news-record.com

OPINION

Cal Thomas: E pluribus diversity?

Friday, November 13, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

Government and military officials have issued statements since last week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, that have nothing to do with the reality of what occurred, what is occurring and what our enemies would still like to have occur all over the United States. Listening to them leads to the conclusion that these people were handed talking points because they are all saying pretty much the same thing; that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, stereotype or give in to paranoia.

As the quote says, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey is a good man and a faithful soldier. That's why it is difficult to believe he wasn't forced to say on the Sunday news programs, "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well." Casey also spoke of his "concern" that there might be a "backlash" against Muslim soldiers, though there has been little that could reasonably be called a backlash since 9/11.

The alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was unimpressed by our diversity. It may have been diversity that set him off. Hasan and other Muslim extremists don't practice diversity. They mostly practice Sharia law, which backlashes against anyone who won't submit to their fundamentalist view of the world.

The U.S. State Department's Web portal, www.america.gov, provides a perfect example of the problem. The site bills itself as a place to "meet the people" and "explore the values and ideas that define the character of the United States." But when it comes to American Muslim organizations, that often means providing a U.S. government stamp of approval to organizations allegedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Why do so many American leaders seem ashamed and apologetic about America? Holding to the view that America is unexceptional and that no idea, policy, belief, or practice is to be preferred over any other is not diversity. Rather, it is thin gruel; unappealing and unappetizing, and it robs us of our strength.

Did diversity build and sustain America through world wars and economic challenges? No, it was a firm set of principles held by patriots of many races who were willing to pay the price in money and blood. These days, we seem to be increasingly confronted with people who are the political equivalent of shoplifters: they want the benefits without paying the price.

If you are unwilling to part with the money you earned while building a business, or a life, to fund a life for others who refused to do so, are you selfish? As a way of punishment, should your hard-earned money be given to those who didn't earn it?

If you have a particular faith (Christian) you are to be discriminated against and silenced. Your sacred symbols -- from crosses on a desert mountain, to Nativity displays in public places -- are banned. You increasingly are forbidden to pray publicly "in Jesus' name," but Muslims can speak of Allah and Mohammed anywhere they like, and who is foolish enough to try to silence them?

Apparently, "diversity" is not for everyone and even if it were, what does it mean? To those who wish to impose it, it seems to mean that no one can any longer speak of truth, or even seek it out, because according to the rules of diversity, there is no objective truth. Thinking so makes you a fundamentalist, unless you are a fundamentalist Muslim, in which case you are to be accommodated, pacified and given special rights -- like ritual footbaths, prayer rooms and prayer times at public schools and universities that would probably be denied and challenged as violations of church-state separation if a Jew or a Christian were to make requests unique to their faiths.

I grow weary of having to tolerate everything when none of those making such demands seems willing to tolerate much of what I believe. Shouldn't diversity be a two-way street instead of a roadblock?

 

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist. E-mail: CalThomas@tribune.com

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

mamaboilermaker

November 13, 2009 - 8:47 am EST

"they want the benefits without paying the price" = perfect description of those who want to be free to practice faiths that do not tolerate other faiths and those who want the benefits of hard work and a stable family without working hard and forming stable families. Freedom isn't free, but the government tries to give some groups the benefits of freedom without requiring them to do what is necessary to sustain freedom--things like not killing your "infidel" co-workers or saving money for a down payment before buying a house, or appreciating your neighbors' religious holidays while observing your own,or making babies only with a decent human being who is willing to help raise the child.

Diversity, yes. Stupidly ignoring obvious danger signals, NO.

Sawdust

November 13, 2009 - 11:36 am EST

Meanwhile, back at the scene of combat, the military just reported a significant drop in the morale of our troops in Afghanistan. Whodathunkit? A Ditherer-in-Chief who refuses to send the requested re-enforcements, a Weasel-in-Chief who is uncomfortable with the idea of victory, that can't be the cause, surely. Probably the fault of the evil George Bush.

This isn't funny, folks, this is serious. The man in the White House poses a serious danger to the safety of the country.

Sawdust

November 13, 2009 - 9:04 am EST

When we were attacked on 9/11, George Bush went to the scene of the attack and told us that those responsible would pay. He then proceeded to do the best he could to carry out that promise.

When we were attacked at Ft. Hood, Barack Obama tried to tell us that we hadn't been attacked at all, and that we shouldn't act stupidly by jumping to the rather obvious conclusion that it was an act of terror. Just a lone nutcase, his mind snapped, the fact that he is a Muslim has nothing to do with what he did.

What a load of crap. The Commander in Chief denies that we have terrorists in our own military. The military does not protect our soldiers on our soil. Even the military must be politically correct, no one in this country dares to offend the delicate sensibilities of any Muslim, not even when they give out the jihadist war cry before they start murdering unarmed people.

I think I know why Obama refuses to call this an act of terror. Having been committed on our soil, it doesn't exactly fit in with the "overseas contingency operation" that replaced the "war on terror".

