How DARE You Talk About That!!
April 23, 2007
By Tom Barrett
How many times have you heard people say this? "It's not polite to talk about religion or politics." Well, unless we start having some serious discussions about religion and politics in this country, we may see a sequel to 9-11 that will make those attacks pale by comparison. I believe that your life and the lives of your spouse and children may very well depend upon whether or not we start talking about religion and politics. And we'd better start doing it soon!
My friends, the two most important factors that affect our lives are religion and politics. If we can't talk about them, what CAN we talk about? Who won the game? Who cares? The most popular movie in the theatres? So what? Fifty years from now, 90% of what we waste our time talking about won't mean a thing. If we have any sense at all, we will spend our time with our friends discussing things that matter.
Let's start with religion. There are two big lies floating around our country that have been repeated so often by politicians and the media that even normally sensible people are starting to believe them. The first is that we are fighting a war on terror. The second is that Islam is a religion of peace.
What do I mean when I say that the "War on Terror" is a lie? The very phrase belies the fact that the real threat to our nation and the world is a very specific form or terror: Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. The phrase "War on Terror" implies that there are many kinds of terrorists, and that our fight is against a vague enemy composed of these many groups.
There are, in fact, many different groups who engage in terror. The Basque separatists who were initially blamed for the Madrid bombings (which turned out to be the work of Islamic terrorists) were suspected specifically because they had engaged in terrorist acts in the past.
Environmental wackos in this country have engaged in eco-terrorism, which has resulted in many injuries and deaths. Many nations have experienced the tragedy of terrorism at the hands of some extremist group that wasn't satisfied with the use of the ballot box.
But there is absolutely no question that the greatest threat to the security of this nation and the stability of the entire world emanates from one religion: Islam.
If this is so, why is the press not shouting it from the rooftops? Why does our President call Islam a "Religion of Peace"? (Although I notice he has been making that rather bizarre statement less and less lately.) As I wrote in my article "Is This a Religious War?" in November of 2001, the word "Islam" does NOT mean "peace." The literal translation of the Arabic root word for Islam, "asla ma," is "submission." And in fact, one of the basic tenets of this religion is that good Muslims are required to make sure that everyone "submits" to what they consider the only true religion, Islam.
A good example of the power of the Islamic religious leaders was seen in the formation of the government of Iraq. Although we received numerous promises that after the liberation of Iraq the new government would be a secular democracy, the leaders of Iraq declared it to be an "Islamic State." I believe this was done because of threats of violence against them if, for instance, Christians were given the same rights as Muslims.
The lying media tells us that the current violence in Iraq is from "freedom fighters" opposed to the US-led "occupation." In fact, the current violence in that nation stems from: 1) Various Islamic groups killing one another in a bid for power; and 2) Foreign (mainly Iranian) Islamic zealots attacking the new government (including murdering several of its leaders) for not being Islamic enough!
Yes, I hear your indignant cries, and I agree that most Muslims are peaceful people who just want to be left alone to live their lives and practice their religion. But it is clear to all but the most politically correct that the religion has been hijacked by fanatics who praise and admire Hitler, and who lust for world domination by Islam. They use the most bloody and violent parts of the Koran to justify their vicious acts. And this is not new. Many of the Islamic religious leaders of the 1940's preached that Islam should finish what Hitler had started.
But what about the peaceful Muslim leaders? Yes, what about them? Where are they? Where are their voices when terrorists and murderers use their religion to justify their horrendous acts? Why do they allow their mosques to be used as terror recruitment centers and hiding places for bombs and weapons? There can be only two possible explanations. Either the "peaceful" Islamic leaders are afraid to speak up, or they believe that the violent terrorists are doing the will of Allah.
We're also forbidden to talk about politics in polite company. Well, we'd better wake up to the fact that soon politics, in the form of the 2008 presidential election, will have a tremendous influence on every facet of our lives. Will a Democrat or a Republican live in the White House?
Will we live in a Socialist nation (Democrat) or a free one (Republican)? Will we go back to the pre-Reagan days when up to 70% of our income went to Federal Government (Democrat) or will we continue to enjoy tax cuts that allow us to continue to grow the economy (Republican)? Will freedom of religion be crushed, with ministers threatened with jail for "hate crimes" if they speak out against homosexual marriages (Democrat) or will freedom of religion be expanded, with faith-based organizations being allowed to minister to the needy (Republican).
But the greatest difference is the one that will determine whether thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans will die in terrorist attacks. The Democrats are on record as being in favor of the UN controlling our national security. John Kerry strongly expressed this view both after the Viet Nam War and while he was the Democrat presidential nominee and head of the Democrat party. He committed his party to this position. So whoever is nominated by the Democrats for the 2008 race will have to be someone who will carry that torch.
On the other hand, Republican George Bush proved that he was not a lapdog of the UN. He had the guts to defy the UN and tell them that if the US had to go it completely alone, we would do the right thing in Iraq. The UN had issued 17 resolutions concerning Iraq in over a decade, but never had the courage to back them up. "W" had the guts, the resolve, and the determination to do what the UN should have done years earlier. And I believe the Republican presidential nominee will follow in Bush's footsteps.
"But isn't it wrong to defy the International Government?" First, there is no such thing as an International Government. The Bible tells us that one day there will be such a beast, and that it will be controlled by Satan. But today what we have is a collection of 200 nations who get together at the UN to make speeches and make trouble. Although we pay well over half the bills of this monstrosity, most of the nations we support either hate us or envy us, and they continually pass Resolutions condemning us and our allies. Fortunately, the Resolutions of the main body are meaningless, and we have veto power on the Security Council, the only body that counts.
"But shouldn't we respect the UN since most of the nations of the world are members?" Well, let's see. The UN removed the US from the Human Rights Commission. They replaced us with The Sudan. The Sudan is an Islamic (peaceful?) nation whose government has for many years systematically murdered Christians or sold them into slavery if they refused to convert to Islam. The UN turned a blind eye to this for many years. No, I don't think the UN is worthy of respect. It is worthy only of contempt.
So: one party (the Democrats) supports putting our military and ultimately our whole nation under UN control. The other (the Republicans) stands up to the UN and condemns them when they are wrong (which is most of the time). Which one of these do you want controlling your destiny and defending you from terrorists?
I sincerely hope that I have convinced you that this nation needs a dialogue about religion and politics, and that it needs it now. You may not believe in my conclusions on these subjects, but if I get you talking about them with your friends and neighbors, then I will have accomplished my purpose.
It is not enough to have the paid "talking heads" on TV debating these important subjects. We are the ones who will be affected by the outcome of the debates. So we need to rid ourselves of the ridiculous notion that "nice" people don't talk about religion and politics, and get involved before it is too late.