Conservatives have questioned for some time now the strange love affair between the Left and Islam. These two make very strange bedfellows indeed considering the enormity of the gap that exists between them ideologically.
Some similarities can be found between the two, but frankly, there are similarities between all ideologies at some level. No, this relationship is more basic, more tactical in nature- the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Sounds a bit crusadish, but yes, this is as much a component of the fight as anything. The Left eagerly embraces anything challenging Christianity they can. In fact, there are several pithy examples of the Left’s fervent hypocrisy. For instance, remember when Andres Serrano placed a crucifix in a jar of urine to snap a couple photos? The Left defended it as a work of art that that Serrano’s artistic freedom of expression overrode the offense that rest of the world took from the piece. Left-wing Newsweek defended the art, concerned that new intolerants would pull money away from the taxpayer funded National Endowment for the Arts, which partially paid for the art.
But when Pastor Terry Jones stated that his church was going to burn a stack of Qurans in protest to, in part, the Ground Zero Mosque and Islamic terrorism in general, Newsweek dropped the whole freedom of expression bit, and focused on attacking Pastor Jones and “Islamophobia” in general, even going so far as to question whether or not the media should pay attention. This is a rather dramatic, yet unsurprising, change of perception on the freedom of expression and the need for uncensored expression.
Or how about the banning of Christian nativity scenes– during Christmas mind you- in New York City public schools, while continuing to allow Jewish menorahs and Islamic Crescents during Hanukkah and Ramadan respectively. The argument from the City- ever a bastion of liberal policy- was that the Star of David and the Islamic Crescent were… wait for it… secular symbols while the nativity scene was purely religious.
Of course we also have the hypocrisy of the American Atheists, a liberal organization, as another example. The Atheist group was upset over a non-school sanctionedKentucky trip to a church by some football players that used a school bus, and where apparently some players decided to get baptized. One in particular- a 16 year old boy- did it without his mother’s knowledge or permission and she was particularly upset. Now, I’m sympathetic to the concern that my child was getting baptized without my knowledge, which might be a tad bit more indicative of other parenting issues, but the Atheists apparently have no concern over Wellesley, Mass. school field trip to a Mosque. A search of the Atheist website on any Mosque trip comes back with nothing. Nothing to see here, move along.
Another interesting phenomenon in the love affair between the Left and Islam is the near fanatical effort to disassociate terrorism from Islam. It has gotten to the point that whenever an Islamic terrorist acts that the Left will rush forward to either provide subjective caveats in defense of Islam or endeavor to outright disassociate the group from Islam writ large. “They are [insert Islamic terrorist group here] not real Muslims because Islam is a religion of peace,” which is an interesting argument, especially after the terrorist group has gone to all that trouble to justify their attack with the Quran and Hadith. The prime vehicle for this is the Left’s constant pursuit of ‘political correctness’. A case in point- The View:
There was nothing factually inaccurate in what Bill O’Reilly was saying; it is just that he didn’t caveat it in the subjective PC language of the left.
But why the effort to disassociate the two so vehemently? Certainly, the anti-Christian factor plays a role, but the convenience of a kindred spirit in attacking the status quo is too much. It is not so much the message of Islam, but rather the argument itself that engenders the Lefts sympathy. Here is a great example from recently. Bill Maher- the poster child of liberalism- discussed the recent audio tape from Osama bin Laden.
“All right, let me ask — let me quote another person who is not in favor in this country and that’s Osama bin Laden,” Maher said. “He put out a tape last week. And there was nothing about violence or attacking America. See, Lindsay Lohan, people can change. It was about the Pakistani flood.”
Maher read the quote from bin Laden, which suggested the industrialized nations were at fault for the recent flooding in Pakistan.
“And his quote – show it there, he said, ‘Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury,’” Maher said, reading bin Laden’s quote. “‘The phenomenon is an actual fact. All the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear the responsibility for testimony global warming crisis.’”
And based on that statement, Maher determined bin Laden was worthy of praise because they agreed on an issue that Maher’s political opponents haven’t bought into.
“Well, I guess my question is, how come a guy in a cave gets it better than every Republican voting for the Senate?” Maher said.
Oh my. What’s sad, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen a similarity in or admiration of the message from bin Laden and the Left. Now, before my liberals friends go apoplectic ape-shit; let me provide a couple more examples.
Dem Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in April of 2007, “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” This message has echoed how many statements from Aymen al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Of course, who can trust the commentary from a politician? No, when it comes to the Left, we need a real ideologue, or two, to provide the proper context of it all. For instance, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the spiritual mentor and pastor to President Barack Obama, provided this commentary on the 16th of September 2001, “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye… We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost” Well, if you’ve an issue with a ‘man of God’ providing the commentary, then let’s examine academia.
For instance, we have Ward Churchill:
Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance” – a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore” – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.
Or we could look at Presidential friend and colleague, William Ayers, stated in an essay– on September 11th 2001 no less- that he didn’t regret bombing the Pentagon, the Capital building or the New York City police headquarters. In fact, he said that, “I feel we didn’t do enough.” Bin Laden must be pleased to see such a kindred voice so close to the leader of the free world.
This brings us back to the disassociation. Ayers, Churchill and Wright all point to the Left’s common mantra of the ends justifying the means, which is why they need to separate the message- which resonates with the left- from the tactics of terrorism- which isn’t popular. I’d question a little more deeply the tactic of violence with regards to the left, but considering the words of Ayers, Churchill and knowing the history of terrorism, well, we’ll leave it at popularity.
The Enemy of My Enemy
Being a student of history, particularly in the field of terrorism, I find some interesting parallels. Prior to the formation of al-Qaida and following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, there was an ideological battle brewing about the future of the Afghan Mujahedeen. Abdullah Azzam, the ideological mentor of Osama bin Laden and a prime leader of the Afghan resistance wanted to concentrate the near enemy, or Afghanistan. Azzam wanted to focus on Afghanistan and consolidate the gains of the Mujahedeen and the state itself. However, there was a competing voice in bin Laden’s ear eager for bin Laden’s money- Aymen al-Zawahiri. Zawahiri wanted to focus on the far enemy, of the regional Arab states. The interest was that these states were oppressive, nationalist dictatorships that preferred to look to the apostate powers, like the Soviet Union or the United States, rather than look to Islam, which they treated as a byproduct of culture instead of as a vibrant, political philosophy. Needless to say, Azzam was killed in a mysterious car bomb exposition, and then Zawahiri was all alone.
While I don’t expect any car bombs, I see the left making a similar choice, in this case, the near enemy. But who, or what, is the near enemy? Capitalism, or more accurately, Conservative America. A society built on individual accomplishment and self ownership, which was based on and supported by a Christian faith in God. America is a Christian nation, not through state sanction, but through societal belief, which is why the Left has focused so hard, and so long on it. The Left needs to replace the pillar of faith that strengthens so many with the pillar of government dependence. This is no more evident than any American inner city where the Left has focused on destroying the family unit and individual accountability. If we are to stand any chance of defeating Islamic terror, we have to come to the realization that the Left is a willing and witting accomplice.