Yet more bigotry from our elected leaders

[Balthaser]

Back in the days, people used to leave their countries of origin to move to the US because it was a hella better place than where they were coming from at the time.  I think this is still valid, and if someone wants to come to the US and be an American and participate in our society, I'm all for it, regardless of background.

The job of a politician is to represent his constituents, even if it goes against his personal feelings or beliefs.  Background doesn't matter much unless they disregard their constituents' wishes, and when that happens you either vote them out or kick them out of office

Goode's political life wont end here but will last long. Cuz his town ppl support him with bibles held in their hands.

[Intuit]

People moved to this country primarily for it's abundance in resources but also to get away from people like Goode... people who tried to tell them how to live their lives and what to think.  Of course back then people like Goode were the Hispanics and Arabs of the time and the message people like him were "preaching" then was either convert or kill the heathens/savages/natives.

To say one agrees with this man's ideals in any fashion is to say that the "mistakes" of the past were not mistakes and that even genocide can be justifiable.  (which it can by the way)

[Balthaser]

Intuit, maybe I'm less ideal and more pessimistic.

To me, this case ironically shows all human beings are just alike.  No matter what evolution process or what civilization progress we've gone through seperately.

In different countries, in different periods of history, ppl as human beings would repeat their own wrong doings again, again and again.
Really sad to me, but I believe this is true and an inevitable destiny of mankind.

[x586]

All humans are the same, no matter race or religion. We have interchangeable parts, our bodies work the same way. Our blood is red we all breath air, drink water and eat food. We have all have hopes and dreams and fears.

All blacks, whites, hispanics, christians, muslims, catholics, etc... are not the same. Some are good people some are bad, some are insane some are not. Some would kill you just for what you believe, others would not kill you even if you were beating them with a barbed stick.

This is why and where my view comes from. I don't hate any group of people because of their race religion, sex. I do hate groups of people such as suicide bombers, hardcore thugs and drug dealer/users, corrupt politicians,  special interest groups whining we (insert group) are special and we deserve special recognition/rights/privileges.
I've never owned a slave, or burned a cross, blewup anyone, committed genocide, vandalized a mosque, temple or church. I've never fought or even verbally attacked someone because of their race or religious beliefs. I'm quite sick of pure stupidity of groups of people trying blame, attack, kill others for their own short comings/personal agenda/historical events that happened before they were born. So don't stick me in a group I never joined, then start blaming me and tell me I have to apologize and that I owe you anything or I have to make concessions in any way. I certainly don't blame all muslims for suicide bombing or christians for the crusades.

You will find very very few individuals with a mob mentality, but get a  dozen people together and it can grow like wildfire, whether it be politics, religion, race, or just a little league sporting event. There in lies the problem you got 10 normal people 1 nutjob and 1 follower, the nutjob starts it off the follower reinforces it and the others fall in line instead of thinking for themselves.

And the really ironic part about that is this is something all humans have in common, this spans all races and religions etc...

[Intuit]

Intuit, maybe I'm less ideal and more pessimistic.

To me, this case ironically shows all human beings are just alike.  No matter what evolution process or what civilization progress we've gone through seperately.

In different countries, in different periods of history, ppl as human beings would repeat their own wrong doings again, again and again.
Really sad to me, but I believe this is true and an inevitable destiny of mankind.

That is precisely what I was thinking.  Gradually as time goes by, this country has and will become what others immigrated to get away from.

It is very ironic that this country, in the course of trying to recruit "a coalition" to fight "tyranny" in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Cuba (+ later threatened Venezuela and one other country), has in a very short timeframe, (not stepped, but) leaped closer to becoming what we're claiming to fight.  Apparently in Europe's eyes, it was just too soon for yet another World War.

While a gradual progression towards this is the norm, the rate at which we've progressed under Junior is absolutely astonishing.  From blatant torcher of innocent people to making people disappear it has been astonishing to observe.

Locally people keep winning elections on getting more & more police and as a result, we have a bunch of cops sitting around doing nothing and no 3mph speeder is safe.  Nearly every time I leave the house I see at least one and personally feel as though we're in a "police state".  People used to just slow down to 30mph when they see a cop now they just stay there. Absolutely rediculous that we have to fear more from getting legally disrespected, beat, robbed and even murdered by the cops than any illegal thug. Ask one a question and it may be interpreted as "a threat".  I mind my own business and bother no one but it doesn't seem to matter.  Looking at some new homes I get chased down and pulled over and searched a mile down the road because I happened to wonder onto a small Parks and Roads services mini-lot.  Big freak'n deal that town barely even has a park and the lot was empty anyway.  "Police State"... it may be coming to an American town near you... if it isn't already there.

