The November 22 issue of Newsweek magazine has, as its cover, a caricature of Barack Obama balancing on one leg and sporting six outstretched arms. This image also happens to be a caricature of the Hindu “deity” Shiva, one of the chief beings of the religion, which means that a national publication chose to reference a venerated symbol of a major world religion in a demeaning and satirical manner.
Certain representatives of Hindu organizations have understandably voiced their disapproval, though the controversy has received scant media coverage. Elsewhere among public figures, the silence has been deafening.
Contrast this against the events of two and a half months ago when Terry Jones, a lone pastor of a tiny Florida Church, in commemoration of 9-11, made plans to render copies of some fourteen hundred year old writings into ashes. Reaction was immediate and intense. News of the event spread throughout the entire world, with condemnation flowing abundantly from every quarter of every organization and every spokesperson that could get to a microphone.
From the highest office in the land, to national and state law enforcement, the fervent denunciations of Jones poured forth. Barack Obama pronounced the act “contrary to [American] values.” Hillary Clinton castigated Jones for his planned desecration of what she termed the “Holy” Koran; though she is nowhere on record ever having referred to the “Holy Bible,” or (Some deity forbid) “Holy Matrimony.” Attorney General Eric Holder, who could find nothing wrong with voter intimidation by New Black Panthers in Philadelphia, vigorously found plenty wrong with Jones’ intentions, which he termed “idiotic and dangerous.”
Of course the liberal media, singularly fixated on “First Amendment” free speech rights and “tolerance” whenever the topic is public violation of Christian symbols, was universally supportive of those pronouncing every curse and prohibition upon Jones.
Muslim organizations that were offended by his actions did not merely criticize or condemn him. They did not merely insist that the rest of America do likewise. They characterized the mere possibility of such an act occurring as evidence of a reprehensible national attitude shared by any who refused to sufficiently condemn him and who were unwilling to offer, in contrast, appropriate deference to the icon he had dared to assault. Sadly, throughout America, even the Christian Church found ways in which to jump through every necessary hoop and “spiritualize” the requirement imposed on it to genuflect at the altar of the Islamists and ultimately offer its support.
That none of this very public scorn for Jones was ever sincere is made plainly evident by the total lack of commensurate condemnation of Newsweek over its far more visible and flagrant mockery of Shiva on its front cover this week. Those who stood in line to bravely rebuke Jones are now nowhere to be found.
So what was it that ultimately differentiated the two incidents? And why does a public that was in such tumult over the Jones episode treat the current situation as a comparative “yawner”? The answer lies not in the actions of either Jones or Newsweek but in the nature of those they affronted.
Hindu disapproval of the Newsweek cover picture has nowhere generated death threats against the magazine staff. Nor are any who dare buy the magazine living in fear of reprisal by adherents to the religion. Hinduism is not characterized by a centuries-old quest to dominate and subdue, by every possible means, all who refuse to ascribe to it. Thus, no one anticipates that insults to Hindus might trigger violent retaliation. Not so for Islam.
Since 9-11, Americans have become increasingly aware of the threat posed by militant Islamists. Unfortunately, too many seek appeasement as a means of avoiding confrontation. In so doing, they are ignoring more than a millennium of human history that stands as incontrovertible evidence of the futility of this approach.
Yet in the current social and political climate, the problem goes deeper still. With the country currently in the grip of a hard-left and subversive “Alinsky” insurgency, many facets of which parallel the historical tactics of the Islamists to an alarming degree, forces from both camps have converged to form a collaborative effort to tear down the fabric of this nation. It is therefore no wonder that Barack Obama, the nation’s chief “Alinskyite,” is presumed by a significant segment of the population to also be a Muslim. The overlap between the two ideologies is glaring.
Thus, the willingness of media outlets to engage in selective “outrage” against public sentiments with which they disagree, while remaining silent on much more egregious words and actions if such things abet their cause. This typical liberal tactic is wholly reflective of Muslim inconsistencies when publicly promoting Islam at the expense of its opponents.
Both the leftists and the militant Islamists engage in the public relations ploy of isolating and discrediting their enemies, and then demanding that everyone else do likewise or face being grouped with them as outcasts. The intolerance and prohibition of any conflicting ideas among the “politically correct” is likewise highly reflective of the mindset that drives the Islamists.
In both cases, an enormous momentum in alignment with a particular set of ideas is generated, followed by absolute excoriation of any who dare to object. Thus are their ideologies advanced through coercion and intimidation. Consequently, real America must be diligent to consider whose ideas are ultimately shaping and influencing it.
But leftists are deluded if they believe their devotion to “political correctness” will ultimately prevail. While liberalism and its parent, Marxism, have been around for less than two centuries, Islam has survived for seven times that period. The leftists who would dismantle America and remake it in their image are in for a rude awakening if they ever succeed in eradicating its cultural and moral foundations. At that point, they would be crushed along with the rest of the nation, as something far more brutal and fearsome than their effeminate and self-serving liberalism seizes the opportunity and assumes control.
It is against either contingency that the patriotism and principle on which America was founded, and those who hold such things dear, must prevail.
Copyright ©2010 Christopher G. Adamo