Political Correctness

Last October, Fox News TV political commentator Bill O’Reilly appeared on the show “The View” and stated that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11. This caused two liberals of the show (Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar) to walk out of the discussion in protest.

News analyst Juan Williams was also fired from the left-leaning National Public Radio (NPR) after he relayed his personal feeling during a discussion at the O’Reilly Factor show of being worried before boarding an airplane whenever he sees folks in “Muslim garb” which is indicative of these folks identifying themselves as Muslims first rather than as Americans.

Left-leaning folks were furious about such statements because they claim that people like O’Reilly and Williams are accusing all Muslims to be terrorists when in fact terrorism acts were committed only by a few extremists.

The objection is about the political incorrectness of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and they feel that terrorists ought to be labeled with the “extremists” tag to be fair. So now if we want to discuss about whether America has a “Muslim” problem or not, is it imperative that we watch out for political correctness by saying that America has a “Muslim extremist” problem, instead?

Yes, I get it! Not all Muslims are terrorists and it would be prim and proper to be politically correct so as not to offend generally peace loving people of religion such as Muslims. However, although there may indeed be idiotic bigots out there who believe that all Muslims are out to kill all Westerners, I personally do not know of anyone who espouses that thinking.

I personally do not know of anyone who truly intends to offend all Muslims or even the religion of Islam itself. So whenever I hear a discussion by regular day-to-day folks about the terrorists who attacked America on September 11, 2001, if I hear the terrorists being tagged as “Muslims”, because of my personal experience of only encountering people who don’t really intend to paint all Muslims with a broad brush, I tend to assume that the folks I hear are not really referring to all Muslims but only those who are out to kill whom they consider as infidels.

So in a way I’m kind of getting sick of this political correctness thing because it is one extra step to worry about in a discussion where more important points about the issue need to be discussed other than the already obvious fact that not all Muslims are terrorists. Bill O’Reilly gave an example stating that no uproar is heard whenever it is pointed that the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor.

Come to think of it, yes there seems to be no demand, for political correctness sake, of tagging the attackers as “Japanese Extremists”. So why is it necessary to treat the case for the 9/11 attack (and other jihad-related attacks) differently just because religion is involved? Why must religion be accorded special treatment?

The thing is, although I realize the virtues of political correctness, I do not think this is always necessary or even always applicable when discussing about certain societal segments as Muslims. When O’Reilly said that America (or was it the World?) has a “Muslim Problem” I do not view this as a bigoted statement or a statement that needs to be politically corrected as “Muslim Extremist Problem”. O’Reilly’s statement, although it doesn’t sound too warm and fuzzy, I believe has validity!

Sure, not all Muslims are terrorists but the fact that the majority of Muslims who are peace-loving are not doing anything or not doing enough to stop the extremists in their fold, makes this their problem too!

Dr. Susan Berry makes a very good case in her article in bigpeace.com. She notes:

“Let’s take the tragic issue of child abuse. Unfortunately, I have encountered a number of families in which child abuse has continued for years without any report from a family member until the child becomes involved in school and activities outside the family, when someone in those venues notices something is wrong. The heinous behavior of the perpetrator aside, I am still always taken aback when I interview family members of the abused child who say they knew of the abuse, but did not report it to anyone because they were afraid of some repercussions; they thought, perhaps, the child’s frequently obstinate behavior deserved this treatment (rationalization); they couldn’t deal with it because of other issues in their life, so they ignored it (denial); they understood how difficult the perpetrator’s life has been, so figured they had to be understanding of it (overcompensation).

Clearly, the other family members did not take their hands to the child, but don’t they share responsibility for passively allowing the abuse to continue?

Similarly, do the family and colleagues of a drug addicted medical professional have a responsibility to confront this individual, to avoid unsuspecting patients from being harmed by his or her behavior? Clearly, the family and colleagues are not directly harming patients themselves, but don’t they share responsibility for passively permitting potential danger by not speaking up?

And, culturally, when Americans view other Americans terrorizing others, committing crimes, or threatening a way of life- do they have a responsibility to confront these others? Clearly, not all Americans are engaged in this behavior, but aren’t they responsible to speak out against it in order to stop it?

Honesty with ourselves, our families and friends, our colleagues, our fellow citizens, and our political leaders is hard. It involves confronting fear. But, those who are slaves to the denial, rationalization, and overcompensation of political correctness are not solving the problem. Instead, they are contributing to its strength and power.”

I really think that there are more important and fundamental things to give priority to, other than mere appeasement, as achieved in being politically correct with “special” groups such as religionists (e.g. Muslims).

Being focused on political correctness can be so insane and even ironically unfair because of special treatment considerations. For instance, take the case for sexual harassment. If a man talks dirty to a woman, that’s sexual harassment. But if a woman talks dirty to a man… that’s $2.99 per minute! What’s up with that?!


  1. $2.99 only?

    The TSA will touch your junk ..for free. Welcome to Los Angeles. Its how its done in Hhh Hhh hhollywoooood. Oh shit I came. Hmm I like it here already… thanks to… muslims?

    I am not narrow minded that is why I understood what Juan meant to convey, or what Bill stated, all the hijackers were…worshipers of islam. It is a fact none of them was a jew, or protestant, or El Shootae, thank goodness none of them were bisaya. Had they been all bisaya or even one of them was, then the TSA will single me out while putting on latex gloves. I guess its their traditional welcome now.

