By Paul Eidelberg

An individual who opposes the use the word “extremism” in connection with Islam, or with the behavior of  Muslims who murder innocent human beings, has not only transcended the distinction between ignorance and stupidity, but has also obscured the language that differentiates what is human  from what is subhuman.  Indeed, such a creature has escaped the rational constraints and meaningfulness of language. No longer should the term “homo sapiens” be applied to creatures called “human beings.”

That such a creature may become the President of the United States is unexceptional since, according to Muslims who believe in Allah’s Quran, most Americas are “pigs” and “dogs.” That such Muslims regard most Americans as subhuman is a normative, not an extremist, Islamic doctrine. This Islam is personified by of the current President of the United States.

In our age of moral equivalency, what some people call “terrorists” are nothing more than disliked “freedom fighters.”  In this age, there is no such thing as “Islamic Extremism” or “Radical Islam.” Such language denotes value-judgments having no objective validity. Such terms should be expunged from the English language.

It’s about time that we heeded the refined teachings of higher education exemplified, for example, by the doctrine of Positivism or Logical Empiricism, a doctrine exalted at the bexst universities in Boston, London, and Paris.  If we are to avoid hurting the feelings of others, all moral distinctions should be eliminated, especially words like “good” and “bad.”  Such words should be avoided even when house-breaking dogs. Dogs also have feelings.