In a column at the Washington Post, former US Army General and CIA Director David Petraeus rails against “inflammatory political discourse…against Muslims and Islam:”

Those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

Petraeus doesn’t say what Americans should do about this objection to the exercise of their freedom — he just warns that it endangers national security:

Because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great…politicians…must consider the effects of their rhetoric.

Demonizing a religious faith and its adherents not only runs contrary to our most cherished and fundamental values as a country; it is also corrosive to our vital national security interests…

Regrettably, this is not too far from the rhetoric of Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, who claims the bad guys knowing there are Christians in the US military somehow “aids terrorist propaganda” as well.

It’s an interesting thought… but who cares?

The existence of Playboy, a non-Muslim government, and pork rinds at the military Exchange all “aid terrorist propaganda.” What should we do about our Western American culture that would satisfy Petraeus (and Weinstein)?

Weinstein has previously demanded that Christians be silenced and their religious freedoms be restricted — for reasons of national security, of course.

Petraeus says only that politicians must “consider the effects of their rhetoric” — vague tripe indicating he hasn’t considered the logical effects of his own rhetoric.

One does not protect freedom by restricting it.

Freedom is protected by its exercise.

ADVERTISEMENT