The Hearing On Muslim Extremists and Protecting Civil Rights
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservative
House Republicans under the leadership of Representative Peter King (R-NY) held the first in what he anticipates to be a series of hearings examining the potential dangers of radical Islam and radicalized American Muslims. The hearings are a prudent and necessary activity given the realities of our modern world.
In response to the hearings being held by the House of Representatives Senate Democrats are responding with meetings of their own following their return from a ten day vacation recess. The Senate meetings will focus on what is perceived to be a spoke in anti Muslim bigotry, and to examine Muslim's civil rights.
The debate about exactly what constitutes Anti Muslim bigotry, as well as the debate on the impact radicalized Muslims residing in American have on our society and it's wellbeing is worth having. This nation must come to terms with how to handle radical Islam on our shores as well as insuring the civil rights of all peaceful and law abiding Muslims are protected.
So lets have an honest and open discourse. Let the constitutional principals that were put in place by the founding fathers be our guide. But let us not ignore the very real danger of extreme Islam nor be wary of taking decisive action to quell it. The same must be true for any other extremist and dangerous organizations (be they religious or secular) that pose a potential threat to civil society.
The most recent FBI statistical data available {2009} shows Anti Islamic hate crimes at 9.3%, of the total 1376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. Anti Semitic hate crimes accounted for 70.1%.
As we look at this often divisive issue, lets do so with an open and unbiased approach. But also let us not back away from dealing with the very real and growing issue of Islamic extremism.
From Inside Politics.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservative
House Republicans under the leadership of Representative Peter King (R-NY) held the first in what he anticipates to be a series of hearings examining the potential dangers of radical Islam and radicalized American Muslims. The hearings are a prudent and necessary activity given the realities of our modern world.
In response to the hearings being held by the House of Representatives Senate Democrats are responding with meetings of their own following their return from a ten day vacation recess. The Senate meetings will focus on what is perceived to be a spoke in anti Muslim bigotry, and to examine Muslim's civil rights.The debate about exactly what constitutes Anti Muslim bigotry, as well as the debate on the impact radicalized Muslims residing in American have on our society and it's wellbeing is worth having. This nation must come to terms with how to handle radical Islam on our shores as well as insuring the civil rights of all peaceful and law abiding Muslims are protected.
So lets have an honest and open discourse. Let the constitutional principals that were put in place by the founding fathers be our guide. But let us not ignore the very real danger of extreme Islam nor be wary of taking decisive action to quell it. The same must be true for any other extremist and dangerous organizations (be they religious or secular) that pose a potential threat to civil society.
The most recent FBI statistical data available {2009} shows Anti Islamic hate crimes at 9.3%, of the total 1376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. Anti Semitic hate crimes accounted for 70.1%.
As we look at this often divisive issue, lets do so with an open and unbiased approach. But also let us not back away from dealing with the very real and growing issue of Islamic extremism.
From Inside Politics.
Via: Memeorandum
King and his GOP cohorts have no intention of looking "at this often divisive issue... with an open and unbiased approach."
ReplyDeleteThis is just rabble-rousing.
The FBI and HSA and such are already looking closely at the situation. We know enough about all this. The Muslim community has been pretty good, especially of late, in policing itself and keeping us informed. The last thing we'd want to do is to drive them away from the authorities. This is what makes King's hearing so stupid and irresponsible. But he doesn't care about national security. He only cares about his popularity, his guest spots on Fox "News," and his bank account (expect a book about all this soon enough, I guarantee).
JMJ
Yada,Yada, Yada...
ReplyDeleteThese hearings should be held. In both chambers.
And the hearings should be open, transparent, and televised. The the intelligent among the public draw their own conclusions.
Your view is colored by your progressivism.
hey, weren't you part of the hippie movement that distrusted all law enforcement back in the day. ;)
I am in full agreement Les.
ReplyDeleteFor us to not have these hearings because of the perceived perception of Muslim bigotry would be a display of utter ignorance for the threat that Muslim extremism poses is great. Since many peoples heads are in the dark about this threat I would argue that Muslim extremism is more of a threat than Nazism was under Hitler, maybe not in respect to its severity but because of how widespread the threat of Muslim extremism is around the globe.
