In your long list of crimes and atrocities carried out by the religious, you failed to include a single crime committed by Muslims. Why is that? Strike that- I know why. But in failing to include Muslims, you inadvertently make a crucial point!

Whenever a Muslim commits a murder or a terrorist act, idealistic, liberal non-Muslims ALWAYS rush in to shout, "This had NOTHING to do with Islam! Islam is a religion of peace! Mohammed Atta and Osama Bib Laden aren't true Muslims! And besides, what about Timothy McVeigh?"

Pope Francis, like President Obama, was merely trying to absolve the millions of ordinary, innocent Muslims of responsibility for crimes committed by other Muslims. By itself, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I've had many Muslim co-workers, all decent people, and I certainly don't hold them accountable for 9/11. My son has Muslim friends, and I certainly don't want anyone beating them up or calling them terrorists.

But there is a HUGE difference between saying "Most Muslims are not terrorists" (which is absolutely true) and saying "ISIS and Al Quaeda are not really Muslims" (obviously false). For some reason, MANY well-meaning people (especially the increasingly clueless President Obama) either

1) Insist that, since Islam is by definition a religion of peace, Muslims who kill are not true Muslims.

2) Change the subject, and mention Christians who've done bad things.

The Pope's remarks were not aimed at crimes committed by Christians. The Pope, like the President, was trying to help out Muslims by claiming that Muslim terrorists aren't truly religiously motivated.

EVERYBODY knows that's not true. ISIS and Al Quaeda are motivated by religious convictions, and explicitly justify their crimes by citing the Qu'ran. But Obama, the Pope, and millions of well-meaning secular, liberal Americans keep making excuses for Islam that they would NEVER tolerate if made on behalf of any other religion.

I repeat, Mr. Dobrin himself doesn't list any Muslim atrocities! Christian, Jewish and even Buddhist atrocities, yes, but no Muslim crimes. Why? I can think of several reasons:

1) Most secular liberals hate Christianity far too much to work up much hatred for any other religion. So, when Muslims gun down people in San Bernardino, the typical secular, liberal American tries to change the subject. "Yeah, well, what about Fred Phelps??

2) Most secular liberals hate and fear blue-collar white Americans. So, when real Muslims commit real murders, they immediately worry about a HYPOTHETICAL problem: "What if Christian bigots start a backlash against innocent Muslims?" Sure, REAL dead white Christians are regrettable, but imaginary Arabs getting harassed by rednecks would be worse.

3) Face it, Muslims can be SCARY! Criticize Christians and you may get a few angry e-mails. Criticize Muslims and you get gunmen attacking your office. The safest thing is to ignore Muslim atrocities, make excuses for them ("It's all because of Israel's actions in the West Bank:), or pretend the bad guys aren't "true" Muslims.

As I noted, Mr. Dobrin, you both ignored the Pope's intentions (he was trying to protect the good name of ISLAM, not Christianity) AND failed to list a single crime for which Islam bears any responsibility. Whys is that?

I'm guessing it's a combination of #1 and #3.

More Posts