Sticking with the idea of religion and politics, I ran across THIS STORY this morning. It’s a report about how President Obama is planning to “remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism…” The article goes on to explain the reasons why, some of which I agree with and I think apply to Christianity as well – basically, it’s better to be known by what you’re for than by what you’re against.
My question still remains, is Islamic radicalism, jihad, fatwas and the like linked to terrorism in a way that effects our country’s national security? Of course it is. And to think otherwise is ignorant at best. It’s probably because I don’t really understand the whole idea behind “diplomatic” approaches to things. “Diplomacy” is failing when we’re ignoring genocide so we can “talk about it more” and say that those responsible should stop (while we do nothing to stop it). “Diplomacy” has failed when we refuse to speak the truth even if it’s uncomfortable for some to hear, which includes being honest that terrorism is the direct result of Islamic radicalism. Should we instead pretend that it’s caused by “misguided individuals” who tend to blow themselves up in crowds of people simply because they don’t understand the real message of Islam? Maybe they understand it better than we think (HERE are some ‘disturbing’ beliefs in their own words)
I’m all for offering individuals, groups and entire countries (regardless of religion) hope and something to aspire to. I’m all for coming alongside even known “terrorist harboring” countries to build hospitals, schools, infrastructure and to help the general population. But I’m not for pretending that religion doesn’t matter and is something we shouldn’t concern ourselves with. Like I said yesterday, it’s not possible.
I’d be interested in your thoughts.