I 100% guarantee that nothing new or good will come out of these hearings. It is nothing but sleazy, sleazy, sleazy Muslim-baiting.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't King hold a hearing on Christian radicalization? That's far more of a problem here in the US than Muslim radicalization!
Why? because King is a sleazy lowlife, not some diligent patriot.
JMJ
JMJ,
ReplyDelete>>Why doesn't King hold a hearing on Christian radicalization? That's far more of a problem here in the US than Muslim radicalization!
---------------------
PROVE. IT.
When's the last time a Christian starpped a bomb onto themselves so they could bring the will of Jesus in fire and death and then secure themselves a place in Heaven?
Your comments are ignorant, JMJ. Truly. So, prove it. Show us the facts. I can easily go to the Internet and pull up literally 100's of Muslims killing infidels. Oh, and not too few of these are, ahem, radicalized American Muslims.
Donald
JMJ - Your arguments might have been valid say, during the dark ages. Or, during the Crusades. Or, during the Salem Witch trials. Or, perhaps ...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Donald. As a movement please demonstrate just what you mean by radicalized Christians. As well as examples of the "human carnage" we've seen from radicalized Muslims following the faith of Islam today by Christians.
This not the thirteenth century JMJ. Yet the extreme radicals in the Muslim faith seem to be living still in the 7th century.
Each to their own I suppose. History I fear will prove Don and I right. Along with Mr. King. IMO it is said that the lefts hatred of anything or anybody conservative blinds them sometimes to reality.
Oh well.
Just wondering how you might feel if someday if someone close to you, say a family member member, suffers the fate many have at the hands of radicalized Muslims.
Just sayin.
Donald,
ReplyDeleteReally??? You forgot Hutaree already? The Army of God? Abortion clinic bombings and provider assassinations? Really? You really don't remember???
NONE of the 9/11 terrorists were radicalized here in the US. Not a one. We've had a handful of thankfully ineffective wannabes bred into this nonsense here here in the US. Meanwhile the Christian radicals seem to be getting worse and growing.
On top of all that, this is a matter of responsible governance. The Muslim community here in the US has been more cooperative then ever in recent years - only a lowlife would disrupt that to score political points with the Muslim-baiter crowd.
We should get our priorities straight and knock it off with the adolescent reactionary nationalism.
Actually, Les, many Arabs today are more like their 13th century ancestors than their 7th century ones! It was during the 12th and 13th centuries that the Muslim leaders turned on Aristotlean thought, finding it incompatable with their faith and relegating them to ignorance ever since.
Funny thing, since the Enlightment and Industrial Age, many Christians, especially here in America, are reacting the same way! LOL!
What a world.
And finally, the odds are exponentially greater that someone close to me will die in a car accident (quite a few people very close to me including a family member), common murder (at least three people I was very close to), drug overdose (at least a half dozen people close to me), suicide (one person very close to me), and disease (too many people very close to me).
Again. Let's get our priorities straight.
JMJ
JMJ - I share some of your priorities. I acknowledge that more needs to be to done in areas you mention.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, a reactionary intolerant religious Christian right does present threats to ethical and rational values, and certainly to any hope of rational discourse. Just as extreme radical Islam does in our country, as well as worldwide.
To negate the threat of extreme Islam is foolish and dangerous. Being as non religious as one can be I am concerned about radicalized religion in any faith. Perhaps one day we will have that discussion you and I.
The problem with the progressives by and large, at least as I see it, is their chosen inability to recognize the threat is real and exists within a very large number of practitioners of the religion of Islam.
Your desire to excessive tolerance may well become another's nightmare someday. But hey, we'll hopefully be dead when it does. Right?
Lets see, we had 1376 religious hate crimes, of which 128 were against muslims, 965 were against jews, and then 283 were against other religions.
ReplyDeleteNow, exactly what do these numbers have to do in regards to the issue of the radicalization of Islam? Tell me exactly how I can use these numbers to prove that muslims in America are being radicalized?
What evidence do we have that proves that muslims are being radicalized here in the United States?