Meanwhile, our soldiers in Afghanistan continue to be killed for lack of support while Obama dithers about the troop request. 3 months now, and still he can't make up his mind. The sort of thing that happens when we hire a Chicago thug as President. Lack of leadership. Total lack of leadership. He'll probably have one of his famous 'summits' to decide what to do about the situation. Oh, I forgot, he already did. But he rejected all the ideas coming out of that summit, is going to come up with his own idea. That should be good. And soon, don't forget soon. Maybe before Christmas. I'm glad I'm no longer in the military. Having a Commander in Chief who dithers on support for the mission, who is "uncomfortable with the idea of victory", does not make for happy soldiers.

Mialamasoul

November 13, 2009 - 10:12 am EST

Yawn. I am disappointed in the subversion of a word (diversity) that was not intended to be used as a catch all for tolerating the intolerable. It is a paradox that religious freedom in ths country means accepting a religion which the writer has characterized as "not accepting others." I have heard that in Islam, its believers beleive in all other religious leaders, even Jesus. Fundamentalists come from both sides of the fence. Is Christian fundamentalism any more savory that Muslim fundamentalism? The same way Muslim "extremists" reject other faiths and practice sharia law (not practiced by all Muslim states, practicioners, by the way) Christian "extremists" reject other faiths, and practice being preferential and uncharitable within their own walls, churches neighborhoods. What is the difference? Both are ideologies that reject instead of accepting, and judge instead of forgiving, preaching a dogma of separatism and racism (veiled or not). What IS the discernible difference.? That one is American made and the other comes from foreign soil?

Sawdust

November 13, 2009 - 10:23 am EST

"What IS the discernible difference?" Well, for starters, Christian fundamentalists may be a royal pain in the butt, but they usually don't go around killing those with whom they disagree on the finer points of religion. A small and unimportant difference, to be sure, but still I don't fear attack by CF's.

And Political Correctness, the religion at whose altar the moonstream media worship, prevents labelling those who kill us as terrorists. Everyone who has even half a brain knows that the Fort Hood shooter is a terrorist. It doesn't require the mind of a Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. PC doesn't preclude taking a shot at Catholicism, or Judaism, or any other religion except Islam. American Muslims have replaced blacks as the top victim class in the country.

What we need to do is to kick every last Muslim out of this country, and tell them to come back after they clean up their religion. What we WILL do is to continue to apologize for their barbaric behavior, and continue blaming that behavior on George Bush, not their sick and twisted religion.

Panacea

November 13, 2009 - 12:50 pm EST

Christians are just as apt to use religion to justify violence: hence the murders of abortion doctors, and the thinly veiled attempt to portray neo-Nazi's as a church (Church of Jesus Christ Christian or the World Church of the Creator).

The whole bit with Hasan has less to do with political correctness and more to do with the repeated failure of intelligence agencies to share information. The FBI knew Hasan was communicating with the same radical cleric who preached to the 9/11 terrorists, and they did not tell the Army because they didn't think he was a threat.

Neither Christians nor Muslims have clean hands when it comes to religion and violence. Both have had their episodes of religious intolerance and persecution. The Puritans in America persecuted Catholics and Anglicans during the colonial period. Jews have consistently been discriminated against by Christians in this country.

So I don't buy your argument, not one little bit.

Sawdust

November 13, 2009 - 3:26 pm EST

How often do Christians go on a killing spree in the name of religion? Every few years, maybe. Muslims? Every day. EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Mialamasoul

November 13, 2009 - 12:51 pm EST

Sigh, tragic. You are correct , Christian fundamentalists do not kill... with guns anyway. Yet nothing beats a good character assasination to render anyone who wants to help the poor or disposessed in this country completely ineffective and irrelevant. And while on the subject of terrorists, the last time I checked, Timothy McVeigh was not a muslim fundamentalist. So before you deign to decide who should be thrown out of this country, consider the current twisted trend of leaving the poor to fin for themselves in this country. The twisted notion that it is fine to practice your chosen faith, even if it encourages you to demean others who are unlike you. Where is the love of God in that ideology?

Sawdust

November 13, 2009 - 7:31 pm EST

When was it that Timothy MvVeigh went on his killing spree? 12, 15 years ago? So long I've forgotten. Muslims killed a couple dozen in Pakistan TODAY. Muslims killed someone, somewhere in the world, yesterday. And on Wednesday. Tuesday? Yep. Every single day, EVERY SINGLE DAY Muslims kill in the name of religion.

And another thing: When McVeigh did his thing, I don't recall seeing any Christians dancing in the streets to celebrate. After 9/11, Muslims were dancing all over the world. You're gonna have to do better than McVeigh.

CADDMAN

November 13, 2009 - 12:03 pm EST

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF MORE AMERICANS FELT THAT WAY

Mialamasoul

November 13, 2009 - 12:52 pm EST

Which way is that?

CADDMAN

November 13, 2009 - 2:15 pm EST

THE AMERICAN WAY!!!!!! THE SAWDUST WAY!!!!!

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search