Why the P.C. Police Are So Protective of Islam

When I talk about people making apologies and excuses for Islamic-based terrorism, here’s an example of what I mean:

“Donald Trump’s war with Islam: A campaign rooted in pernicious religious discrimination,” wrote Simon Maloy in Salon magazine. Maloy said that the Orlando jihad massacre gave Trump “the opportunity he needed to define the campaign he intends to run: a campaign that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.”

Apologists, excuse-makers and enablers of Islamic terrorism hide behind the word “discrimination.”

My question: Why is discrimination automatically and always wrong? Discrimination refers to a cognitive process, more than a behavior. It’s the means by which we make distinctions among different people, ideas or things. The primary definition of discrimination in the dictionary is to “recognize a distinction; to differentiate.”

To look at Islam as not merely a religion, but as an activist ideology whose proponents threaten the safety of all peaceful persons, is to cognitively discriminate; this is true. So what? It’s a valid, rationally based distinction. It’s likewise a form of cognitive discrimination to distinguish between people who uphold violence, in the name of religion or anything else, and those who wish to leave others alone. Islam does not stand for leaving others alone.

To argue against unjustified discrimination is valid. For example, an invalid generalization about all blacks, all women, all men or all Hispanics should be criticized or condemned. But that’s not what the righteously indignant p.c. police do. They argue against discrimination as such. When you make a valid distinction, such as Islam not being a religion of peace at all, they shriek, “Discrimination! Discrimination!” as if the generalization itself were the problem. They want to immediately shut down argument, first by intimidating you and, if that does not work, then sending the law after you, as Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch has proposed.

These same people, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, who seek to shut down the argument about Islam merely by saying, “discrimination” make all kinds of unwarranted and invalid generalizations all the time. Obama has talked about all successful or wealthy people as winners in the “lottery” of life. Hillary Clinton and Obama talk about gun owners as if they’re all ignorant rednecks hell-bent on harming others, because no rational person would want to own a gun. Left-leaning or all-out advocates of socialism like Bernie Sanders talk about “the rich” as if they’re a self-evidently evil group. Isn’t it discrimination to talk about groups of people they hate in this way, especially when there’s no evidence to back it up?

Every time one of these awful, Islamic-inspired acts of brutality occurs, it’s an enormous opportunity for mass movements of rational Muslims to come out and proclaim, “This is not what Islam is about,” even if the Koran begs to differ. It never happens. Instead, when a tragedy like Orlando occurs, advocates of political correctness come out and shriek, “Racism! Discrimination,” as if these words alone should be enough to intimidate someone out of thinking and into silence.

This reliance on intimidation by the p.c. police  sounds a lot like Islam to me. Maybe that’s why advocates of socialism and political correctness, who see government coercion as the solution to every issue, are so protective of Islam?