By now you’ve read (or studiously avoided) approximately 8,517 articles, columns, and blog posts about Donald Trump and Muslims. I imagine we’ve reached a point where everything that can be said about Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from the country has already been said. Actually, as with most news items, we reached that point within the first 12 minutes or so.
I won’t bother getting into that discussion — except to say there are a number of serious problems, policy-wise, with forbidding an entire religion from entering our country (although, as long as they are non-citizens, none of the issues are Constitutional), but it is very true that we should apply extra scrutiny to Muslim immigrants, particularly ones from radicalized regions of the world. Some would call that profiling, and it is, and that’s OK.
Anyway, the real problem with what Donald Trump says is that he’s not serious about anything he says, which is why he’ll often say five or six conflicting things before settling on whichever version gets the most attention and draws the least blow back from the right wing. My theory is that he makes a vague but dramatic statement, waits for conservative columnists to write their “this is what we think Donald Trump actually meant, and if he did mean this then he’s right” columns, and then comes out a day later to clarify that he did in fact mean whatever those clever conservatives hoped he meant. It’s at once the dumbest and smartest political strategy I’ve ever seen.
But because I doubt his sincerity, I can’t bring myself to sincerely analyze his policy proposals. What I’d like to analyze instead — what I find truly fascinating — is western liberalism’s insane and romanticized attitude towards radical Islam, which Trump has highlighted by taking the extreme opposite position. Indeed one of the most befuddling aspects of liberalism is its habit of ignoring, denying, or tolerating atrocities done in the name of Islam, all while eagerly pointing the finger at Christians and conservatives on the rare occasion that mass violence is carried out by an alleged member of that group. The stark contrast was especially on display last week, when liberals did not hesitate to blame conservative Christians for the Planned Parenthood shooting, but refused to make similar indictments of Islam after the terrorist attack in California.
Many liberal politicians have become outright apologists for Islam. Hillary Clinton recently called for people to stop using even the term “radical Islam” because it is offensive to Muslims. She does not want the word Islam attached to any act of terror — as she puts it, “Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism.” This is a woman so desperate to make rationalizations for the religion that when a Muslim kills 14 people in cold blood, she insists he had nothing to do with himself killing 14 people in cold blood. The people were killed not by a Muslim, but apparently by some disembodied, mysterious, brown-skinned phantom force.
For his part, President Barack Obama spent half of his speech after the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 lecturing Americans for not being tolerant enough. Contrast that with a different speech last year, when he took time out of his Easter message to scold Christians for their “less than loving” behavior. Our president chastised Christians on Easter and excused Muslims after an Islamic terrorist attack. It’s incredible. Almost as incredible as Secretary of State John Kerry explaining how he can “see the rationale” for Muslims slaughtering cartoonists who draw pictures of Muhammed.
Now liberals balk at the idea that we should be wary of granting refugee status to Muslims, but most reacted with either silence or celebration when the Obama administration tried to deport a family of Christian home schoolers. They tell us we ought to respect the religious liberties of non-citizen Muslims, but applaud as the government forces nuns to buy birth control and locks Christian clerks in jail. In fact, the only time — and I mean the only time — a majority of liberals will so much as mention the phrase “religious freedom” is when they’re discussing Muslim migrants from the Middle East. The rest of the time they only cheer as the State compels Christian bakers to service gay weddings and Christian taxpayers to fund abortions.
But as they rally for homosexuals deprived of pastries in the United States, they say nothing about the homosexuals tossed from rooftops in Iraq. As they worry that women are being oppressed by manspreading on trains in New York, they gloss right over the women being beheaded for resisting rape in Baqubah and attack ex-Muslim women who speak out against genital mutilation and other abuses women suffer in Muslim lands. If millions of Christians participated in or condoned this kind of behavior, liberals would be calling for an outright ban on Christian religious practice. Indeed, one in five Americans believe churches should be legally forced to perform gay marriages, which would effectively amount to a total prohibition of Christianity in the U.S. already.
Liberalism treats Christianity as a hostile force while it cradles radical Islam against its bosom and whispers sweet lullabies in its ear. Liberals worry about the dreaded Islamophobia and supposed anti-Muslim hatred rampant in the west, but will shut down any mention of the hatred rampant in the Muslim religion. And there’s a lot of that sort of hatred to go around. As John Nolte points out, a staggering number of Muslims worldwide support violence, murder, and Shariah law. Even surveys meant to show a drop in support for terrorism among Muslims (congratulations!) still reveal vast percentages of inhabitants in every Muslim country who favor suicide bombings. Indonesia is often cited as the most moderate Muslim nation, but that Pew poll finds 10 percent of its citizens justifying the act of blowing yourself up to kill innocent people. That amounts to about 20 million in just one moderate country.
Can you imagine if 10 percent of American Christians thought it appropriate to strap explosives to their chests and murder civilians? Do you think liberals would at all hesitate to pin such a problem on Christianity itself? For God’s sake, they already blame us for the Westboro Baptists, and there are, like, 12 of those nut jobs in the whole world. But the Westboro Baptists are about the only examples they can find, and it’s enough to make their case against the lot of us, even if millions and millions of Muslims aren’t enough to prove anything about Islam.
This is not mere hypocrisy. This is schizophrenia.