[Reflex]

Intuit - While it is astonishing how much has happened during Bush's term, I would not lay the blame at his feet entirely.  He took advantage of the groundwork laid out by the previous administration.  Clinton started much of what you see being abused today and I strongly feel that Bush would not have been nearly as empowered without Clinton era policies and changes.  The two were far more alike than you'd see them acknowledge.  Clinton loaded the gun, but Bush pulled the trigger...

Examples are things like Gitmo, which during Clinton's time was already being used for illegal detentions, mostly of Haitian immigrants with HIV.  He pushed for expanded wiretapping, cracked down on bank lending and charitable organizations doing business in the middle east, had what was termed at the time by the Republicans an 'obsession' with Bin Laden, wanted further cooperation between intelligence agencies, enacted draconian restrictions on free expression like the Digitial Millennium Copywrite Act and signed Sonny Bono's copywrite extension(which recently got renewed yet again).

While I do not feel Clinton is quite as bad as Bush on civil rights, I do believe he was heading down the same road, just with a kinder, gentler public appearance.  Civil libertarians like myself have been dissapointed with both administrations, although Bush has definatly demonstrated a willingness to push the boundries more than Clinton did.

[Fontaine]

Intuit, maybe I'm less ideal and more pessimistic.

To me, this case ironically shows all human beings are just alike.  No matter what evolution process or what civilization progress we've gone through seperately.

In different countries, in different periods of history, ppl as human beings would repeat their own wrong doings again, again and again.
Really sad to me, but I believe this is true and an inevitable destiny of mankind.

That is precisely what I was thinking.  Gradually as time goes by, this country has and will become what others immigrated to get away from.

It is very ironic that this country, in the course of trying to recruit "a coalition" to fight "tyranny" in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Cuba (+ later threatened Venezuela and one other country), has in a very short timeframe, (not stepped, but) leaped closer to becoming what we're claiming to fight.  Apparently in Europe's eyes, it was just too soon for yet another World War.

While a gradual progression towards this is the norm, the rate at which we've progressed under Junior is absolutely astonishing.  From blatant torcher of innocent people to making people disappear it has been astonishing to observe.

Locally people keep winning elections on getting more & more police and as a result, we have a bunch of cops sitting around doing nothing and no 3mph speeder is safe.  Nearly every time I leave the house I see at least one and personally feel as though we're in a "police state".  People used to just slow down to 30mph when they see a cop now they just stay there. Absolutely rediculous that we have to fear more from getting legally disrespected, beat, robbed and even murdered by the cops than any illegal thug. Ask one a question and it may be interpreted as "a threat".  I mind my own business and bother no one but it doesn't seem to matter.  Looking at some new homes I get chased down and pulled over and searched a mile down the road because I happened to wonder onto a small Parks and Roads services mini-lot.  Big freak'n deal that town barely even has a park and the lot was empty anyway.  "Police State"... it may be coming to an American town near you... if it isn't already there.

That's 1 thing I always find so funny about Bush, whatever he's preaching he's giving the opposite in reality.

[Intuit]

Intuit - While it is astonishing how much has happened during Bush's term, I would not lay the blame at his feet entirely.  He took advantage of the groundwork laid out by the previous administration.  Clinton started much of what you see being abused today and I strongly feel that Bush would not have been nearly as empowered without Clinton era policies and changes.  The two were far more alike than you'd see them acknowledge.  Clinton loaded the gun, but Bush pulled the trigger...

Examples are things like Gitmo, which during Clinton's time was already being used for illegal detentions, mostly of Haitian immigrants with HIV.  He pushed for expanded wiretapping, cracked down on bank lending and charitable organizations doing business in the middle east, had what was termed at the time by the Republicans an 'obsession' with Bin Laden, wanted further cooperation between intelligence agencies, enacted draconian restrictions on free expression like the Digitial Millennium Copywrite Act and signed Sonny Bono's copywrite extension(which recently got renewed yet again).

While I do not feel Clinton is quite as bad as Bush on civil rights, I do believe he was heading down the same road, just with a kinder, gentler public appearance.  Civil libertarians like myself have been dissapointed with both administrations, although Bush has definatly demonstrated a willingness to push the boundries more than Clinton did.

