A bridge too far to cross:

Friday-March 11, 2011

A bridge too far to cross:

Religion can be a hard bridge to cross, especially when there are opposing opinions and opposing sides. It shouldn’t be this way, but the harsh reality is that it is. This is why the bridge is too far to cross and too far to come to terms with when opposing religions are involved.

The issue of Islam is confusing to some and is mind boggling to others. But to a Muslim, it is everything. We, as a society, want to show compassion and welcome Islam and Muslims with open arms. We should, because our Constitution makes that possible. It makes it possible so the religions of the world can get along and assimilate with the greater society here in America.

America is now becoming a society of the world. Unlike many other countries of the world, the United States welcomes all who seek freedom and all who want to live under our Constitution. The United States guarantees the right of citizenship under the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Our immigrant population is growing. As a result, there is now a culture gap and a culture clash. The issue of Islam is one of those gaps that become hard to come to terms with, when you are a Jew or a Christian.

The bridge becomes too far to cross, when the radical elements of Islam practice Jihad and call their new neighbors Infidels. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when the nation that these immigrants want to live in is questioning why the radical elements want to destroy it.

I watched most of the hearings yesterday, on Capital Hill, which is investigating the Islamic radicalization of Americans. I thought the guests demonstrated restraint and respect for our members of Congress, no matter how out of touch some of these members looked. Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee (D), made these hearings out to be a matter of discrimination. She held up a copy of the Constitution and made it as if the hearings themselves were unconstitutional. Ms. Lee has again demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts and has again grandstanded for her own political expediency.

She said: “I brought with me the Constitution, the living, breathing document. The First Amendment allows us the freedom of religion. The freedom of association and expression,” she said. “But I will tell you today, that this breathing document is in pain.”

The Constitution lives, because of the written words in the document. The Congresswoman is correct in saying that it guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of association and expression. The question I have is this, why can’t we, as a society, question the harmful association that through specific expressions of hatred towards the infidels becomes a matter of jihad? Why can’t we question it and why can’t we say it is dangerous? This is also freedom of speech, freedom of association and expression.


Congressman Keith Ellison (D,) a Muslim himself, gave compassioned testimony. He shed tears over the fact that the Muslim community was under such scrutiny. He showed emotion, but failed to say that the radicalization element of his religion must stop, because there is no place for it in America. The other part of this issue is that many other members of the Islamic community also fail to say stop. Maybe they can’t, because it could be part of the religion.

The bridge becomes too far to cross, when members of Congress make this a partisan issue like Lee and Ellison did. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when members of Congress cannot demonstrate to the world and to those who will do us harm that we are committed to stopping the radicalization process. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when those who are practicing it don’t say STOP the radicalization process.

Islamic radicalization is occurring, radicalization is a threat, and radicalization is something that should not be tolerated. It should be confronted and it should be rejected by all who favor peace and who honor our unique freedoms and our constitution.

When members of Congress take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but turn the Constitution itself into a question, they have failed in their oath. When members of Congress use these hearings to court a new voting block they are in essence violating the intent of the documents that protect our way of life and our guarantees of liberty and freedom.

When any religion starts to undermine our society and our Constitution, the citizens of the host country should be able to voice opinions and voice their concerns, when a radical element is involved in undermining the society and the rule of law.

This is not an issue of discrimination in America. It is a National Security issue that Americans should be concerned about and should be able to legally act on. Our tradition’s, the basis of our laws and of our founding was for two reasons freedom and liberty. We not only have an obligation to investigate and to pursue our enemies even if it may be a religion, it becomes our duty to protect our posterity.

I will not question anyone who wants to shorten the bridge so that it becomes possible to cross. I will, however, question those who fail in their oath and who are blind to the obvious abridgements of our freedom.

John Hancock -1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives

A footnote: We should all work toward shortening the bridge so that it can be crossed. But some times a bridge is too far to cross when others do not want to work with you.