While this started out as a comment to Mike's latest column at Townhall (SM Link), it began to take on a life of its own as my thoughts on the subject spread along the tangent. Mike discusses Islamphobia as it is claimed to exists in the United States with a purported trend of religious and ethnic persecution post 9/11. Mike correctly points out, however, that no such phenomenon actually exists, despite media claims and the chortling of pro-Islamic groups like CAIR, OIC and others.
Even despite decades of violence, murder, mass-murder, terrorism, and outright warfare conducted on the West and specifically America in the name of Islam people in America exist in relative harmony... the vitriolic hate spit forth daily from the Left notwithstanding. Afterall, do let's be clear, sadly there are historical incidences of violent persecution (religious, ethnic and otherwise) in this nation's history by which we may compare to what is happening today. But as yet, I see nothing comparable in the last five years to Salem (ca.1692), Wounded Knee (ca. 1890) , Nauvoo (ca, 1848) , and certainly there are no roving bands of white hooded vandals ransacking taxicabs and convenient stores nationwide. And yet, even as a war rages cautiously with the fanatics of Islam, no perceptible hostility actually exists in the United States against Muslims - citizens, nationals, nor immigrants. So, I think we can confidently put the persecution issue to bed, at least and until the next murderous domestic attack, after which all bets may well be off. Because if anyone's animosity and bigotry, given the historical record, is to be understood, it should be that of the Americans if it actually existed. For in addition to Mike's extended list of atrocities committed by Muslim fanatics in the name of Islam (by their very own words, claims, and treatises), let us not forget the additional acts of warfare directed at us over those previous decades -the taking of hostages, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and the nearly forgotten missile attack on a US Frigate. Some may recall in May of 1987, two Iraqi missiles ripped through the hull of the the USS Stark on routine patrol in the Gulf prior any direct hostilities, killing thirty-seven sailors and injuring another twenty-one. Its just a few hundred more for the tally, and quite enough justification in itself for a War that came by all accounts, 14 years late.
That being said, people, even groups of people, are solely responsible for the consequences of their actions... or in this case actions taken on their behalf. When that group fails consistently to distance itself from the collective malevolence, it becomes guilty by association. It is certainly not up to me to offer my trust in anyone nor anything. It must be earned. Then it is maintained as such... as TRUST. Yet, once it is shattered, it may only be reassembled by my grace alone. That being said, trust does not equal blindness, anymore than caution should render paranoia, or disagreement treated as depravity. For trust is a virtue, built on the concept of experience, yet exercised like faith. And as I said it can be shattered, but only then should there be the pressumption of animosity. With regard to Muslims, the faith of the West may be cracking. But, it is hardly shattered.
Mike makes this point profoundly enough, so finally here's, my tangent...
In his column, Mike offers the following rhetorical apology,
Sorry if I am more afraid of Muslims than I am of, let’s say, you run of the mill yokel who made some anti-Muslim remarks on 9/12. Those serving the Prophethave a much higher kill ratio than the Christians, the secularists, the atheists, the agnostics, the Jews, and the Wiccans combined.As for my fear of the 'run of the mill yokel', it grows with each passing day as their venomous hate-filled minds ferment to insanity with irrational rage. Their's however is not directed at Muslims. It is directed intensely at Christians, feverishly at Jews, increasingly at Mormons, and generally at all American's regardless of creed. It is indeed a phobia, as described by Webster... “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation...” especially given the lack of basis for that fear. One might call it Ameriphobia, in fact. And its spreading worldwide like few other plagues mankind has known. Currently 1 in 5 Democrats shares this affliction as evidence by their belief that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the US Government as part of a Zionist conspiracy. From what I can tell it could be as many as 1 in 3 here locally. Considering the demographics of cities on the West Coast (and my previous jesting aside), it might actually mean that 2 out 7 people that you pass on the street here in Portland are thus infection, while 3 of the remaining 4 might agree with them simply politically. So, with that in mind, given the religious furvor clearly visible on behalf of a phobia zealously embraced, who seems more capable of violence in America today?
Given that and recent comments logged right here on this forum, it would seem that Ameriphobia has escalated from fringe political fanaticism, to the brink of quasi-religious crusade. In other words, consider that 'some' Americans (1 in 5 Democrats) believe their Nation and countrymen to be purely evil, and capable - nay GUILTY - of holocaust. Is it not 'their' responsibility to liberate their region, the nation and then the world of that enemy by any means necessary?! Dare we assume from their furvor 'their' efforts are not already being implemented?
Afterall, for them, time is short, the tumor malignant, regional popular opinion is in favor, and 'the' enemy of 'their' enemy may not be a true friend...
...but it will serve as ally to 'their' purpose for the time being.
Whose time? Whose being?
Ameriphobia may be irrational, but the fear and its potential manifestation are quite real.