AHC: U.S. rightwingers called out for "Islamofascism" and similar 2010, Mitt triangulates in 2012?

Let's say the argument catches on with the general public: why are you guys trying to fan the flames of religious hatred? Didn't you learn from school that the religious wars of medieval Europe weren't exactly the greatest thing in the world? And in 2010, so there's enough time for this to kick through pre-2012 Republican primary.

What's an interesting way for Mitt Romney to triangulate?

Bonus points if talk radio is just as feisty but in different ways.
 
Didn't you learn from school that the religious wars of medieval Europe weren't exactly the greatest thing in the world?

Well, the fact that the Religous Right has gotten as far as it has in American politics might indicate that, no, in fact, they did NOT learn that from school.

Which is not to say that there aren't Americans who are appalled by the fanning of the flames of religious bigotry, but I think most of them, if not the overwhelming majority, were probably already voting Not Republican to begin with. So you need to somehow come up with a situation where people who were comfortable voting for Sarah Palin(whose pastor had actually been involved in LITERAL witch-hunts) in 2008 suddenly decide that villifying other faiths is a step too far.

Maybe if you can somehow get good ol' fashioned anti-Catholicsm to rear its head on the religous right, and that gets linked to Islamophobia. Say some GOP-friendly preacher drops his guard and says in the same breath that Catholics and Muslims will burn in hell, and that obviously pisses off Catholics, but they can't really say that he's wrong to attack Catholics without also saying he's wrong to attack Muslims, since it's impossible to ignore the latter comment.

Or, given that it's Romney we're talking about, maybe throw anti-Mormonism into the witch's brew. Assuming that wikipedia is accurate...

Muhammad and Joseph Smith

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers Muhammad to have received a portion of God's light, and that moral truths were given to him to enlighten nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.[59] However, it does not consider him to have been a prophet in the same sense as modern-day LDS prophets nor ancient prophets found in the Bible and Book of Mormon, and does not accept the Qur'an as scripture. Conversely, Islam does not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for it believes Muhammad to have been the final prophet of God to humankind.[60] It equally does not accept the Book of Mormon, or any of the other Latter-day Saint Standard Works, as the Qur'an is believed to be God's final revelation for all time, and for all people.

This might work best with a third-party Christian conservative candidate, untethered to GOP electoral considerations, who brings up this aspect of Mormon doctrine, juxtaposes it with a bunch of texts from the Koran seemingly calling for the murder of non-Muslims, photos of 9-11 etc, and then demands that Romney respond. Things go from there.
 
. . . Say some GOP-friendly preacher drops his guard and says in the same breath that Catholics and Muslims will burn in hell, and that obviously pisses off Catholics, but they can't really say that he's wrong to attack Catholics without also saying he's wrong to attack Muslims, since it's impossible to ignore the latter comment. . .
And an even more prominent Protestant minister is asked about this and asked whether Catholics are saved. He says he doesn't know, and somehow this makes it even worse. Yes, this might make for an ATL.
 
Last edited:
https://www.conservativereview.com/...eals-the-lefts-ignorance-of-religious-liberty

MUSLIM FLIGHT ATTENDANT CONTROVERSY REVEALS THE LEFT’S IGNORANCE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz, August 12, 2016.

"The concept of religious liberty as it relates to constitutional law and property rights has been turned upside down. . . "
Now, he comes down on the side that it's okay for the airline to fire the Muslim employee who cannot serve alcohol. But notice how the title very much plays off the Left.

Could have become a point of pride, and with a variety of viewpoints different from this author. A considerable number of more religious-minded conservatives could have been saying, 'Yes, with free speech, the radio talk show hosts have the right to say whatever they want, but they are off in the wild blue yonder. Religious intolerance is simply not the way to go.'

Mitt then triangulates. And being a Morman, this plays to strength.
 