I don't disagree with you one bit, but how far do we go back ?

We're all to blame for allowing this to happen.  He called Iraq "a grave and imminent threat" saying "we MUST attack NOW" and we didn't just buy it, we ate it up and asked for more when the whole matter of them being any sort of threat was instrinsically false.

Irony is just so plain in that thinking we were "fighting the terrorists", we were giving them precisely the things they wanted.  Legitemacy.

[charolem]

Intuit - While it is astonishing how much has happened during Bush's term, I would not lay the blame at his feet entirely.  He took advantage of the groundwork laid out by the previous administration.  Clinton started much of what you see being abused today and I strongly feel that Bush would not have been nearly as empowered without Clinton era policies and changes.  The two were far more alike than you'd see them acknowledge.  Clinton loaded the gun, but Bush pulled the trigger...

Examples are things like Gitmo, which during Clinton's time was already being used for illegal detentions, mostly of Haitian immigrants with HIV.  He pushed for expanded wiretapping, cracked down on bank lending and charitable organizations doing business in the middle east, had what was termed at the time by the Republicans an 'obsession' with Bin Laden, wanted further cooperation between intelligence agencies, enacted draconian restrictions on free expression like the Digitial Millennium Copywrite Act and signed Sonny Bono's copywrite extension(which recently got renewed yet again).

While I do not feel Clinton is quite as bad as Bush on civil rights, I do believe he was heading down the same road, just with a kinder, gentler public appearance.  Civil libertarians like myself have been dissapointed with both administrations, although Bush has definatly demonstrated a willingness to push the boundries more than Clinton did.

This begs the question: what was there before Clinton was in office? How far back do we really trace this? Is this systemic or is it individual?

[Intuit]

All the information regarding the 9/11 hijackers was already present within the system which proved that, that current day intelligence laws were adequate yet, we allowed them to pass the "Traitor Act" (a.k.a. "Patriot Act") which granted them all kinds of broad and unchecked powers; going against many of the founding principals behind this coutnry's foundations.

[Fontaine]

Saddam was the right guy on the right place even while nobody could say he was a good person he was needed to keep things in control.
When you got a dog which doesn't listen you must have a strong voice and a strong hand. That dog keeper was Saddam.

Now Bush played with fire and now it's burning in Iraq. A stick laying close to that fire is named Iran. Not so smart to start  a fire there.

[Vik]

Did he call him "Macacca?"

[Balthaser]

Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert's words on the film "Der Untergang":
"As we regard this broken and pathetic Hitler, we realize that he did not alone create the Third Reich, but was the focus for a spontaneous uprising by many of the German people, fueled by racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear. He was skilled in the ways he exploited that feeling, and surrounded himself by gifted strategists and propagandists, but he was not a great man, simply one armed by fate to unleash unimaginable evil. It is useful to reflect that racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear are still with us, and the defeat of one of their manifestations does not inoculate us against others."

[VillageIdiot]

Just to clear up a misconception, Ellison was not sworn in on the Koran. In fact, the 110th Congress isn't sworn in until 4 January. On the House floor, there's a big swearing in ceremony--no books involved--and that's when Members take their oath of office. However, after that they all go individually to have 'swearing-in' pictures taken, and that's when the book comes in. Ellison wants to be photographed with the Koran and not the Bible (as is tradition).

Goode seems a lot more petty now doesn't he?

Not really, because you overlooked a key bit of context.

You are talking as if Goode got the idea of the Koran swearing-in out of thin air.

But the reality is, Ellision himself said he would be sworn in on the Koran.

To cries of “Allahu akbar” from a Muslim crowd, he declared: “On January 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I’ll place my hand on the Quran.”

Ellison said these words at a convention hosted by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America.

According to a 2004 Chicago Tribune article, “A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America,” the Muslim American Society was founded in 1993 as the United States arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian based terror group that has spawned both Hamas and Al-Qaeda. MAS members now maintain that the group has no ties to the Brotherhood, but there are indications that many in the group want to see the U.S. Constitution replaced by Islamic law.