I would like to see statistics of how many radical acts are attempted by muslims in a year...by white wing supremists groups, by weird little religious sects, by black militants, by anti government militias....and by depressed middle aged nut cases who decide to go around and shoot up their workplace, their family, or something in the neighborhood....
Oh, and by the way Lisa.....Nazism was not a threat UNDER Hitler.....Hitler was Nazism....damn dumbest comment I have ever seen. Let me know when Islam kills over 20 million people in a world war and then adds another 6 million that they killed in concentration camps.....
JMJ,
ReplyDeleteAny person who murders an abortion provider or bombs an abortion mill is neither Christian or pro-life.
You might want to actually look at the facts of how many abortion mill bombings occurred versus how many attempts to hurt/kill civilians were committed by Islamic extremists over the past 8 to 10 years? If you look at the facts the number of attempts to maim or kill civilians by Islamic extremists far outnumbers those attempts by violent anti-abortion extremists.
The media plays a one-sided game covering up for threats and attacks made against pro-lifers who exercise their right to protest and pray near the abortion mill. I am pretty sure you didn't see this in the news - http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-bomb-thrown-at-elderly-pro-life-activist-at-40-days-vigil
@TAO
ReplyDeleteLink to support those figures.
Okay... so Hitler was the only person who was a threat? That was the stupidest comment I have ever seen! By those standards the only threat to us now is Bin Laden.
Teresa - What I can't understand is the progressive tendency to believe those who recognize the threat of radical Islam in America somehow fail to recognize other threats or wrongheaded agenda's.
ReplyDeleteI guess that the problem with gross generalizations, and unfortunately both the progressive and the conservative elements are guilty of it from time to time. It's just the progressives are more guilty of it. But I guess I must admit to being a bit "biased" perhaps, being an independent conservative.
Bet you won't find a progressive rushing in to acknowledge their bias.
I agree, Les, that this is an important topic that needs our attention. I'm just worried that a big bells and whistles set of hearings with a neocon like King leading them will 1) be divisive (this, in that he's purely singling out one group) and 2) appear like a dog and pony show.......It's kind of like when you're trying to nourish the squirrel. The quieter approach tends to be more successful.
ReplyDeleteTeresa...
ReplyDeleteThose numbers came from Les article...if you take his number of 1376 and multiply it by 9.3% you get......If you take 1376 and multiply it by 70.1% you get.....and then if you take 1376 and subtract the result of your first calculation and then subtract the result of your second calculation you get the third number....
If you take the result of all three of your calculations and add them together you total 1376...which is the number Les provided without any links....
Lets see, where would the Nazi party be if Hitler did not exist? What would Al-Qaeda be if Bin Laden had decided to stay in europe and be a rich spoiled middle eastern playboy?
"Any person who murders an abortion provider or bombs an abortion mill is neither Christian or pro-life." That is about as logical as a muslim claiming that Al Qaeda is not really following the teachings of Mohammed....
If you want to really curb radicalization of Islam then lets quit consuming oil...I believe you will find that most radicals find it hard to convert people without money....
Les, as I'm sure you know, I am not against keeping up with Islamic extremism in the USA. I just don't think this a good forum.
ReplyDeleteTeresa, anyone who commits suicide for any reason oter than immediate death by other means is condemned by God according to all the three great monotheistic faiths. All three. Yet some Muslims these days do it anyway. There are "Christians" who believe and do all sorts of crazy things. We are a mostly Christian nation, by far.
Let's get our priorities straight.
Domestic terrorism is more "Christian" than anything else.
JMJ
TAO - I linked to Inside Politics. These were not my numbers, they were from I.P.
ReplyDeleteNote link is at bottom of article.
Jersey said: "Domestic terrorism is more "Christian" than anything else."
ReplyDeleteWell, the biggest incident in recent history (aside from the Muslim attacks) was from McVeigh, an anti-Christian.
The wave of attacks and incidents in the 1960s? The terrorist that Obama palled around with, and his colleages, were certainly not Christian based, as they worked to bring atheist Soviet hegemony to the US.