Last edited:
America of 2010 is simply too polarized for this to have any effect. What with the development of MSNBC, Fox News, and alternate media, people hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Viewpoints will be spun, mass outrage will fizzle and it'll just be another thing that the two sides shout past one another about.

Like everything else in American politics.
 
. . . and it'll just be another thing that the two sides shout past one another about. . .
Can't dispute that!

Except maybe we just get lucky. Maybe in trying to pull the bulk of religious-minded conservatives, neocons, and Paul Ryan-style libertarians, Mitt puts together something pretty good.
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=r... to eradicate from your constitution"&f=false

' . . . You are too far advanced in civilization to imitate the example of those who, with bandaged eyes, ever turn in the same circle under the pretext of following in the footsteps of their fathers. Humanity invites you to eradicate from your Constitution all that can give countenance to the principle of slavery. Pity the slave. God loves the merciful among his worshippers. Be then ye merciful to those upon earth, that He who is in heaven may be merciful to you. . . '
Lincoln wrote to the leader of Tunisia asking for advice how they had brought slavery to an end. The guy wrote a long letter in return.

Lincoln's popular of course. And this shows Islam in a favorable light. And this is one of these things it's surprising we didn't learn about in school, not even in college.

Not the fire-breathers and hardliners. But people in the middle, who are always the people you're contending for anyway, yeah, if this had become a medium big deal in 2010, might start changing conversation.
 
Last edited:
Let's say the argument catches on with the general public: why are you guys trying to fan the flames of religious hatred? Didn't you learn from school that the religious wars of medieval Europe weren't exactly the greatest thing in the world? And in 2010, so there's enough time for this to kick through pre-2012 Republican primary.

What's an interesting way for Mitt Romney to triangulate?

Bonus points if talk radio is just as feisty but in different ways.

The term "Islamofascism" was coined in an effort to differentiate the modern political demand for Islamic supremacy from the Islamic religion, i.e. to avoid "religious hatred".

In any case, it seems odd to worry more about the consequences of acknowledging the murderous totalitarian agenda of al-Qaeda, the Moslem Brotherhood, Boko Haram, and their ilk than about the flood of agitation for terror coming from that faction and the numerous acts of terroristic violence they and their dupes have perpetrated.
 
In any case, it seems odd to worry more about the consequences of acknowledging the murderous totalitarian . . .
So, perhaps you rather look at it as me going out of my way in order to "act nice" toward bad guys? That's not how I look at it. To me, it's more the analogy of solid poker play. Why blunder and give a terrorist group easy propaganda material to make the claim that America is anti-Islam? That's more the way I look at it.

And on a number of occasions, President Bush easily and comfortably reached out to bridge build with Muslim nations and Muslim persons in general, and I would argue without overplaying his hand. I'm a little surprised Bush supporters didn't give a lot more push back to the hardcore crowd. But then, talk radio tends to be a world unto itself.
 
And on a number of occasions, President Bush easily and comfortably reached out to bridge build with Muslim nations and Muslim persons in general, and I would argue without overplaying his hand. I'm a little surprised Bush supporters didn't give a lot more push back to the hardcore crowd. But then, talk radio tends to be a world unto itself.

There is a certain cognitive dissonance at work there. Bush had a practicing Muslim UN Ambassador, who obviously would have had access to sensitive material way above what the average person would be allowed. As far as I know, few Republicans made an issue of that, but they all went catatonic in 2008 when the Democrats nominated a Christian who had a Muslim father he never even knew.
 
Around April 2010, Wikileaks starts posting the videos and documents revealed by Chelsea Manning.

In June 2013, Edward Snowden went public with huge across-the-board Internet eavesdropping.

As a POD, if this is made public about twenty months earlier, say, around Oct. 2011? It becomes very much a part of the jockeying and debates pre-Republican primary season. Mitt takes a position that you've got to do it, at the same time, the whole counterterrorism needs to be run with much better business management, for example, the no-fly list . . . (leading to discussion that this isn't as easy as it may seem)
 
Last edited:
Top