“Islam is Radical” Part II: A message to ACT for America leadership…

I can understand why the mainstream media, academia, and even Barack Hussein Obama sugar-coat Islam.   The media and academia are populated by value-neutral, irreligious liberals who don’t take religion seriously and are willing to defend any ideology or religion (except Judaism and Christianity) because their highest value is tolerance and not offending, no matter the vileness of the ideology or behavior they confront.  Barack, in addition to being a leftist himself, has close ties with Islam from childhood as well as close Muslim relatives.  Consequently he holds a warm and very protective place in his heart for all things Islam.   So warm that he refuses to allow anyone in his administration to associate the word “Muslim” or “Islam” with any act of Islamic Jihad.

I have a more difficult time understanding the thinking of ACT! for America.  ACT is the nation’s largest organization dedicated to educating Americans about the dangers of “radical Islam” while actively addressing its challenge to America’s national security, culture, religious freedoms, and form of government. 

What could I possibly be concerned with ACT about?  They are doing a great service in confronting “radical Islam” in a variety of ways.

Here is my problem:  ACT is withholding their accurate understanding of the problem from the American people.  They admit privately that the problem is “Islam is radical”, and not merely “radical Islam.”  They privately acknowledge that orthodox Islamic ideology, which is based on the trilogy of Islamic writings, is the source and motivator of Islamic Jihad and the violence, terror, supremacism and intolerance waged against the west.  They privately acknowledge that the radicals are merely the military arm – the foot soldiers -  of Islam.   Yet ACT’s public face denies Islam is radical and insists that only “radical Islam” is the problem.

Why do they do this?  So they can retain their credibility with the liberal, head-in-the-sand media and political leaders.  ACT’s leadership believes that asserting that “Islam is radical” is more truth than many in our nation can grasp or accept.  As one leader suggested to me, admitting this truth about Islam publicly is “outrunning our headlights.”  Translated, that means telling the truth about Islam before the public is ready to hear the truth will hurt their cause.   He calls this distinction a “semantic dilemma.”  Are you freakin’ kidding me?  It is much more than “semantics” and there is clearly no need for it to be a “dilemma.”

Does anyone else see a problem with such thinking?

I have to ask:  Will the truth hurt their cause or will it hurt their organization?

I submit that the truth will temporarily hurt their organization which is more important to them than their cause.  They are afraid of negative press from our liberal media.   The truth will make their job more difficult.  They will be called names by Islamic sympathizers (as if that isn’t already occurring  - check out THIS nasty website; it can’t get much worse).  The truth can be difficult – even offensive to some.  But truth can do nothing but help their cause.  Unfortunately ACT apparently does not hold much faith in “truth” because they are more concerned about protecting their organization than their cause.

One ACT leader stated:  “I think the day is coming when the unsugar-coated reality of Islam can be freely exposed. Until then, we must  understand that I/we are often speaking with people who think that Islam is just another religion and the Muslim Brotherhood is its version of the Knights of Columbus."   Since when does withholding the truth result in people learning the truth?  Does this ACT leader really believe that such people will miraculously learn the truth of Islam without an organization like ACT revealing it to them?  This is circular reasoning several times around.  This is mind-bending stuff!

Which brings me to a sad and rather disgusting analogy between ACT and Islam.  A significant doctrine of Islam is “taqiyya”:  Purposeful lying or deceit, i.e. withholding the truth of Islam to further the cause of Islam in infidel lands.  You see, if too much truth about Islam (its history, beliefs, and practices) is revealed to Westerners, individual Muslims and Islam itself will lose their credibility, friendships, influence and effectiveness with the media and government officials.

Sound familiar?  Isn’t ACT! for America doing the same thing:  Withholding the truth about Islam to protect their credibility, friendships, influence and effectiveness with the media and government officials?  Apparently ACT finds the doctrine of taqiyya to be a useful tool in furthering their organizational goals.

We must know this stark distinction between Islam and Christianity.  Islam condones lying to promote its cause.  Christianity promotes truth to further its cause.  This is just one of dozens of substantial differences between the doctrines of Islam and Christianity that cause our respective cultures to be so diametrically opposite.  Yet we find an American organization led by a Christian using Islamic tactics to maintain the reputation of their organization.

The truth has many more advantages than taqiyya.  Here are several:

1. The truth reflects our own values that we are fighting to preserve against a hostile Islam and its immoral and coercive doctrines.
2. The truth trusts the intelligence and common sense of the American people who would be the most likely to join with them to defend our culture, liberties, and Judeo-Christian ethic.
3. The truth will preserve ACT’s credibility and legitimacy as the go-to organization in providing the truth about Islam and the solutions to its encroachment.
4. The truth equips the  American people to understand the real threat of Islam, not just the threat from the so-called “radicals.”  Once so equipped, the people will know instinctively to elect representatives who share their insight and knowledge about Islam and take appropriate steps to guard against the incursion of Islamic dogma in our laws, finance, culture, and religion.
5. The truth is the moral high ground. 

It appears to me that part of ACT’s problem is it has one or more politicians leading their effort.  The comfort level of these politicians lies in typical political practices that involve manipulation and deceit, much like taqiyya.   As in our response to corrupt or apostate churches, there are two choices:  Either demand reform from within or leave the church.  It is past time to consider these options with regard to ACT.