At an interfaith gathering in Nashville Tennassee, a Rabbi Falcon received a hug from the local Islamic Center.
As mentioned before, a project I am undertaking with Blogmocracy is a dictionary. The goal of the dictionary is to show how words have been abused and desecrated, and then to reintroduce the words back into the English language.
This is a word that progressives love to bandy around: “dialogue.” And the New York Times is no exception. Check out this news story (hat tip – Debbie Schlussel):
They call themselves the “interfaith amigos.” And while they do sometimes seem more like a stand-up comedy team than a trio of clergymen, they know they have a serious burden in making a case for interfaith understanding in a country reeling after a Muslim Army officer at Fort Hood, Tex., was charged with opening fire on his fellow soldiers, killing 13.
“It arouses once again fear, distrust and doubt,” Sheik Rahman said, “and I know that when that happens, even the best of people cannot think clearly.” . . .
They began to meet weekly for spiritual direction, combining mutual support with theological reflection. Their families became acquainted over meals. They started an AM radio show, and they traveled together to Israel and the occupied territories. Recently, they wrote a book, “Getting to the Heart of Interfaith.”
At one point, the rabbi read a line the sheik had written about the security wall in Israel and announced, “If that line is in the book, I’m not in the book.” After vigorous discussion, Sheik Rahman rewrote the line in a way that both men felt was respectful of their principles.
But what exactly does it mean to “all get along”? Is it, as this article implies, simply a heavy dose of kumbaya?
CAIR has an office of “interfaith dialogue.” The Saudi king launched an “interfaith dialogue” in Madrid (Israelis were banned and Neturei Karta were allowed, of course). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched an “interfaith dialogue” with Mennanites and Quakers.
On the other hand, Seeds of Peace has its own “dialogue” between Israelis and ‘Palestinians.’ Of course, its most famous graduates are Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Aarraf…who went on to form the Hamas-linked International Solidarity Movement.
The Pope launched his own “dialogue” as well, welcoming in numerous Islamic leaders.
And lastly and most importantly, we have our “dialogian in chief,” Barack Obama. He called for “dialogue” in his Cairo “speech to the Islamic world,” and is launching a fruitless “dialogue” with Iran.
Through it all, it appears this “dialogue” is one way. The actual definition of dialogue is to have a give and take – an exchange of ideas. There thus should be some sign – even if a small one – that both sides are willing to listen to what the other has to say.
This is dangerous in two respects: (a) What if the “other side” is an Islamist, and “listening to what they have to say” means listening to, and paying heed to, Islamist propaganda?; (b) What if the “other side” does not listen to what YOU have to say? At what point does it make sense to stop speaking?
Lest we forget, Muslim Mafia outlines how CAIR and other Islamist groups are actually using “dialogue” as a tool for their propaganda. To what extent did “dialogue” and discussions help stop Nazi Germany? And if that did not help, why is it always “evident” that talking is always useful?
It is apparent, based on what I have shown, that “dialogue” to the progressives has been defined as a tool to sit around and say kumbaya, while conceding the store. There is little to no background checks on these “dialogians,” and one such “chief dialogian” is Tariq Ramadan, an outright Islamist.
I urge Blogmocracy netizens to use the proper definition of “dialogue,” which is an open and frank discussion, including a give and take of ideas. “Dialogue” does not necessarily lead anywhere, and should not be seen as some holy grail, and an achievement in and of itself.
I myself have personally sat in on a “dialogue” session between Jews and Muslims, and I was disheartened by what I saw: it was essentially a “blame the Jew” session.
This term “dialogue” is neither good nor bad, as “dialogue” is not always warranted. It is time that world leaders become realistic about what “dialogue” actually means, and start to implement it only when it is warranted.