“We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state” in America, said a speaker at a 2002 MAS conference, but “we mustn’t cross hurdles we can’t jump yet.” The Muslim American Society’s chapter for Ellison’s home state of Minnesota hosts a website that offers in an “Online Library” texts by the jihad theorists Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. Qutb in his jihad manifesto Milestones asserts that “Islam is the way of life ordained by God for all mankind, and this way establishes the Lordship of God alone -- that is, the sovereignty of God – and orders practical life in all its daily details. Jihaad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world.” Likewise, according to terror expert Steven Emerson, the Islamic Circle of North America “is a Jamad Islamia group, which is on record as calling for jihad in the United States, to promote the notion of an Islamic world. ICNA also published something very recently saying that they are against suicide bombings, except when it comes to killing Israelis.”

Is it reasonable to ask Ellison if he shares such views? When he speaks at a conference sponsored by such organizations, is it simply bigotry to ask him if he holds views they are on record as having? When Muslim leaders around the globe have spoken about the necessity to impose Islamic law upon the world, is it sheer nativism to ask Ellison and American Muslims if they hold the same views? On June 29, 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that “the wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” As late as November 2003, the website of the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, D.C. stated that “the Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims.” This is a venerable idea within Islam: even the noted Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), whose name adorns the pro-democracy Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies in Cairo, taught that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

On the basis of what evidence do Goode’s many detractors assume that neither Ellison nor any other Muslim in the United States subscribes to these views? Bigotry is an obstinate and irrational hatred of a particular group. Is it obstinate or irrational, or any kind of act of hatred at all, to ask Ellison to clarify where he stands on the MAS’s desire for the eventual imposition of Islamic law in the United States? He has chosen to be associated with MAS and ICNA. He ought to be willing to clarify matters accordingly. And the mainstream media ought to be willing to take time out from vilifying Virgil Goode long enough to entertain the possibility that this case doesn’t quite fit their preconceived notions.

[Reflex]

Out of curiosity, what is the source of this article you post?

The last two paragraphs are rediculous.  Should I assume that all Christians subscribe to the faith of Abortion clinic bombers because some do?  Unless someone starts preaching hate, why would it be appropriate to ask them about it?  Do you enter conversations with Jews by asking them if they hate Arabs?  Do you begin conversations with whites by asking if they hold the views of a KKK member?  Why would it be reasonable to make an assumption, as the last paragraph states, that any Muslim holds the views of their most extreme elements?  Last I checked, guilt by association was not a reasonable assumption, if it were a LOT more Republicans would have gone down in the Abramhoff scandal, among others.

EDIT -

Sourced your article for you: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26183

Some background on the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer

From the Wiki entry:

Khaleel Mohammed, Louay M. Safi and Carl Ernst assert that Spencer's scholarship and interpretations of Islam are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias - that he lacks genuine understanding and; that 'he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity'.[12] [13] [8] [7] For example, critics have objected to what they see as Spencer's method of taking some Muslim interpretations and then using them to characterize all Muslims or what he implies is the real Islam; cf. for example Mark LeVine [14]. They object to what they view as Spencer's method in taking a radical position (on apostasy, women, etc) and then attibute that position to all of Islam, rather than situating it within ongoing discussions.

Appears to be an accurate criticism based on the article.

[Babar]

Not really, because you overlooked a key bit of context.

You are talking as if Goode got the idea of the Koran swearing-in out of thin air.

But the reality is, Ellision himself said he would be sworn in on the Koran.

VillageIdiot,

I can go watch the proceedings tomorrow if you like. The reality is, there will be *no* books, Bible or Quran, on the House floor when the Speaker swears in the entire House. It's not a one-by-one thing, the whole House stands up and takes the oath at once.

Unfortunately I won't be able to videotape it, but you can turn on CSPAN and watch it if you like!

[VillageIdiot]

The last two paragraphs are rediculous.  

 

Your own response is ridiculous, and very poorly thought out.

Should I assume that all Christians subscribe to the faith of Abortion clinic bombers because some do?  

Flawed analogy, that grossly misrepresents the content of the article.  
Is it your reading comprehension that is broken here, or your logic? I cannot say.

A more accurate analogy would read like this:

"If a Christian politician chose to give their election victory speech in front of an extremist organization that explicitly supports clinic bombing, would it be reasonable to wonder and question whether they are like-minded on the issue?"



This politician could have chosen to give a victory speech in front of any gathering of people he wanted.
He specifically chose to give it in front of an extremist organization that explicitly supports the imposition of Islamic Law (Sharia) upon the entire United States, through "Jihad".  An organization formed as an American branch of an Egyptian muslim terrorist organization.

