. has been made to look foolish throughout the world precisely because it doesn't seem to understand the goals and methods of Muslim leaders, nor of Islamic belief itself. Both parties have been receiving poor counsel — being played for suckers, actually — and our military abroad and our citizens are bearing the brunt of this ignorance and obtuseness with feckless and misguided policies. Loud and clear: For Americans to be anti-Islam and anti-Muslim is not bigotry. It is the commonsense preservation of our society and our Western heritage from a belief system that would do away with both, once it gets the chance.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist, writer and pundit for NewsMax.com, whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He can be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com. Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |