From The Archives -- Church And State Revisited: The Story Of Smoot
[Program Note: I know I just did one of these "re-run" columns last Thursday, and that it is probably way too soon to do another. Sometimes, I re-run columns because I have a dentist's appointment or have to get the car fixed or whatnot, but in both recent cases I am re-running the original column because I think the point made needs making once again. In other words, that the original column is relevant to a contemporary discussion. This week, Republican Representative Pete King is holding hearings in the House of Representatives on Islam and American Muslims. King has, in the past, not only made some rather disparaging comments about Muslims, but has also been on record supporting a terrorist group (the I.R.A.), so he brings a (shall we say) unique perspective to the table. But while we'll have to wait until Thursday to see just what gets said in these hearings, I thought it was pertinent to remind everyone that congressional hearings on religion have indeed happened before in this country. Granted, the situation is not exactly the same, but I feel the following is still instructive. I wrote this column right after Mitt Romney gave a speech on the campaign trail about his religion, for context.]
[Originally published 12/10/07]
It always amuses me when Americans are told that the political climate today is "poisonously partisan" or "divided" and that this is "the worst partisanship Washington has ever seen." While pundits in the mainstream media love to whip this non-story into a frenzy every election year, it only goes to prove their utter ignorance of American history.
Take just one example: the church and state debate. Much ink was spilled over Mitt Romney's speech last week about his Mormon faith. Very little attention was paid to America's dark history of anti-Mormonism. Americans, as a whole, are not taught these things in their basic history classes in school, because we naturally shy away from the uglier episodes in our country's past.
But the history remains, for anyone willing to take a look. Mormons have the unusual distinction of being the only religious group in United States history to be singled out in one state for extermination. Well, OK, it was in the midst of the "Mormon War" and the Mormons were not entirely blameless themselves in the run-up to the incident, but still... extermination?
On October 27, 1838, the Governor of Missouri issued the following:
"... I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids [sic], information of the most appalling character, which changes the whole face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations and endeavor to reach Richmond, in Ray County, with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description."
Jump forward to the early 1900s, and we find the story of Reed Smoot. Smoot is a name vaguely remembered from History class attached to another, in "Smoot-Hawley." Bonus points if you remembered this was about tariffs, and a gold star if you remembered it had something to do with the Great Depression.
But that's not his story, that's what he did later on. Smoot's story is one of the worst examples of religious bigotry in American history, which is why I wonder why nobody talked about it last week. It seems relevant to me.
Reed Smoot got himself elected United States Senator from Utah in 1903. He was elected as a Republican, with a vote of 46-16 in the state's legislature (this was before direct election of senators). Utah had just recently become a state, in 1896, and (more importantly) the U.S. House of Representatives had previously refused to seat two members from Utah. The first was a non-voting member while Utah was still a territory and not a state; and the second, Brigham Roberts, was refused entry to the House in 1900. Both were refused entry for being polygamists (which, admittedly, they were). Roberts' case lasted fifteen months (he was elected in 1898), during which time he tried to argue for his right as a polygamist to enter Congress. The House turned him down.
Enter Reed Smoot, three years later, as a U.S. Senator. When he got to Washington, the same charges were thrown at him. Unlike Roberts, though, Smoot was sworn in as a Senator while the Senate investigated whether he should be allowed to serve. And unlike Roberts, Smoot was not actually a polygamist. Which made the charge of polygamy pretty hard to justify.
But while Smoot wasn't a serial marriage type of guy, he was pretty high up in the church hierarchy of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). So the entire LDS church was put under the public microscope of a Senate investigation. Two full years were spent examining the Mormons, and the head of the church was called before the committee to be grilled on every aspect of the Mormonism, down to secret church rituals and dogma. The media of the day went along for the ride, with scandalous charges printed along with demonizing political cartoons. The hearings were packed, with lines outside for spectators to view.
