Eureka, I Am a Conservative!

Love this article :)

Eureka, I Am a Conservative!

tamtam

Religion of Denial

Joel Richardson writes a fascinating commentary about why Moslems never seem to admit that their religion is to blame for terrorism.

Here come the Muslim denials. I suppose that this was to be expected in light of the many denials of the past, but it doesn't sting any less when prominent Muslim leaders, against all rationality, logic or evidence, claim that the latest episode of Islamic terrorism was not carried out by a Muslim or Muslims, but by the American or Israeli government. But despite the absurdity of the idea that an American CIA agent would light his crotch on fire for the sake of making Muslims look bad, this is exactly what is being claimed by Abdul Alim Musa, imam of the Islam Mosque in Washington, D.C. This latest case of denial occurred during a recent debate with Jack Goldstone of George Mason University and is featured on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

During the debate, the imam was quite clear as to whom he blames for most global terrorism:

I am just going to go straight to the point. If you go back for the last 20 years, from the first World Trade Center bombing in '93 … We said it then, and we say it now, and this is the belief in the Muslim world: 90 percent of the bombing plots … we believe is done by and with the help and the aid of Mossad and the United States government. … We believe that whoever this guy is from Nigeria, we don't believe he has any ties with Islam.

Notice the imam didn't say, "I believe," but "we." What is so disturbing about this absurd worldview is that, according to a Pew Research Center poll, roughly 60 percent of the world Muslim community shares his attitudes of denial and blame-shifting.

There are some important observations that need to be made here. Most know well that Western culture has been significantly formed by its Judeo-Christian roots. One of the rarely discussed elements of this tradition is the practice of confession. Because of the historical influence of confession on our culture, today we are a people that has openly and repeatedly admitted its own collective sinfulness, not only presently, but also historically. Now, as an aside, it must be qualified that our admission of guilt has been exploited and over-emphasized by many who embrace various revolutionary philosophies that are in conflict with our free and capitalistic society. The current president comes to mind. But I am getting off-track.

Contrary to Western culture, the Islamic world, having been formed almost exclusively by the religion of Islam, is not a culture of confession. Quite the opposite really. While Muslims confess their sins to Allah, they do not believe in confessing to one another. The Judeo-Christian biblical tradition holds that we are all accountable not only to God, but also to each other. Muslims do not believe that they are accountable to anyone other than Allah. And they especially do not believe that they are accountable to non-Muslims.

Not only is Islam not confessional, but it is also a religion that bloats the egos of its followers. Islam's sacred traditions repeatedly tell Muslims that they are the best people in every way.

Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book (Jews and Christian) had faith, it would be best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
– Quran 3:110

Muslims are told that they have the best prophet; that they have the best holy book; that they are the best of peoples, etc. The result is a corporate culture of denial, an entire culture that refuses to take responsibility for its actions and sins. It is a child-like world of blame-shifting and conspiracy theories. Not surprisingly, then, in recent days we have seen numerous examples of Muslim denial from various Muslim leaders.

After the government of Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber, President Moammar Gadhafi openly spit in their face by denying that the Lockerbie bomber had any responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives.

During five public appearances in Washington – at PBS, the Willard Hotel, the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies, SETA-DC (a Turkish think tank) and the German Marshall Fund – Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan made a series of brazenly outrageous remarks and denialist statements concerning the well-documented Armenian Genocide. During an interview with Charlie Rose, Erdogan fumed when asked about the Armenian Genocide: "I can say very clearly that we do not accept genocide. This is completely a lie. I invite people to prove it. ... Something like this is really not possible, and there is no truth to it." During his appearance at the Johns Hopkins University, Erdogan proudly proclaimed that his "ancestors have never committed genocide."

Responding to criticism for welcoming to Turkey Sudanese President Al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, Erdogan also denied the most public genocide of modern times. The genocide in Darfur has claimed over 400,000 lives and displaced over 2,500,000 people. More than 100 people continue to die each day; 5,000 die every month. Yet when asked about this, Erdogan simply shrugged it away, claiming simply that "no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide." Case closed.

Even Turkish Muslim leader Adnan Oktar, whom I consider a personal friend, in a recent interview with Hisham Tillawi on the Republic Broadcasting Network, made the outlandish claim that Osama bin Laden doesn't exist. Instead, Oktar claims:

[Osama] is one of the fantasy actors in this film. I do not believe there is any such person. They organize people who have undergone such Darwinist materialist education and get them to perform various acts of terror in order to depict Muslims as terrorists and anarchists. These activities are under the control of foreign intelligence agencies. I think they used Osama bin Ladin. I do not think any such person exists. …

And, of course, we have seen Iranian President Ahmadinejad make repeated denials of the Holocaust.

Now we have a popular Muslim imam from Washington, D.C., openly claiming that the recent Nigerian bomber was yet another set-up by the Israeli Mossad and / or the U.S. government. Again, we are subjected to the nonsensical claims that no Muslim is capable of acts of terrorism. And again, the imam mirrors the claims of Mr. Oktar and much of the Muslim world by claiming that al-Qaida is simply a creation of the U.S. government.

