Donald Trump’s proposal to stop allowing Muslims into the United States has created quite a stir. Yet Obama’s (and others’) willingness to indiscriminately let Muslims into the United States does not raise a peep. Why the difference?

If it’s reasonable to assume that not all Muslims are hell-bent on killing innocent infidels, isn’t it equally reasonable to assume that some (even many) are? Especially since Muslims killing infidels happens just about every single day? Should our immigration system at least take this difficult fact into account? It clearly isn’t doing so now; or if so, it’s not doing a very good job of it.

Political correctness tells us that we should go out of our way to give Islam a free pass for everything precisely because immigrant Muslims might be a risk. It’s a policy of sacrificing the physical safety and welfare of many (including even oneself) for the sake of appearing liberal, sophisticated and enlightened in front of one’s peers. “Look at me. I support all Muslims, even if there’s a risk some of them might want to blow me up. I’m liberal, progressive, and cool. So there.” It’s almost as if the feeling which comes from a faux sense of self-superiority can somehow protect you from a bullet, a sword or a nuclear or biological weapon.

What a terribly stupid, self-defeating and downright suicidal foreign policy, especially for a country once as great and strong as the United States.

Case in point: This tweet by Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine. Says Goldberg, of Trump’s proposal to stop letting Muslims into the United States:

Donald Trump is now an actual threat to national security. He’s providing jihadists ammunition for their campaign to demonize the US.

I find this statement more provocative than anything Donald Trump has to say. Goldberg implies here that just by saying controversial things, people bring terrorism on themselves. It’s like saying to victim of a burglary, “Well, you shouldn’t buy so many nice things. If you didn’t, people would not be tempted to steal from you.” The implication of such a statement is, clearly, that theft is in some sense justified by the act of owning “too many” nice things. That in some sense, you’re getting what you deserve.

It’s the same thing with terrorism. In his tweet, Goldberg blames the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists themselves for the acts they choose to do. It’s just like the other apologists for Islam who say, “Well, maybe you shouldn’t insult their religion. Or be so critical of it. Then they might not be so inclined to shoot or bomb you.”

In what universe is it even a tiny bit excusable for anyone to commit the atrocities of Islamic terrorists merely because they feel offended?

I don’t see us extending the same sensitivities to Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics or anyone else who feels offended and might want to shoot up their workplace. Nor am I suggesting we should. Why the free pass for Islam?

Goldberg and others like him wish to hold Donald Trump – or anyone else critical of Islam – responsible for the next horrific thing that terrorists do in the name of that religion. That’s profoundly unjust and absurd. I do not blame Donald Trump for the Islamic terrorism yet to come. I blame the man who has been sitting in the Oval Office for the last 7 years, doing virtually nothing to stop it, and everything in his power to excuse and enable it.

So long as we keep blaming the victims of Islamic terrorism, as our president does, we will keep getting more of it.

The following two tabs change content below.

Dr Michael Hurd

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

Radicals for Capitalism

Subscribe to the Capitalism Network's free email newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!