The Islamic Threat to America

There are those among us who are proclaiming “the sky is falling” in the form of Islam infiltration. They look at the turmoil in the Middle East and the announced enmity of Islamic fundamentalists toward the United States. It is not just fear of terrorist attacks; it is the takeover of our government and the abandonment of our Christian and democratic heritage they predict. (I notice that preserving democracy takes second place to preserving our Christian legacy as if the two were not related.)
This mindset suffers from the fever of bigotry, is colored by the jaundice of politics, and represents a crisis in confidence induced by a lack of appreciation for, or knowledge of, our history.

My dissent regarding the Islamic threat stands on two pillars:

First:
There is a difference between "Islam infiltration" and "radical, fundamentalist Islam infiltration." I agree that we should be alert to the "threat" of radical Islam as a promoter of terrorism, but to picture radical Islam as a threat to "infiltrate" our government and undermine our democratic structure is reasonable only if you paint all Muslims as radicals. This is simply not the case. Muslim American citizens are no more a "threat" to our "system" than Mormons, Catholics, or Reconstructionist Christians who promote theocracy (a stance as un-American as you can get). Conflating Obama with radical Islam entrusts the message of warning to an allegation based on assumption. Depending on the nonsense that Obama is a Muslim dresses the matter with the seriousness of a Halloween costume. Conflation of bogeymen is not an exercise in elegance.

Many who believe that President Obama is subverting our democracy plan to vote him out of office. But his "subversiveness" is merely the "opinion" of those who don't like his politics. If enough people feel he is guilty of "subversiveness" he will be voted out of office and the ship will be righted---a procedure practiced throughout our democratic history. If a Mormon becomes President and begins to undemocratically subvert our system, he in turn will be voted out of office. Political influences ebb and flow---appropriately so.

I don't believe in living in a world of fear. There was a time when Catholics were viewed as a "threat" to America; Mormons were run out of the boundaries of our country; Chinese were banned from immigrating here; Japanese were interned. I have the distinct impression that those who pump the fear of Islam are squeezing all Muslims together into one homogenous group as a ploy to get the Republican Party back in ascendancy. Don't fall for that kind of stuff. The current "tea partiers" misused American history (see my blog of Sept. 17, 2011) to make tangible gains in the last mid-term election, but their influence has faded as their fringe agendas have gotten more scrutiny and their empty headed celebrities (like Palin, Bachman, Akin) embarrass themselves; and Ryan's congressional track record scares even fellow Republicans. The tea-party staying power now is depending on the transfusion of tons of money donated to PAC funds, and from such billionaires as the Koch brothers. Democracy has a way of smoothing out these fluctuations.

Islam is a religion, Buddhism is a religion, Jews have a religion, Catholicism is a religion, Mormonism is a religion, Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism are distinct and healthy wings of Christianity, Paganism is a religion, Sufism is a religion---and more. Some of these religions have long since grown big in our midst, and others are growing fast in the U.S. today. Shall we call these movements "infiltrations"? Or should we reserve the word "infiltration" for those that threaten our government? If our wise founding fathers thought off-brand religions would be a threat to democracy, they would not have included the First amendment in the Constitution. Or do you think they were duped into including it?

Second:
I’ve heard it said that "our history and heritage are being ignored on a daily basis by the current administration." I suspect I would have a problem with the examples that might be offered, on the grounds that our "history" is a mixed bag of fruit and our "heritage" is multi-sourced. There is no definitive textbook that outlines the “true” heritage sculpted by our history. It is a matter of highlighting the moments that one person finds admirable, though another considers lamentable. (The famous speeches of Calhoun and Webster on the justifications for state secession are one example of this "handling” of history.) And what our real heritage is, depends on what parts of our heritage match your current political agenda. It is all "pick and choose." Republicans highlight entitlement for the wealthy person’s status as money manager (manipulator?); Obama champions assistance for the unfortunate and disadvantaged. Both themes are part of our heritage. Republicans preach exceptionalism and national chauvinism; Democrats preach community and tolerance. Both ideas are rooted in our heritage. (Multiple additional examples stand in the wings.) No sermonizer has a corner on our heritage; and our history is a running account of contending passions seeking supporters in the public square, often by inducing paranoia.

Yes, real threats need to be addressed. We need to be alert and prepared. But we need to distinguish between questionable rhetoric that supports a political agenda versus careful definitions and informed perspective. Heritage and history are not on our side if we misidentify the threat and miscalibrate our heritage. Our generation is not the first to falter in this manner. One example: fighting the British in our War for Independence is certainly a basic element of our heritage. And we have been a nation of fighters ever since, averaging a war about every twenty years, usually under the pretense of national security—that is, staving off 'threats." But of our twelve wars, only in three of them was our national security "actually" threatened. So much for the jingle of “heritage.”

Doug Good