    The 19 hijackers were devoted muslims. I do however would be cautious on how I use and say the word muslim. If you you use the word in a derrogatory then..Trouble..it can come in through the mouth, as it also comes out of it. A dose of political correctness at the right amount at the right place is good, too much of anything is bad. An overdose of PC makes a moron.

    • I flew from LAX last Thanksgiving and I was disappointed I wasn't scanned by that new porno-friendly scanner or groped by the TSA folks. Was hoping that maybe I could get a free dinner out of it but no… those machines and pat downs were probably reserved for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie types which I admit I'm not. Oh well… 🙂

      Thanks for reading, Eddie!

  2. "Come to think of it, yes there seems to be no demand, for political correctness sake, of tagging the attackers as “Japanese Extremists”. So why is it necessary to treat the case for the 9/11 attack (and other jihad-related attacks) differently just because religion is involved? Why must religion be accorded special treatment?"

    The bombers at Pearl Harbor were agents of the Japanese military. It's correct to say that the Japanese (the country, not the ethnicity) bombed Pearl Harbor. It was not an action of certain extreme factions within Japan, so it would be absurd to say they were "Japanese Extremists". On the other hand, if you say "Muslims attacked the US" there's an implication that this was somehow condoned by the Muslim community, hence the phrase "Muslim Extremists" is used to clarify that it was perpetrated by a fringe group within the religion. I assume you would be opposed to the usage of the phrase "Filipinos are against the proposed RH Bill" for similar reasons, even though that statement is factually correct.

    "For instance, take the case for sexual harassment. If a man talks dirty to a woman, that’s sexual harassment. But if a woman talks dirty to a man… that’s $2.99 per minute! What’s up with that?!"

    Hopefully that's a joke, but just in case… not all sexual advances by a man are sexual harassment, but if it's been made clear that those advances are not wanted and they continue anyways, then it is. Sexual advances by a woman towards a man can also be sexual harassment, but obviously not if the man is paying the woman to do it. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the whole concept of sexual harassment is "special treatment" or political correctness gone "insane".

    • I understand the objection. Technically, it was wrong to make the statement that points towards ALL Muslims as terrorists. There's no argument there. The point being made is just on a personal or practical level, that being politically correct all the time can be a pain in the neck under the assumption that no one in their right mind really believes that ALL Muslims are terrorists; that when that statement is carelesslesly made (as it often is the case), the speaker is only referring to those Muslims who actually are out to or would want to kill whom they consider infidels. But I agree… those folks ought to be properly called "Muslim Extremists" but I am willing to give people I encounter some slack when I don't hear them add the word "Extremists" as I believe they probably or most likely are really just referring to those fringe crazy bastards and not the majority who are peace loving people.

      The sex thing… it was a joke, Heccy.

      Btw, thanks for reading!

      • By the way… I was also thinking of "When a good looking person follows someone, they are called secret admirers. But when the follower is ugly, the person is called a stalker". But I thought the sexual harassment with a twist of phone sex was more appropriate and funnier. 🙂


        • ah, good to know i have the potential to become a secret admirer instead of a stalker 🙂
          labels always have 2 sides, if a Fil-Am makes it big, people want to label him or her a pinoy talent, if they committed a crime, people are quick to take offense when news reports tag him as filipino. its just a lot over-sensitivity over false pride.

          a few months back, law enforcers in the US were criticized for giving news reports which specified the ethnicity of the suspects at large, citing racial profiling as being politically incorrect. but didnt the protesters stop and think that the additional info might help narrow down the search for the culprits by giving as much descriptions to the public as possible?

          • I agree. It may be a case of over-sensitivity especially if the issue at hand has a negative tone.

            Cheers, and I'm sure you are more of a "secret admirer" rather than a "stalker". If not… well…. $2.99 per minute aint too bad to indulge on instead of trying to follow anyone! 🙂 hahaha Have a great weekend, wes!

      • Ok, sorry for going off about a joke, but some people actually seem to believe there's no such thing as sexual harassment… And some people (whether in their right mind or not) appear to believe that all Muslims are potential terrorists, too…

  3. In retrospect, I think the primary reason that Whoopi walked out of that discussion wasn't necessarily because of the assumption that Bill O'Reilly was accusing all Muslims of being behind 9/11.

    It think this was just a simple case of Whoopi walking out becuase it was Bill O'Reilly.

    The man has a reputation for being an ignorant, hate-mongering, and sexist bigot, and it goes without saying that almost anything he says will be treated with a degree of hostility, never mind the message or intent.

    If it had been anybody else, I'd wager that Whoopi would have shown more composure.

    As for Juan Williams, well honestly, I think he's just being an idiot.

    What kind of self-respecting terrorist would intentionally stick out like a sore thumb by wearing something as bleedin' obvious as "Muslim Garb"? It'd be like wearing a sign that says "Look at me! I'm carrying a bomb vest!"

    • Well, I can’t really say that for Whoopi. Afterall, she did appear at the O’Reilly show days (or was it weeks? I can’t remember) after her walkout. I don’t think she hates everything that is about O’Reilly, I really think she just didn’t like what O’Reilly said at that moment during that segment at The View. It was more of a political correctness thing that she was trying to point out and the things she said during her appearance at the O’Reilly Factor does confirm that. However, I would agree with you 100% with regards to the other one who walked out, Joy Behar. I think Behar is much more ultra left than Whoopi and she does seem to be the type that hates O’Reilly types, the Palin types or other Conservative / Right leaning personalities.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here