Islamic Misnomer

The term “Islamic fundamentalist” has been used quite often in the news to represent terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. I believe, this is a misnomer or at least an imprecise term and I would like to suggest (not that anyone is listening) another more precise term when referring to these terrorists: Islamic militants.

The reason for this seems clear once you start to think about it. Fundamentalism, in itself, is not a threatening idea. The world has many religious groups that are happy to consider themselves fundamentalists, yet they seem to have enough ideological constraint not to terrorize the general public. Fundamentalism simply means “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” (Webster’s Dictionary). Yet, more recently this term is used to refer to the those of the Muslim faith that have engage in warfare in the name of their religion. The terms and the definitions seem to be incongruent.

Liberal ideologs in the U.S. and European philosophers (such as French philosopher Jacques Derrida) have equated American Christian fundamentalists on par with Islamic terrorists. Derrida, along with other European thinkers, professed the idea that the current conflict between the west and the mid-east is basically caused by a disagreement in ideology between the Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian fundamentalist in America. Even though, this theory is chopped full of blinding errors, this is a popular theory in much of Europe. Liberals in American are starting to make this connection as well, because they don’t like the politics of the religious right (see James W. Ceaser’s article Faith in Democracy, in the Weekly Standard, on 11/07/2005, Volume 011, Issue 08 for a full review of this side of the issue).

However, it is not fundamentalism, per se, that is the problem. In fact, we in American should value the faith of each individual no matter where they fit on the religious continuum. The problem is when that segment of religious fundamentalism straps a bomb to themselves, or fills a car full of explosives, or high-jacks a couple of airplanes and kills innocent citizens in the name of faith.

No, fundamentalism is not the problem. The problem is the over zealous few that channel their passion into militant action. Let’s face it: Bin Laden would not be such an issue if he was a just a fundamentalist Islamic leader, but the moment he decided to pursue terrorist actions – he became a threat. The problem is caused by those that incite the violence and those that carry it out. It is the “militant” Islamic wing of the religion that is cause of so much spilled blood. It is the Islamic militants that are the real danger.

It may seem like an insignificant thing, this term, but fundamentalism is a vague label that is quickly becoming misused in our society. If we are not careful, once fundamentalism is defined as “dangerous,” then anyone that has a zealousness for their faith can be called a fundamentalist and therefore, a danger to society.

CSWE: A one way street.

On November 2, 2005, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) wrote a letter to the Department of Education requesting an investigation into the accreditation criteria of two well known academic organizations: the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). As the press release states, “The two Washington, DC-based organizations between them certify the academic standards of many university and college programs in teacher training and social work.... [and] the two agencies in recent years have been applying highly politicized accreditation standards."

This, of course, is not surprising to me as a PhD student in the School of Social Work – who happens to be a Republican. I have criticized Social Work and its major organizations for being ideological bullies for years. Social Work as a profession and an academic body is largely and openly biased towards liberal philosophy. The largest national organization of social workers (the National Association of Social Workers- NASW) has traditionally aligned itself with the far liberal side of the Democratic Party – as evident in their latest attempt to block the nomination of now, Chief Justice John G. Roberts – who was considered a great choice by many moderate Democrats.

At this point, you might be thinking: A social worker and a Republican isn’t that a paradox? I don’t think so, but I am routinely challenged on my motivation to be a social worker with such philosophical persuasions as 'personal responsibility,' 'private ownership,' 'less taxes,' etc…But I don’t see this as a paradoxical stance at all. Let me give you some background: When I decided to be a social worker, I was working overseas in a country that was trying to weave its way out from under a communist system of government. Although, I was an English teacher, I also worked with volunteers from Peace Corps: digging gardens, helping set up daycare centers, and helping entrepreneurs tap into the world of capitalism so they could better the lives of their families (often through the acquisition of the English language).

When I came back to the United States, I wanted to continue helping people and I picked a profession that stated its sole purpose as doing just that. What I didn’t realize at the time, however, is that Social Work as a profession had decided in the 1960s on a liberal pathway to “helping” people – which means, only government can help people because private industry is too corrupt and Churches… well, they proselytize. I quickly learned that this profession of “inclusion” didn’t mean me: A White, Christian, Republican was not going to be helpful to anyone – especially poor minorities. I was seen as the dominate paradigm that they were battling against. It didn’t matter that my goals were and still are the same as theirs: I want to find ways to alleviate poverty, stamp out discrimination, make life better for fragile populations (children, mentally challenged, the underserved, the elderly), but because my world view provides for a different path to those ends, I am considered ignorant and stubborn.

One professor once told me that Protestant Christians have no business being in Social Work, because they can’t seem to put their “Christian values” aside and rely solely on the profession’s “Code of Ethics.” I’ve later come to realize that she does not stand alone in this belief, even though, it was mainly “Christians” that created Social Work.

I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut and just get my degree.

I hope the Department of Education decides to look into the charges made by the NAS. I think they will find that this ideological pushiness runs deep in the Social Work profession (I can’t testify to the actions of the NCATE). However, deep down I don’t really believe that this investigation will change anything, but I am hopeful that it will ignite a change at the grassroots level and give me some identifiable partners in my crusade to bring balance to the profession (okay, bad word choice, but you get the picture).

The social problems of our society can be solved and deserve the best of our society’s attention. Social Work’s stated purpose is to promote “human well-being by strengthening opportunities, resources, and capacities of people in their environments and by creating policies and services to correct conditions that limit human rights and the quality of life.”

My hope is that Social Work can become a more balance profession so that we can accomplish the said purposes above using all options available in the ideological spectrum. Currently, only liberal ideology is an acceptable means to the end. If Social Work can change its ideological bias, then maybe new ideas can flush through the tired old delivery systems and revitalize research and practice methods – and then we would have a profession that can truly find ways to promote human well-being without the restraints of a one way street.

Remember When....

Currently, Democrats are looking for ways to bring the ills of the Iraq war back to the front pages. It seems Bush's poll numbers haven't dropped far enough. In that attempt, many on the left are reminding people of the "false" intelligence that the Bush adminstration relied upon to invade Iraq. Even former President Carter is on the stump, attacking Bush for his now infamous 16 words in the State of the Union speech that referred to WMDs and a possible nuclear threat of Saddam. But let's not forget that it wasn't just Bush saying those things. In fact, the entire coutry believe it before we invaded and figured out that Saddam was playing a very good bluffing game. Remember when the other side said this:

“There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States….But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.”

Ranking Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee (which means he had access to all of the intelligence that the Bush Administration did)

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
October 10, 2002

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

============================

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

October 10, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

=================================

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy
September 27, 2002

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

============================

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator John Kerry
October 9, 2002

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html