Apparently, speaking factually about the threats posed to America by Islamic terrorism is “false” and “bolster[s] the credibility of would-be terrorists,” according to a news release issued by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) in response to speeches presented at the Republican National Convention by Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani:
The Muslim Public Affairs Council expressed disapproval today over repeated comments made at the Republican National Convention last night by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Romney and Giuliani’s remarks on Islam served to equate Islam with terrorism. Making false statements only serves to increase the already high rates of violence and bigotry against Muslim Americans. Our nation faces a very real threat, but bolstering the credibility of would-be terrorists by associating them with any religion is counterproductive to our national security interests.
Riding the ebbing wave of post-9/11 fear mongering in an election season is nothing new. But our presidential candidates must ask themselves whether playing off the ignorance of a few voters worth jeopardizing the American values of pluralism and constitutional democracy?
Never mind that these two speakers aren’t still presidential candidates. Why is it that MPAC must take the extreme position of ignoring a very real threat to America and to the rest of the free world? In this same release, MPAC pulls the objectionable quotations:
“John McCain hit the nail on the head: radical violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it!”–Mitt Romney
“For four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words ‘Islamic terrorism.’ I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please, tell me, who are they insulting, if they say ‘Islamic terrorism?’ They are insulting terrorists.”–Rudy Giuliani
So, is MPAC suggesting that “radical violent Islam” is not evil? Or, to follow Giuliani’s thinking, is MPAC standing up for terrorists? If MPAC aims to be a serious organization which strives for the harmonious side-by-side living of persons with different religions, it must condemn in the strongest terms possible those who support terror by invoking Islam. Otherwise, it seems, one can only infer that MPAC supports the opposite–that terror in the name of Islam is permissible.