On to an ugly pattern in the breakdown of civil discourse that is fortunately short of terrorism:
The union thugs threatening violence against Mark Walker and others for daring to cut government waste, are generally not Christian-based.
will: As a long-term conservative, King is not a neocon. There are actually very few of these.
Maybe it IS rabble rousing. Look at the rabble it's roused already!
ReplyDeletedmarks,
ReplyDeleteTimothy McVeigh was never "anti-Christian." He did develope some doubt in his faith toward the end iof his life, but that's about it. And remember, his main motivation was a reaction to the Waco tragedy - yet another radical Christian group.
I know that King is not a neocon. But this anti-Mulsim rabble-rousing sure fits the neocon agenda.
Smythe, have any of substance to add?
JMJ
@TAO,
ReplyDelete>>"Any person who murders an abortion provider or bombs an abortion mill is neither Christian or pro-life." That is about as logical as a muslim claiming that Al Qaeda is not really following the teachings of Mohammed....
------------------
Actually, a disciple and son of God would not kill, ever, in the Name of Jesus, because Jesus has never told us to kill in His Name. We are kinda against that whole, "Death to the Infidels!" rhetoric. Our Jesus has not, repeat, NOT asked us or commanded us to kill for His New Covenant. If a person does kill in such a mindset, ("Jesus told me to kill you!") they are clearly delusional, deceived, and whacked-out.
As to the pro-life issue, it means we are "pro" life. We like life. We endorse it. We like to see others have it. So to kill in the name of "pro-life" is also a huge deceitful mistake. As a pro-lifer myself, I am opposed to the death penalty, just as I am opposed to abortion for convenience. (I cannot and will not presume to speak for Teresa on that one.)
TAO, sorry for the uninvited comments between you and Teresa. I merely wanted to hopefully clarify how some of us view the Pro-Life truth as opposed to how it has been portrayed by, wait for it, a pro-abortion media.
Are there crazies out there who yammer and ramble on about Jesus? Sure. Of course. Just like there are "peaceful liberals" who throw bottles, rip apart signs being held by elderly women, cuss at cameras, push women around (on camera, even!), threaten black people with sending them back to the fields, and etc, etc.
My two cents.
Donald
Donald,
ReplyDeleteOur world is full of all sorts of people who have all sorts of ways to justify some of the most heinous crimes.
99.9% of the prolife conservatives I know would never kill anyone, 99.9% of the prochoice liberals I know find the thought of abortions to be an appalling thought and 99.9% of the muslims I know think Bin Laden is evil and that the radicals are wrong....oh, and 99.9% of the muslims I know are pacifists....
But from time to time we find ourselves as a society dealing with some evil, violent crazies who use all sorts of things to justify their behavior. Teresa can say that people who kill abortion are not really prolife...they would claim that they were protecting unborn lives and that they were more prolife than she was. A radical muslim while being criticized by moderate muslims would claim that they were not true believers.
Sadly, everyone tries to create a black and white world out of a grey reality. Its comforting to believe that prolife means the same thing to everyone...but it doesn't and that is exactly why we cannot become so defensive and so sure.....there must always be doubt.
When you read stories about someone blowing themselves up for some cause, remember that they not only are told they will become a martyr but their families also are given money. If you look into the background of most of these suicide bombers they are mostly poor and uneducated.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the 9/11 terrorists...outside of the few that were flying the planes we don't know if the rest of them had any clue that they were going to be sacrificed for the egomania of Bin Laden....
@TAO,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Sadly, everyone tries to create a black and white world out of a grey reality."
Hmmm. Part of me agrees, yet part of me disagrees. Perhaps this is indicative of your "gray reality" theory? :)
I do see things in black and white. Perhaps this is an character flaw of mammoth proportions. I believe in right and wrong, left and right, good and bad, etc. To me, "gray area" is unstable. It reeks of compromise on someone's part, and I would rather you (generic "you") fight me tooth and nail for what you believe in than to acquiesce to me a single iota of what you consider as your truth. I know I won't budge. I don't need to.
Always a pleasure, TAO.