What should concern us all with regard to this systemic spiritual disease within the Muslim world is that blame-shifting and denial are always the tools of enablers. Let's be very clear here: One cannot claim to be against terrorism but deny it when it occurs in its worst forms. This is a pure contradiction. When a Muslim leader denies blatant acts of terrorism, when one refuses to acknowledge guilt, sin and wrongdoing, they only enable it to happen again and again. The act of terrorism is a process, a community event. The enabler-denialist leaders and the terrorists are equally responsible. Their relationship is symbiotic. Muslims who are truly against terrorism must repudiate such nonsense and begin taking responsibility for the sins of their community. Healing cannot come without confession and repentance. This is why Christianity has the ability to heal the human condition and Islam does not. And it is also why I do not believe terrorism will cease until the Messiah returns.

Here's something to think about: If the Islamic culture was responsible for bringing about algebra and astronomy, why couldn't it put a man on the moon? I believe the reason for this is because at 1 point, I think it was in the 1400s, Islamic scholars closed the book on innovation. Of course, not all innovative Moslems were stifled, but alot of potential advances in technology, science, and art went out the window and into the West. And think about it-Iran didn't know how to build a reactor until we took their students into our school's engineering programs, and showed them how to do it. There is an astounding lack of curiousity in the Moslem world about a variety of topics. And I think their religion has alot to do with that.

Take care of yourselves out there. This is a dangerous world we live in...

tamtam

Private Speech and Public Opinion

Recently, Harry Reid made headlines with some controversial remarks, concerning what kind of Blacks would make the best candidate.

Personally, for all the resentment I harbor at Dingy Harry for the backdoor and sweetheart votebuying that he's done for the healthcare debaucle, I don't give a crap about what he said! Private comments are what they are-private.

Here's a commentary piece I found on my favorite news site, WND. It's written by Dennis Prager.

I think that Harry Reid is a left-wing ideologue who is doing serious harm to a great country.

I think that Harry Reid would charge any Republican colleague with racism and ask for that person's resignation if he or she said what Reid is reported to have said about Barack Obama's color and accent.

I think that every liberal Democrat deserves to be hoisted on his own petard and stung by the race card that liberals invented and have used for decades against Republican conservatives. Given what Democrats and their allies in the media did to Sens. Trent Lott and George Allen – taking innocuous comments and declaring them racist – Republicans have every right to demand that Mr. Reid resign as Senate majority leader.

But to the extent that truth still matters in America, what Reid is reputed to have said is not racist, let alone renders him a racist. It seems to be nothing more than a private opinion about what type of black American had the best chance to be elected president.

But all this is not the issue. Here are the issues that matter:

• the belief that the public has a right to know what people say privately;
• the belief that one knows the "true nature" of people if one knows what they said in private;
• the utter inability of Americans to speak with any honesty about anything to do with race.

Let's deal with each.

The unearthing of the private lives and thoughts of public figures has become so normal as to be expected. What the media have done, however, is to render private conversations of anyone in public life almost as guarded as those of citizens in Communist countries. The news media have become a nonviolent form of the East German Stasi or the Soviet KGB. Just as citizens in those former totalitarian states needed to guard their speech in private, lest secret police informers snitch on them and ruin their lives, so, too, American public figures – from politics to entertainment – now need to guard their most private moments, lest a member of the media snitch on them and ruin their lives.

As Rhett Butler finally said to Scarlett O'Hara, I say to the media about the private speech of public figures, "Frankly, I don't give a damn."

Which brings us to the second point – the belief among many Americans that one knows "the real person" (public or private) if one knows what the person says in private, and therefore, we should know as much as possible about the private conversations of public figures.

This is as dangerous as it is nonsensical.

There is no truth to this belief.

We all say all sorts of things in private that reveal nothing about our true selves. The very nature of private speech is that it enables us to be free to say anything. It is what we do that tells the world who we are. And as regards the speech of public figures, it is what public figures say of significance in public that matters.

It is, to my mind, another of the many examples of the lack of wisdom in the liberal world that liberals think that private speech reveals who people are, and that we therefore have a right, even a duty, to know as much about it as possible. Thus, liberals repeatedly speak of Richard Nixon's private anti-Jewish remarks to make their case that the former president was an anti-Semite. Of course, this "anti-Semite" appointed the first Jewish secretary of state and saved Israel's life during the Yom Kippur War. But to the foolish who believe that private speech is the real thing, little of that matters in assessing Nixon's character insofar as it related to Jews.

To sharpen this point, contrast Nixon with another recent president, Jimmy Carter. I would be willing to wager that Mr. Carter has never said anything in private as derogatory about Jews as Nixon did. But to the vast majority of Jews and non-Jews who understand that the security of the Jewish state is the most pressing Jewish issue, Mr. Carter has been the Jews' problem, not Mr. Nixon. Likewise, Harry Truman sometimes used the term "kike" in private conversation, but it was he who went against the advice of his entire State Department and recognized Israel's existence as soon as Israel was declared a state.

Finally, we again come to the falsehood that Democrats and liberals regularly offer when they ask Americans to have honest dialogue on the race issue. Thanks to liberals, one can sooner swear in public or declare the world is flat than say the most innocuously valid things about racial matters. One cannot even oppose race-based affirmative action without liberals labeling the person "racist."

Because I prize private speech and truth more than I prize humiliating Harry Reid – who, again, would not be nearly so decent to any Republican – I find the revelation of his private speech and especially the attention paid to it as if it signifies anything important about him to reflect only one more example of a downward moral spiral in my beloved country.

What do you think about Harry Reid's comments?

tamtam