See, Apples and Oranges are Really The Same

I was going to go to another topic today, but events in the world only add evidence to my previous post, and while I might be pleased about that, it makes me shudder that there are people in the world out there who truly believe these things. What I am talking about is our Dear Leader President Barack Obama's speech recently concerning Muslims that he gave in Cairo, Eqypt. Our Dear Leader's speech outlines the gravity of the situation, and shows a skewed worldview, one that should anger anyone with a correct view of the facts.
First, he talks about the history of Islam and the West. With almost everything, what the President intends to say is quite different from what actually happened. There has been little cooperation between the West and the Middle East. Islam arose in the 8th Century, and began to spread through the use of the sword across the Arabian Peninsula and then North Africa and then into Spain. This spread was stopped by the French. The Muslims forced conversion upon their captive populations. The other major pre-modern spread of Islam as it concerns the West is when the Byzantium Empire was overrun by the Ottoman Turks and their conquest of the Balkans, and their eventual halt before the gates of Vienna. Between these two major assaults, Christian Europe struck back with the Crusades, which were largely ineffective from a military standpoint. It was the Crusades which brought knowledge of spices and old learning from the Roman Empire. This was combined with the knowledge stored throughout Europe in monasteries and the Church which lead to the Enlightenment. During the early modern era (1500-1800), Islam was represented by the Ottoman Empire, which remained antagonistic to the West, and was slowly pushed out of Eastern Europe. Spain expelled Islam at the beginning of this period. The Turks remained hostile to the West throughout the entire period, often striking through the Barbary Pirates, who endangered shipped throughout the Mediterranean. It took the power of the United States in 1803 in the War Against Tripoli to finally crush the pirates.
Colonization, long taught to be a detrimental force on the world, at worst can be called a mixed bag. European colonization ended local wars, spread Western values and languages, and unified the world through global trade, which was first implemented during the late 19th century. Thus, globalism is in no way a new concept, and not the impetus for the current hostility towards the West.
I just want to know, where in the oath of office is it the President's job to run PR for Islam? While there are Muslims inside the United States, (and not as many as our Dear Leader thinks) their contributions to what this country is and its accomplishments are blown far out of proportion. And if they are this great, why do they need the bully pulpit of the President to save them? They need this protection because they are not that exceptional.
This equality of civilizations stems from a serious case of Moral Relativism. As to what this is I discussed in the previous post. Our Dear Leader thinks that nationalism creates problems in the world, which is like calling a computer as defunct because a hard drive that is a part of it doesn't work. He believes that each nation and civilization is the same, equally valid, and that each operates in its self interest to the determent of others. It is quite different if France and North Korea possess nuclear weapons, as no one fears if one does and the world trembles if the other does.
The next major demonstration of Moral Relativism concerns what he said concerning Palestine and Israel. He compares the Holocaust with the Palestinian problem. Lets just see, how does the industrial murder of millions compare to a group of guerrillas who bomb and murder people on planes, cafes and buses? His statement is the injustice. He dilutes the evils of the Nazi regime by saying that the Palestinians have gone through something similar. I am going to be clear. There is absolutely no comparison between the Holocaust and any other event in human history. None. The Holocaust stands alone as the limit of what evils that humanity can perpetrate upon itself. Nothing compares to this. Even to make this comparison insults those who endured the Holocaust, because you weaken the evil done here in bringing closer to any other activity done by humans. He even does a lesser insult by comparing the struggle for Civil Rights by blacks in this country to the Palestinian cause. To have such a warped sense of morality should trouble anyone.
For those of you who have been taught in public schools, those who do not believe in Moral Relativism should have a difficult time in supporting the Palestinian cause. First off, it has NEVER been their land. A short history lesson is in order. Starting from Roman domination, this area of the world has always been controlled by outsiders, and thus possessed by them. Following the Romans, the Byzantines controlled the area. It was captured by Arabs near the turn of the millennium, and this briefly contested by Crusaders during the First and Second Crusades. After 1453 the Ottoman Turks had defeated the Byzantines, and retained control of Palestine until World War I. It was here that Great Britain assumed control over the region. Now, it is true that Great Britain had intended to partition the region into a Jewish and Non-Jewish area, but these plans were upset by the withdrawal of British troops and the first of many wars to destroy the Jews. It was not until the absolute failure of these attempts by the 1970's that we even see the PLO and hear about the Palestinian plight. The Palestinians are just an indirect way to weaken the Jewish state. They could have been long accepted by their surrounding Arab nations, but it serves their purposes to keep this thorn in the side of Israel.
Our Dear Leader further adds insult to injury by equally comparing the United States with the Holocaust denying state of Iran. He also states that no one nation should decide if any other should possess nuclear weapons. Why the hell not? If you are not a Moral Relativist, you can clearly see that there are some nations who should never possess nuclear weapons (Iran, North Korea) and others than no one cares (France, Sweden). There are major differences in nations, some that should be trusted and others never. He compounds this by stating that no form of government should be imposed on other people. Well, excuse me Dear Leader, I don't think that democracy and freedom are an imposition. Tyranny is, since it is an unnatural state of humanity. Bringing democracy to others is only removing this unnatural state. The philosophical framework that holds this truth was created solely by the West during the Enlightenment and is held by them and those nations "imposed" upon since that period.
He further offends by calling Islam a tolerant religion. Freedom of religion is a new idea in human history, and again held by the West. Prior religious tolerance was only a neglect of religion by individual rulers of their states. True religious freedom until recently was totally foreign to Islamic lands, and even then is only seen in small doses. Conversion from Islam is at best frowned upon, and sharia law is by definition intolerant of religious difference. There is little tolerance in Islamic history.
Then, what is the point? Our Dear Leader clearly has gone off his rocker. Am I saying that Islam is the bad guy and the West is the good guy? Yeah, I am. The West (and this does include the United States), while not perfect, stands for better ideals than the other. These ideals are freedom, tolerance, democracy and the value of human life through the codification of rights. Islam has none of these, unless we had "imposed" them. With a choice, people would rather live under the West, as can be seen in the Islamic migration to Europe to escape the horrible lives back at home. Comparing Islam and the West is like saying apples and oranges are both fruit. There is little that we need from the West from Islam, and much they need from us if they are to survive in the modern era.