From historian Kathleen Flake:
The four-year Senate proceeding created a 3,500-page record of testimony by 100 witnesses on every peculiarity of Mormonism, especially its polygamous family structure, ritual worship practices, "secret oaths," open canon, economic communalism, and theocratic politics. The public participated actively in the proceedings. In the Capitol, spectators lined the halls, waiting for limited seats in the committee room, and filled the galleries to hear floor debates. For those who could not see for themselves, journalists and cartoonists depicted each day's admission and outrage. At the height of the hearing, some senators were receiving a thousand letters a day from angry constituents. What remains of these public petitions fills 11 feet of shelf space, the largest such collection in the National Archives.
After all this media circus, the Senate committee voted to expel Smoot. It moved to the Senate floor. From the Senate's website:
After an investigation spanning two years, the Committee on Privileges and Elections reported that Smoot was not entitled to his seat because he was a leader in a religion that advocated polygamy and a union of church and state, contrary to the U.S. Constitution. By a vote of 27 to 43, however, the Senate failed to expel him, finding that he satisfied the constitutional requirements for serving as a senator.
The vote was a Republican victory. From the LDS church's official website history:
On 20 February 1907 the Republican Party defeated the proposal that Reed Smoot be removed from his seat. The victory was won in part because Republican leaders, including President Theodore Roosevelt, concluded that if Smoot remained in the Senate he would be a significant influence in keeping Utah a Republican state. With this victory finally behind him, Senator Smoot spent the next twenty-six years in the nation's capital as one of its most influential figures.
Utah remains a heavily Republican state to this day, it should be noted.
Now, there's a tendency of Americans to brush aside our own history with the thought: "but that was long ago, we'd never do that today." But, really, would we not? There was a minor outcry just recently, remember, about the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, and his being "sworn in" on a copy of the Koran. The same vein of bigotry and viciousness was opened briefly for America to see, and although it did not (thankfully) result in hearings in the House as to whether he could be seated or not, there was indeed a cry for just that.
This is why Mitt Romney needs to be asked not about Mormonism, but about other (and newer) religions than his own. Would Mitt have a problem with calling Scientology a religion? Would he support the IRS giving tax-free official "religion" status to even smaller sects? Should the United States Army have Wiccan chaplains? Were the Rajneeshees a "religion"? Was Jim Jones' Peoples Temple a church? What about the only church in America whose membership is limited by your ancestry -- the Native American Church? Or how about the Peyote Way Church, who feels that peyote usage be thrown open to all? Do the Rastafarians have the right to use marijuana as a sacrament legally? What about the Pastafarians who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or the Church of the SubGenius™? Are they "churches" as far as the federal government is concerned? And -- more importantly -- why or why not?
Many people feel that Romney's church has some bizarre practices. But my point is, many people have that thought about a lot of other religions as well. Mormonism had its battle with the law over the polygamy issue, but that was 100 years ago (an interesting footnote is that the LDS church changed a few of its own rules, and excommunicated some high-ranking polygamists in the wake of the Smoot hearings). There are other legal battles being fought in America today on the fringes of the debate over what, exactly, constitutes a "religion."
My favorite quote on the matter comes from the incomparable Robert A. Heinlein: "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
For instance, most Americans could not accept the "religion" of cannibalism. Say someone decides he wants to start a "church" and writes in his will that anyone who wishes can eat his body after he dies. This would be almost universally condemned, and my educated guess is that it would not be allowed to happen legally in the United States.
But what if you were required to say the words "this do in remembrance of me" when eating the body, or drinking the blood? Would that make it any different? When Christianity first got started -- when it was essentially a "cult" and not an "official religion" in the Roman Empire -- this was exactly the charge leveled against it. That it was a cult made up of cannibals.
It's only from the outside looking in that "religion" is funny. Members of that religion consider their own rites normal and proper. We'd all do well to remember that, presidential candidates included.
[Full disclosure -- I am not a Mormon, and I don't even think I know any (I don't ask people's religion as a general rule). But I remain interested in the church and state divide, and in particular what is and what is not legally considered a religion by the IRS and the federal government.]