I wouldn't assume he is likeminded on the issue, but it is entirely reasonable to find it questionable and rather suspect?  
Since he chose to speak in front of them, it would be legitimate to ask if he agrees with their ideology, or would like to distance himself from it.
In any case the logic of the article is a far cry from "all muslims = terrorists" as you suggest, I guess the detail was all too much for you.  On the bright side, it gave you another opportunity to engage in moral preening by yelling "bigot!" at those with legitimate concerns.

Unless someone starts preaching hate, why would it be appropriate to ask them about it?  

Because they choose to associate with those who preach hate?  To attend their conference, and even give a speech to them?
If you saw someone coming out of a KKK meeting, having just given a speech to them, would you think it is ok to ask them about it?  Or is the idea that they have any connection at all to the organization's mentality just absurd to you?

Do you enter conversations with Jews by asking them if they hate Arabs?

If those particular Jews had just given a speech in front of a conference of people advocating the genocide of Arabs, then yes.
I'd get a running start though.

Speaking of the devil, I noticed in another recent discussion here you advocated "Wiping israel off the map".
Perhaps this conversation is a little too close to home for you.  You should be ashamed.  
A person who wants israel "wiped off the map", is here shouting "bigot!".   Oh the irony.

Do you begin conversations with whites by asking if they hold the views of a KKK member?

If those particular whites had just given a speech in front of a KKK conference, then yes.  I'd get a running start though.

Why would it be reasonable to make an assumption, as the last paragraph states, that any Muslim holds the views of their most extreme elements?  

Not just ANY muslim, that's your broken logic or misreading.
It is a particular muslim, who had just given a victory speech in front of an organization that advocates the imposition of islamic law upon the entire united states through Jihad, and which has ties to terrorist supporting organizations.
The politician is suspected of having extremist views, because he has gone out of his way to associate himself with those who have extremist views.

[Virtuous1]

VillageIdiot- Do you have any proof that this group he gave a speech to does indeed wish to wage "jihad" on America? Because the only reference to that I've seen is in the article by someone who is clearly biased. Did you miss the part where they deny having ties to the terrorist (supporting?) group? I realize the author doesn't believe they don't, but that doesn't make it true. I'm not saying there is no chance there is some affiliation, but I'll need better proof than the authors suspicions.

And please don't say that having books by the author of some "jihadist" literature is proof. I can go to any public library or book retailer in America and pick up Mein Kampf. Does that mean the public libraries are secretly run by neo-nazi's? I sincerely doubt it. It's a historical text, perhaps it has other information of use, or perhaps it just serves us as a reminder of where things can go wrong and that we should be mindful of it for the future. Actually I think that analogy is pretty fitting for this day in age.

[Reflex]

Virtuous1 hit the nail on the head.  Your argument only holds water if you assume the author, who is clearly biased, is correct in his statements regarding the individual and the organizations.  Yet all he referenced was a single article to 'prove' his assertions.  For someone who claims to be a scholar of Arab history, one would think he could do a bit more research.

BTW, my statement about Israel is out of context.  If you are going to bring it into this discussion, then you need to bring *all* of my statement on that topic into the discussion, rather than simply the parts that benefit your point of view.  Otherwise you are building a strawman.

[Virtuous1]

Little update: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_co/ellison_quran

I think it was pretty symbolic to use Thomas Jefferson's Quran.

[Overkill]

Virtuous1 hit the nail on the head.  Your argument only holds water if you assume the author, who is clearly biased, is correct in his statements regarding the individual and the organizations.  Yet all he referenced was a single article to 'prove' his assertions.  For someone who claims to be a scholar of Arab history, one would think he could do a bit more research.

BTW, my statement about Israel is out of context.  If you are going to bring it into this discussion, then you need to bring *all* of my statement on that topic into the discussion, rather than simply the parts that benefit your point of view.  Otherwise you are building a strawman.

Exactly. Spencer is another example of the style used by the writers now predominant in my own field. Right (New Right) wing, anxious to develop their 'profile', and not shy about self promotion by writing articles and books that are less reliant on solid arguments backed up by facts, than on sorting (should that be stacking?) the evidence to suit their argument. This is poor work, and leaves many concerned at the standard of academic and journalistic scripts these days. I would not (having done work on the Middle  East) ever encourage Students to use that authors texts as secondary source material. As you say reflex, it's larded with heavy bias.