| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? | ||||
|
||||
There have been many instances in our history where small groups of individuals have perpetrated heinous acts of violence, intended to instill fear in the public and our government. Some examples of these infamous acts of violence can be found by The Mafia, the Manson Family, Timothy McVeigh, Abortion Clinic bombings, Assassinations of Doctors, Columbine High School, Fort Hood Massacre, and most recently, the murderous rampage by Jared Lee Loughner.
Did we have have congressional hearings for all these horrible events? No!
In this nation, whenever the larger group is held responsible for the acts of a small minority, as Americans, we should feel compelled to reject blanket statements of culpability by mere association. Because Bernie Madoff was Jewish, as were several presidents of the some the too big to fail banks, at the heart of the financial disaster, should all Jews be held accountable?
I resoundingly reject such suppositions.
@Moon-howler
Your fear of muslims in religious garb is irrational. You should look in the mirror before you accuse me of putting labels on people. I have been around plenty of religious muslims, jews, and christians so I dont have to have been there to know what irrational fear and biggotry looks like.
You keep trying to specify that you are only referring to “muslim religious extremism” but you fail to see how congressional hearings are nothing but grandstanding opportunities that pander to the lowest common denominator. Tell me, what exactly do you expect to come from these congressional hearings? Do you expect that reliegious extremists will all of a sudden decide that it’s time to come out of the shadows and turn themselves in? Can you honestly say that Peter King is achieving anything with these hearings other than inflamming religious tensions? We have law enforcement agencies in this country whose job it is to find these extremists and overall I think they have been doing a great job (9-11 notwithstanding)
You never answered my question. Do you share the same irrational fear of getting in an elevator with black males? The deficiency is with you my friend. It’s called biggotry and its ugly.
Countrydoc — If there is anything in my estimation which the Moon-howler is not, it is a bigot. And you are hearing that from someone who can often be on the opposite side of the political street from her.
Thank you Wolverine.
Country doc, lets start with the ground rules. You are not to come to our blog and start the ad hominem attacks. This was your last one.
Secondly, I described one situation that was at an airport. One specific situation. No broad brush. One situation I personally encountered. Political correctness will not make me not discuss it. That’s part of the problem–people don’t discuss things for fear of people doing exactly what you are doing. However I have read some of your other writings and feel it is safe to say political correctness is not one of your faults if you get my drift. Your mock outrage was simply that–mock outrage.
As for my position on the Peter King political hearings, I declared neutrality and said I would give him a chance. I didn’t state a desired outcome, just a willingness to be open minded about it.
The label I spoke of was the one you hung on me. You have added several others now. Unacceptable.
I hope this clears up my position. Make sure you quote me accurately now. Its probably time for you to scatch this blog off your ‘to visit’ list because contributors here simply do not conduct themselves the way you have come on here.
Country Doc,
Moonhowler is not a bigot, not by any stretch. Had your comments NOT included that attack on Moon I would have been able to agree with you estimation of the hearings as grandstanding because they only included muslim extremism as opposed to all forms of extremism.
However, your points become nullified when you personally attack people, thus shutting down an opportunity for real debate.
Eugne Robinson, on Morning Joe, was fabulous and I will try to find a clip of him. He very elequently said what I have been saying about the premise of real fact finding and how that was not demonstrated by the panel King chose.
I am not sure what the objective was on the congressional hearing. But that often is the case on congressional hearings.
@Moon-howler
I was responding to Slow who said terrorists are Muslims. He forgot about other terrorists, apparently. Was there a hearing on Neo Nazis? If so, I must have missed it.
From the Quakers:
Hearings on Muslims: Unfair and Dangerous
Today, the House Committee on Homeland Security, led by Rep. Peter King (NY), began hearings on “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” Please urge your representative to speak out against these alarmist and unfair hearings.
Congress has a responsibility to conduct its affairs in accordance with the Constitution and in a manner that will not create an immediate and lasting danger for a significant number of people in the United States. Not only is it inappropriate for Congress to inquire into the teachings and practices of any religion, but the frame of these hearings encourages people to think of American Muslims as dangerous radicals, putting them at increased risk of threats and violence. Muslim women, who are easily recognized by their dress, could be particularly at risk.
In fact, the majority of terrorist acts committed in this country in recent decades have been committed by people with other or no religious roots. Congress should inquire into criminal actions and plans that are detrimental to the United States, but to single out a particular religious group for this inquiry is unfair, dangerous, and in conflict with the protections of the First Amendment.
…more at http://www.fcnl.org/index.htm
Being concerned about bias and discrimination against an entire community because a part of that community is made up of evildoers is a good thing by and large. It shows that, in the Western world at least, many of us have moved away from the sins of our forebears in an effort to create a new human psyche. It is like we looked into the mirror of the past, did not like what we saw, and became determined to change. Good. A laudable thing. Real change from the past.
But there is something else with which we must contend. The enemies out there, who want to either subjugate us or kill us just because we are who we are, can be looked upon by us as criminally insane. But they are not stupid in the technical sense of mental impairment. They study us and they study what we do in the face of the adversity created by them. They have long ago discovered a way to use the angels of our good conscience as a weapon against us. Since we have shown ourselves so reluctant to allow any bias against certain immigrant communities among us, they have discovered that they can hide very effectively in those same communities with far less fear of being discovered. They now have two very good advantages: (1) the natural cover of common culture, race, and religion; and (2) the artificial cover which comes from our own fight against bias.
You can add to that yet another advantage: fear. This particular weapon applies to the people amongst whom they are hiding. The terrorist does not even have to take direct action very often in this regard. In our technological age, those people have seen what these terrorists can do against their enemies and what they can do against those who may betray them. This tends to lead toward a mentality in which a man walks down the street, looking neither to the left nor to the right, hoping to avoid seeing what he does not want to see, trying to avoid coming to the attention of those whose attention he fears and does not want. Do not doubt me on this. I have worked in that kind of world. I have seen it in full flower.
In my opinion, the only way to overcome such a dilemma is to take it head on. You either resolve it or you resign yourself to the very real possibility that the cost of your overriding concern for the welfare of the immigrant community in question may well be the lives of some of the rest of us — maybe even your own life if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Better to discuss the dilemma openly and to engage that immigrant community in a genuine effort to find a way to limit the advantages enjoyed by the evildoers.
Some have advocated that we should leave this problem to our counterterrorist services and that the rest of us, for fear of generating bias, should just step away from even discussing it. I’ve got news for you from a feller who was once an integral part of those counterterrorist services. Counterterrorism is one part hard work, one part investigative skill, and one part sheer, dumb luck. Our CT services are, indeed, doing a pretty good job; but you must remember that the narrow escapes on Christmas Day 2009 and in Times Square were not their work but, rather, the work of that sheer, dumb luck. I can recall a time when we uncovered a plot to set off bombs in public places in a large city. The bomber was already on the move. We did everything we could to try to find him before he could carry out his mission. And we did find him, not many miles from his target city. But, let me amend that. WE did not find him. He was found by one solitary, ordinary beat police officer who just happened to have a streak of curiosity in him. That, my friends, is what I mean by sheer, dumb luck.
Now, we can just pontificate about bias and depend on the good work and the sheer, dumb luck of the CT services. Or we can find a way to engage directly with the innocents of that community we are trying to protect from unwarranted bias so that, perhaps, together we can find a way to take the avantage away from those guys who are hiding so smugly in that natural plus artificial security blanket of theirs.
I don’t like our own laws and sense of civility being uses against us. @Wolverine