After World War II, the West was locked in a mortal struggle with communism. Communist revolutionaries sought to expand their control of countries through military force. While communism was very real, one of the greatest threats to American liberty during the 1950s was anti-communism.
The House Un-American Affairs Committee placed the loyalty of many Americans under investigation because they were suspected of having Communist leanings. While the Soviets did have honest to God infiltrating agents in this country, most of those who were outed by HUAC were liberals, iconoclasts, civil rights advocates or those associated with persons who might have been suspected of knowing someone who might have done something suspicious or maybe were just randomly selected for persecution. It was bullying and paranoia writ large.
The insidiousness of red-baiting was not that communism was a benign, innocuous force but that we were willing to trash our First Amendment freedoms in the name of security. The irony of red-baiting was that it imitated (though in a far less lethal manner), Stalin's purges and Mao's Cultural Revolution. In order to defend against our enemy, we became like them. It was not a nice chapter in American history.
Today I fear that we are entering a similar period with regard to Islamophobia. On 9/11 and on multiple occasions both before and after, America was attacked by al Qaeda and other similar groups. In response, we removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, killed bin Laden and eliminated many other terrorists. While the threat is real and continuing, the prescription from some voices is similar to our enemies' vision : enforcement of rigid conformity without room for dissent.
Consider these examples:
In Texas, the state developed a curriculum for use by small school districts that could not afford to develop their own. It has been denounced as being pro-Islam and anti-Christian. Why? The lesson on Islam described the religion without attacking it, while the lesson on Christianity, which was much longer and full of quotations from the New Testament, noted similarities between the resurrection of Jesus and resurrection stories in Egyptian and Persian religions. You can read some of those criticisms for yourself here.
In a recent interview, Rep. Louie Gohmert said that we need the Second Amendment to protect us against a government that may try to implement shariah law. You can listen to the interview here.
Several states have passed laws preventing reference to shariah law. While this may seem harmless, this article explains why shariah can be referenced much in the same manner as a contract which provided it would be governed by French law.
Several states have passed laws preventing reference to shariah law. While this may seem harmless, this article explains why shariah can be referenced much in the same manner as a contract which provided it would be governed by French law.
Some people have gone so far as to state that Islam is not a religion entitled to First Amendment protection, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, Pat Robertson, and Rep. Alan West. Former Presidential candidate Herman Cain acknowledged that Islam was a religion, but said that local communities could ban mosques without discriminating based on religion.
Admittedly, the people mentioned above are fringe figures. However, so was Sen. Joe McCarthy before he engaged in his anti-communist jihad.
To my way of thinking, we are most American when we enthusiastically support the First Amendment, including its freedoms of speech, religion, the press and assembly and its prohibition on establishment of a state religion. The First Amendment is uniquely American. In England and many other European countries, a person can be sued or prosecuted for accurate speech. In France, the government can ban outward displays of religion. Russia and China pick and choose which religions are allowed to operate publicly. And it just gets worse from there.
So, do we want to be good Americans and tolerate Islam or do we want to behave like a bunch of freedom-denying, speech-censoring foreigners?
Post-script: Dana Milbank has an excellent article, Benghazi, as seen from the Grassy Knoll, which reports on some of the nutty theories that Obama is arming al Qaeda and is involved in the Middle East seeking to support jihad and sharia. This type of fantasy-thinking looks very similar to some of the red allegations made against innocent persons during the 1950s.
