THE MILLIONS of loyal Americans who proudly call themselves Muslims today find themselves in an awkward position. The religion they love has been used to justify a horrible attack against the nation they love, which may leave them feeling a curious mixture of outrage, pain and uneasiness. This identity crisis cannot be resolved if we rely on the weak guidance of our politicians and diplomats, who sacrifice the truth in their attempts to control public perception. President George W. Bush distorts the truth and undermines our national interest when he says that we are not at war with Islam. In fact, in a way, we are.
Our quarrel is not with the peaceful form of religion practiced by non-violent Muslims worldwide. However, it is plainly against the interpretation of Islam that motivates our terrorist enemies. It is not simply terrorism, but ultimately this malevolent form of Islam that constantly will threaten us until we destroy it. We can't be afraid to admit what we're fighting against just because it may not be politically correct.
One major cause of anti-Islamic sentiment today is that, instead of drawing distinctions between good and bad types of Islam, many Muslim leaders and politicians have insisted that the terrorists we are fighting are not truly Islamic. In his address to the nation on Sept. 20, Bush stated that Islam is strictly "good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah." This simplistic approach can't credibly defend the peaceful types of Islam because it ignores historical and present-day reality.
|
The holy prophet Muhammad himself used violence to expand Islam in the name of Allah, and even the Koran sometimes encourages violence against people of non-Muslim faiths. By trying to make Islam seem morally impeccable, Bush's statement glosses over the larger issue and does not address the concerns of the many who do not notice the distinct branches of Islam that fall under the umbrella of the Muslim faith. Even more seriously, Bush's patronizing remarks take the focus off of the fact that, to protect our freedom and dignity, we must continue to hold religion up to an external standard of humanitarianism. We can accept the religions that meet this standard, but we must destroy the ones that do not.
The foundation of our country and our ideology of tolerance make us reluctant to declare war on any type of religion. Indeed, declaring war on religion is usually a bad idea. But sometimes, a form of religion so actively hateful will surface that it must be slated for destruction. We must have a method of detecting such religions so that when they do appear, we can recognize and fight them.
Because almost every religion claims to possess the universal truth, the accuracy of any particular theology cannot be incorporated into an assessment of a religion's worth. There is no way to objectively determine religious correctness in many cases, and to label a religious interpretation as good or bad based on a mere presumption of its theological accuracy almost certainly would be errant and contrary to inter-religious tolerance. Rather, we must classify the worth of religious sects based upon the impacts that they have upon the health and happiness of the human race.
For example, we consider Catholicism better today than it was during the days of the Inquisition because then it caused a much greater degree of pain, suffering, murder and anguish than it does now. We don't pay much attention as to which of the forms of the religion more closely resembles the original, "true" Catholicism. The only way we successfully can assign it a positive or negative label is by using a secular, humanitarian standard to examine its effects upon mankind. Any religious interpretation that trespasses on human dignity in the name of faith does not deserve to exist, and its destruction should be the goal of every compassionate person.
Just by being a religion, an ideology should not be immune to our scrutiny or our wrath. There can be no doubt that Osama bin Laden's form of Islam ultimately motivates the terrorism of his followers. As such, we are at war with this particular form of Islam. It's great that everyone is so anxious to tolerate every conceivable faith, but we can't simply blame plain terrorism while faith actually assaults us.
Religion, created as a manifestation of the human desire to do good, has so often failed in its purpose that, if we insist on clinging to it as a moral guide, we must constantly steer it on a decent humanitarian course. Any semblance of a religion that strays from this course is not worthy of our respect or tolerance. When harmless superstition motivates mass murder, it is harmless no more. No matter what the politicians might say of the situation in Afghanistan, it's twisted faith versus freedom. And it's time to pick a side.
(Anthony Dick is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
