Conservatives seem to be taking ISIS’ fundamentalism as a direct challenge to their own these days. Whether it’s a leading Republican presidential candidate calling for implementation of actual Nazi anti-Semitic policies against Muslims, or not-giving-up-yet Republican Presidential candidates saying that we should only accept refugees who share their faith, conservatives seem to be eager to demonstrate that ISIS isn’t the only pack of fanatics on the block. Perhaps none have been so keenly eager as columnist Burt Prelutsky who, writing for World Net Daily, tackles the question of ISIS with his signature “wit and humor”… which, in practice, seems to be more a really crazy bit of Jesus-based chest-thumping and saber-rattling than anything else.
Prelutsky’s idea is simple: just go in there and wipe ISIS out. (See? Easy as pie.) Then go destroy Mecca and massacre a bunch of civilians. Because my God is tougher than yours!
No, really. That’s his suggestion:
My own politically incorrect suggestion is that we remove ISIS from the face of the earth, hopefully as a joint effort with every other nation it has threatened or attacked, and that we then bomb Mecca off the face of the earth, not concerning ourselves in the least with collateral damage, letting the Muslims know once and for all that our God is far more powerful and, yes, vengeful than their own puny deity.
It’s harsh, but they’ve been asking for it for over 1,400 years, and it’s time they got it…
Obviously, nothing shows people that murderous religious fanaticism is bad like more murderous religious fanaticism, and nothing says “powerful” like a deity that has to rely on mortals to do His dirty work for Him.
But if you’re thinking Prelutsky’s ostensibly “witty” attempt at Middle East problem solving falls somewhat short of both humor and solutions, if this kind of thinking exacerbates the actual problem, then don’t forget that last point about Muslims deserving it. Because he belabors it throughout his piece.
As he frames things, Muslims really do deserve it because Islam is uniquely terrible. This is where the humor actually comes into the article, albeit inadvertently: Prelutsky’s case against Islam is that it promotes violence, and Christianity does not; oh, sure, maybe that wasn’t the case historically, but modern-day Christianity is all about peace and love.
… Islam was never peaceful. From the very beginning, those who refused to accept Shariah law and to bow down to Mecca were killed.
Unlike Christianity which says that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated, to love our neighbors as ourselves and to be our brother’s keeper, Islam’s message is a threat: Convert or perish.
This is nothing more than cherry-picked portions of Christian doctrine, with an absolute disregard to Christian history. Like Muslims, Christians were historically more than willing to butcher those who shared their faith over theological differences. The Christianizing of Europe wasn’t an exercise in loving one’s neighbor; it was a bloody, brutal business. People were forced to convert or die.
That, in Prelutsky’s book, is a horrifying thing when done by Muslims, and it’s evidence of the base nature of Islam, yet when done by Christians… well, apparently those chapters aren’t in his book at all. Despite the fact that he’s actually talking about Christians bombing Muslims to make a statement about how powerful the Christian God is. (You know, loving your neighbor.)
The lack of self-awareness, of how accurately his objections to Islam cover his own chosen faith, get even weirder, though. At one point, he bemoans,
[Moderate Muslim Dr. Zuhdi] Jasser may mean well [with his appearances on Fox News, but he is a boob if he actually believes that after 1,400 years, Islam is going to reform itself. If you’re looking for a religion you don’t have to apologize for every five minutes, try Christianity or even Judaism. They’re not always perfect, but at least they’re not torching churches, blowing up school buses and crucifying people for following a different faith.
Does Prelutsky not realize that Christians were still literally conducting witch trials a few hundred years ago? That in the United States, almost seventeen centuries after Jesus supposedly lived, people were murdered by Christians for the made-up crime of witchcraft? That it took almost two thousand years for Christians to realize that the blood libels — the Christian blood libels — against Jews were bogus? That Christians have spent century-upon-century killing each other over relatively minor differences in beliefs? That, despite such a history or horrors, his own religion was able to “reform itself”?
Apparently not. Even the irony of complaining about how Islam simply can’t “reform itself” from barbaric fundamentalism, while writing about how we should bomb another faith’s holy city without regard to “collateral damage” just to show whose God is punier, is lost on him. I guess expecting anything like a remotely accurate view of history is really asking too much.