[sharequote align=”center”]Shouldn’t liberalism hate Islam at least as much as it hates Christianity?[/sharequote]
How can it be explained? Why does the left tolerate radical Islam while waging such a sustained assault on Christianity, despite the fact that Islam far more accurately embodies the stereotypes and strawmen they construct out of our faith? What’s the driving force behind this? Shouldn’t liberalism hate Islam at least as much as it hates Christianity? Shouldn’t it treat Islam with at least as much skepticism? Shouldn’t it be at least as vocal in its protests? At least as vicious in its denouncements? At least as snide in its mockery?
Yes, it should, but it isn’t. Why?
This is a multifaceted and somewhat complicated question, of course, but I want to try and unpack it. Besides garden variety ignorance and fear (which partly explains every bad thing happening in this country), here are the only explanations I can formulate:
1. It enforces the narrative.
Obvious, but it must be mentioned. Liberals have identified Muslims as an aggrieved minority, and this status means they’ll have the Muslim vote, but it also means they can never criticize, or tolerate criticism of, this declared Victim Group.
It’s important for Muslims to be a victim group because, well, they aren’t white. Almost every Muslim is some shade of not-white. The entire liberal theory of everything revolves around the idea that the white man oppresses the folks of color, which makes whitey the bad guy and the colored folks good. To look deeply at the brutality and atrocities committed in the name of Islam would be to admit that sometimes (in fact, usually) people other than white Christians commit acts of evil violence, and to admit that other cultures and religions can be bad would be to undermine their theory of everything. Naturally, if ever they are forced to acknowledge the bad things done by brown folks, they simply explain how it’s all rooted in white colonialism and oppression. Like black-on-black violence, brown-on-brown oppression is still the fault of the white man.
Everything is the fault of the white man. Everything. This is a fact they teach starting on the first day of college, and if you aren’t repeating it as gospel within a week, they’ll drag you into the auditorium and stone you to death.
OK, maybe things haven’t gotten that bad yet, but we’ll be there soon enough.
2. It makes them feel good.
Liberalism is an inherently selfish ideology. It is, as I’ve explained, the worship of the self. Therefore any liberal idea or belief will be adopted primarily to serve the person who holds it. White liberals feel good when they get the opportunity to be knights in shining armor defending brown and black people from the opinions and judgments of other white people. More importantly, it makes them feel morally superior to those other white people, which alleviates some of their white guilt and strokes their ego in the process.
Remember, liberalism looks only to champion what is cheap and easy and undemanding. Multi-culturalism, like environmentalism, is a cheap and easy sort of cause because all it requires of you is lazy acquiescence and maybe a few retweeted hashtags. In the end, of course, liberalism’s obsession with being “multi-cultural” will very much hurt them — as this country begins to resemble the Third World nations they pretend to care about — but liberals can’t think that far ahead. After all, another defining characteristic of liberalism is its utter lack of foresight.
3. It’s all relative.
Liberals don’t believe in rights and liberties for all people, as is evidenced by their immense affection for infanticide. For them, everything is relative, especially human rights. To put it simply, gays have rights here and women have rights here because this is where we live and where they live, and this is what we decided. Other cultures might decide other things, and who are we to judge?
Christians say the same thing about homosexuals (they have a right to not be murdered or beaten, but they don’t have a right to redefine marriage) no matter if the homosexual lives in Des Moines or Demascus. But liberals limit all of their moral pronouncements to our society, because morality is not absolute in the liberal view. Here gays have the inalienable right to co-opt our ancient institutions and undermine the family, but in Iran they don’t even have the right to a jury trial before they’re burned alive. It’s all relative, guys. Nothing is black and white, man. Like, you can’t judge, bro. They teach that on the first day of college, too.
4. They hate Christianity.
Everything in the world ultimately revolves around Christianity. Christ’s death and resurrection were the single most important events in the history of the universe, and now all people and all nations are finally defined by their acceptance or rejection of that truth. Liberalism rejects the truth, and it’s rejection is central to its existence, just as our acceptance is central to ours.
[sharequote align=”center”]Liberalism is, then, nothing more than a protest against Christianity.[/sharequote]
Liberalism is, then, nothing more than a protest against Christianity. It hates what is Christian and embraces or tolerates whatever is not. With this in mind, it makes sense that the modern liberal attacks Christianity while justifying Islam. First of all, attacking Christianity is literally the sole purpose of liberalism to begin with. Second, on a deeper and probably subconscious level, liberals find kinship in any enemy of the one true faith.
Radical Muslims and radical liberals are both radically hostile to the truth of Christ, and in that sense they have almost everything in common. The radical Muslim may choose to wage an assault on that truth by killing those who profess it, and the radical liberal may choose only to mock and belittle them, but fundamentally they have the same impossible goal: the destruction and dissolution of Christianity.
Liberalism is the kindred spirit of any other anti-Christian religion or ideology. Just take a look at the favorable coverage mainstream feminist blogs gave to the Satanic Temple this week if you need another illustration of my point. Liberalism will side with non-Christians over Christians every time, and there they will find some form of camaraderie — although the militant Islamist would happily hang them from a bridge all the same.
Of course, radical Muslims are enemies of Jews as well, but most Jews in America are liberal Democrats. How Jewish liberals, of all people, could be pleaders for jihadism is its own mind boggling question. Here we find the great paradox of liberalism, and of evil generally; that it at once worships itself and hates itself. Liberals Jews are clearly self-hating, but so are all liberals. To worship yourself is to hate yourself, because self-worship is idolatry, and the man who bows to idols separates himself from God, which is the greatest crime he can possibly commit against himself.
Liberalism drives a person to hate himself, hate God, and hate truth. For these reasons it is radical Islam’s most useful ally, and still remains the greatest threat to our civilization.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.