As we in the United States move further and further away from a Judeo/Christian worldview and morality the easier it is to be anti-semetic. This is not really anything new for the Jewish population. All through history nations have practiced racism against Jews. I like Tevia’s question to God in “Fiddler on the Roof,” about being the chosen people. “Why don’t You choose somebody else for a while?” This is the one kind of bigotry which seems to be very acceptable among the politically correct today. This isn’t overtly stated but the cliche, “what you are doing speaks so loudly that I can’t hear what you are saying,” comes in to play. There seems to be great concern in the United States by politicians, Liberal news media and those leaders within the “Emergent” movement of the church, that American citizens will commit more hate crimes against Muslims in retaliation to the acts of Islamic terrorists. I recently heard an interview about hate crimes and the guest claimed that about 13.4% of hate crimes are committed against Muslims whereas 65.4% of the hate crimes committed were anti-Jewish. In other words, there are approximately 5 times more likelihood of a hate crime against a Jew than a Muslim but that seems to be ignored by the Left. (These statistics are from the 2010 Hate Crime Statistics in the “Religious Bias” category). The PC crowd regularly expresses concern about the possible rise (not the actual rise) of Anti-Islamic attacks but it is rare if ever that we hear any concern about anti-Jewish attacks.
The U.S. government has and is continuing to work hard at creating a Jew free zone called the Palestinian State. In Israel Muslims have representation on the governing body of Israel, own businesses and participate as citizens. Whereas the Muslims which are clamoring to have the land divided have been clear that the new nation will not allow Jews and have also been clear that this is just the next step to the total elimination of a Jewish nation and if possible, the elimination of all Jews from the face of the earth.
I wonder, would the U.S. government and liberals in general work as hard to create a state that is a Black free zone or a Gay free zone? Of course not. After all, being anti-Jew is fine but being anti-Black, anti-Islamic or anti-Gay is not and this anti-Semitism has come into our school curriculum. A question in the section, “Terrorism by Individuals and Organizations” of the text book, The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography asks:
If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions
Hmmm. The story first came to public attention with FOX News Todd Starnes story, Parents Call Textbook Anti-Semitic . He gives a good thumbnail of the issues and also the context of the quote which actually demonstrates the idea in the fuller context is worse than the the shorter quote shows.
Currently our Federal Government and courts are working hard against the will of the people to force acceptance of homosexuality. How would liberal media react if they came across a textbook which had a question like:
If an Christian Identity suicide bomber kills several dozen Homosexual teenagers in a Chicago Gold Coast restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against United States government policies and judicial actions
This would immediately be classified as terrorism. What if it was a Muslim instead of an Evangelical? There would be some confusing vocabulary gyrations since both are currently protected groups. However, the example is valid so why is one acceptable but the other is not? The article I’m Not Anti-Semitic – I’m Anti-Stupid writes:
Sentence one reads, “Distinguishing terrorism from other acts of political violence can be difficult.” Um….no not really. Political, medical, global whatever the venue, anytime violence is used to try to force someone to agree with you or at least make them afraid to disagree, is terrorism. I didn’t need an AP class to figure that out.
In a futile attempt at clarity the paragraph continues. “For example, if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions?” So, as long as it’s considered retaliation it’s acceptable? Well, that’s just what we need to teach in high school. Lets go into the place were far too many use bulling as justification for mass murder and have them ponder the merits of murdering teenagers in retaliation. Yea, THAT’S a good idea.
The paragraph closes with, “Competing arguments are made: Israel’s sympathizers denounce the act as a terrorist threat to the country’s existence, whereas advocates of the Palestinian cause argue that long-standing injustices and Israeli army attacks on ordinary Palestinian civilians provoked the act.” Sooooo, depending on your point of view terrorism is acceptable? Seriously? That’s what we want to put out there? Good Lord no wonder America is dangling at the bottom of the educational chain.
She is correct. It isn’t really difficult to distinguish between terrorism and other acts of political violence. Well, that is unless the acts of terrorism are against Jews. That is just a gentle Muslim disagreeing with Israel’s politics.