In an address before the United Nations, President Obama proclaimed to the planetary assembly, “No children — anywhere — should be educated to hate people.”
The President went on to clarify, “There should be no tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents.”
The President suggested that this could be accomplished in part by composing a “new compact…to eradicate the corruption of young minds by violent ideology” and by “contesting the space that terrorists occupy — including the Internet and social media.”
Such proposed policies sounds like a prudent course of action to take against those out to destroy the American way of life.
But in deciphering the double talk that spews from the mouths of political elites like phlegm during flu season, the discerning grow concerned as to whether or not such rhetorical pronouncements will only be used against the jhadist menace.
Given the President’s fundamental ideological orientation as a socialistic secularist, what safeguards are to be put in place that these strategies won’t be used against Americans of a conservative Evangelical or Roman Catholic persuasion?
For example, when the average American hears Obama insist that no child anywhere should be taught to hate other people, images of toddlers and preschoolers being indoctrinated by a giant plushy mouse as to the glories of not only killing Christians and Jews but of their own suicide martyrdoms.
However, in the eyes of the crowd that Obama runs with, propagating hate can consist of little more than publicly reading those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality or peacefully insisting that professing belief in Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.
In fact, columnist Mark Steyn was dragged before a Canadian human rights tribunal for remarks not too much more rhetorically forceful than those made by Obama on the floor of the United Nations by simply exposing what jihadists had themselves articulated.
Obama suggested that different faiths should come together to speak out against this violent worldview.
It depends upon what the President means by that.
Fine and dandy if he means a respect for human decency being enunciated individually from behind each pulpit in a wide variety of houses of worship.
However, if the President is suggesting that widely diverging faiths are obligated to open their pulpits to one another free of doctrinal criticism as to where these guests measure up and fall theologically short, the government will have taken a step one too many to the point where its agencies will likely become the next great threat to our own liberties and well being once the identifiable terrorist menace has been identified and appropriately dispatched.
By Frederick Meekins