Smart people missing the point: Jonah Goldberg edition

From Goldberg:

We’ve spent years hearing how associating Islam with terrorism is outrageous and bigoted. President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have all made the case that Islamic terrorism has “nothing whatsoever” — Clinton’s words — to do with Islam. President Obama insists the Islamic State “is not Islamic.”

Even phrases such as “Muslim terrorism” are forbidden because they imply that Islam itself has something to do with terrorism. Better to talk about “death cults,” “violent extremism” and criminals. And if you have to mention religion, make sure you adorn the word with lots of specific adjectives such as “radical” and “extremist,” or deploy euphemisms such as “jihadist.”

Whether any of that is convincing is a topic for another time. Liberals insist they believe it to be true, and at least for argument’s sake, I’m happy to take them at their word.

So where is the condemnation of the phrase “Christian terrorism” (or, for that matter, “white terrorism”)? By all means, Christian leaders should denounce violent attacks on Planned Parenthood. But shouldn’t progressive leaders condemn any effort to tie Christianity with terrorism?

Apparently not. It seems taking sides against Christianity is the progressive thing to do. More.

Reality check: Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, should maybe read his own book? Christians in the United States vote for the welfare state, sustaining vilification and eventual persecution for food stamps.

People like that make fun punching bags, easy targets, and convenient scapegoats. Also, Christians sell each other out, protesting that we all don’t “care” enough about whatever (possibly unjust) cause is brought to public attention by progressives. So we deserve whatever happens.

Islamists, by contrast, make clear that they can’t be bought off, that they can and will fight. The progressive, who cares for nothing but power, guesses that they are a true threat, and responds by appeasing them.

That’s easy enough when all they need throw them is, for example, Christians.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

See also: Respecting one’s heroes but taking issue – Thomas Sowell edition

  • Minicapt

    Those “Christians” who advocate for social justice and its cause are seldom Christians. And many of the “mainline denominations” no longer practice Christianity, such as our United Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada.
    The ‘selling out’ is quite often a traditional Christian church refusing to deal with the heretics, and thus arousing their opprobrium.