Donald
Donald, if you do not face the reality of constant change, you can not deal with reality. We do not live in a static universe, but a changing, growing, interdynamic universe. You have to deal with change, not just pretend it doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
All - We live in a changing world indeed. And yet there are some principles, ethical standards, etc. that I believe should not change. I can actually think of many, based on what I consider rational and ethical, as well as a proper philosophy for living ones life.
ReplyDeleteIn so long as the "static" , for the lack of a better word, values do not physically injure another individual, their well being (social and economic), or their pursuit of happiness then those "static" values represent good.
Values that result in the opposite are then evil and as such I will argue, and or fight to preserve the "static" values that insure the proper existence for all individuals in a civil society. Or at least within my proper sphere of influence.
The moral purpose of a man's/women's life is his or her own happiness, therefore... "In so long as the "static" , for the lack of a better word, values do not physically injure another individual, their well being (social and economic), or their pursuit of happiness then those "static" values represent good."
The highest standard of value is ones own life. And if the individual understands this then they have no rational choice but to respect the value of anther's life.
Those who do not understand the above and as a result disrespect the value of another's life are essentially evil and lose the right to expect another to value theirs.
Within our proper sphere of influence we have little choice but to consider how to handle those who fit into the category of "bad or evil."
The reality is there is evil, ignoring any evil in the darkness of political correctness is also an evil.
Donald, all of us think in terms of values, principles, and experience.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is reality does not neatly fit into the conceptualizations we use to understand reality. The most glaring example would be politics. We all have our values and principles and we blog about them constantly, we believe that our principles and values, if shared by everyone would solve all the problems in our world, our society, and our country.....and then we run out and vote for "...the lesser of two evils...."
You can sit white your conservative based black and white values and a liberal can sit with their black and white values and then the conservatives will cheer on a republican president and crucify a liberal president when both of them are doing exactly the same thing. The same holds true for liberals...
Principles and values are filters you use to understand the world around you, to make sense out of the world around you...they are not something you use to see the world around you....
Its kind of like eating...we can see a meal on a table and imagine that what it will taste like but we really never know what it tastes like until we begin eating or processing the data that our eyes intitially provided us.
You cannot see good and or evil because sometimes things are not as they appear....but we can know good and or evil. But to take something we see and convert it to black and white involves THINKING not seeing....
@TAO,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"You cannot see good and or evil because sometimes things are not as they appear....but we can know good and or evil."
------------------------
This is precisely why I see things in black and white. Because things are NOT as they appear, and I CAN see that.
Examples:
Welfare = victimization mentality, leading to dependence and enslavement for the adherent
Taxes = stolen money to support a government that needs to leave us the hell alone and let us govern according to The Constitution. Are taxes necessary? Sure. To a point. And this is a pint that has long been passed and trod upon by both Dems and GOP folks alike.
Affirmative Action = victimization of entire races of Americans based on making sure they get "equality" that is a forced equality at best, and nothing more than plantation mentality at worst.
There are more, but...you get my meaning, I'm quite sure.
I look at every single issue, as much as I am able, and realize that there is a hidden agenda, a hidden meaning behind each and every one of them. So far, I have yet to see any that actually empower The People and limit the government.
I easily see past the rhetoric and the smiles and the political-speak coming from anyone that seeks "public servitude". I honestly see none that are without guile or pretense. This human drama of politics and the never-ending battle for manipulative control of America has become a parody, a travesty, and a bastardization unto itself. Liars. All of 'em.
My two cents.
Donald
Great points Donald. All of which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteAs a thought, and as TAO has so aptly pointed out, equality is something we shall never achieve.
Why? Because everyone is an individual with their own unique abilities, aspirations, and motivations.
Therefor the real issue is in achieving a balance. I believe this is called fairness by the progressives. I am not sure how as a nation we achieve this but I do know that we must find a way. Not all men and women are created with equal intellect or ability. Given this how do we as a nation respond.
I certainly lack the answer. But the question deserves continuing consideration.
With You Know Who soon to be back in power the xenophobic fervor will resume with full bigoted force against law abiding Muslim's in the country. People of darker skin and non Christians can soon expect to be discriminated against in greater numbers and with greater intensity.
ReplyDelete