[Humorous Note: Researching Reed Smoot will inevitably sidetrack you to the hilarious story of Oliver R. Smoot, M.I.T. class of 1962, and the bridge between Boston and Cambridge which is measured in "smoots." Typing "smoot" into Wikipedia, for instance, brings you to this story first. What I found funniest about the story was not Oliver's later profession, but the fact that the government just eventually gave up and started measuring the bridge in smoots themselves. "There's an accident on the bridge at the 85 smoot mark...." Anyway, you never know where research will lead sometimes.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Smoot is a name vaguely remembered from History class attached to another, in "Smoot-Hawley."
Or if you have seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off... :D
"In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression."
-Economics Teacher, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF
As far as religious issues, I think I can safely say that I am about as agnostic as they come...
Having said that, I refer back to my previous discussion regarding the very real threat that radical Islam represents... The simple fact that, other than most American Muslims, terrorism is not universally condemned by Muslims around the world is sufficient cause for legitimate concern and warrants investigations..
Not every Muslim is a terrorism.
Not every terrorist is a Muslim.
However, there is sufficient connection between the two, a connection that is NOT nearly as prevalent in other groups, that it would be foolish not to be on guard.
Michale.....
Michale
By your logic I must be an IRA supporter; as in terrorist;but what can you expect from someone who references inane movies and television shows.
expect from someone who references inane movies and television shows.
Ouch... And the ref takes a point away!! :D
Why would you be an IRA supporter?? Just because you are Irish??
Instead of attempting to be insulting, why not address some facts to support your insinuation that there is absolutely NO connection between Islam and terrorists..
Because I have plenty of facts to support my claims.
The least you can do is TRY and come up with some facts of your own..
Michale.....
Americulchie,
By your logic I must be an IRA supporter; as in terrorist;but what can you expect from someone who references inane movies and television shows.
I'm not sure what "logic" you are talking about there but it sure shootin' ain't Michale's and it doesn't even sound... well, logical.
As for the movies and television shows, most of us around here like the references, a lot! :)
Michale
I do apologise for my unkind remarks;I had a bad case of heartburn and it colored my usual good humor;that being said it seems to me that Congressman King is playing with fire;it should be noted that as a country we seem to always point the finger at the "others";because they are different.You seem to be sticking up for a bad man there is no other way I can put it;your man King is a scaremonger of the McCarthy ilk for short term political gain.
BTW I do love your movie references though your modern ones leave me cold;as I have not watched any of them;sad to say I am a reader for the most part.
OK, I just have to jump in here.
Bonus points for anyone who can quote from Frank Herbert's book "The White Plague" -- the most chilling book ever written on the diverse subjects of what terrorism could do in the hands of someone who is very intelligent... and the Irish situation, tangentially.
Seriously, this book was scarier to me than any Stephen King book, and it was written in the 1980s... when this technology was in its infancy. So, like I said, bonus points for anyone with a relevant quote...
-CW
Americulchie,
No worries.. My reply left a lot to be desired in the civility department as well. My apologies.
But, inadvertently, you have supported my point.
As far as a threat to society goes, the IRA is a pale ghost image of it's former self..
There are several reasons for this. The majority reason being a highly classified but ultimately successful campaign by British Intelligence.
However, contributing to the IRA's demise was the simple fact that the Irish people were sick and tired of the bloodshed, the loss of life and the carnage and rose up and said in a clear and united voice, "NO MORE!"
Muslims number 1.8 Billion people on the planet. Of that 1.8 Billion, only about 10,000 are part of terrorist groups.
There is absolutely NO WAY that a Muslim terrorist organization should be allowed to exist, let alone flourish, if the majority of Muslims worldwide opposed them.. The sheer numerical superiority would make such existence impossible.
The only logical conclusion from the data is that the majority of Muslims do not oppose Al Qaeda et al or their tactics..
This is also evidenced by the fact that Muslims have elected terrorist groups as their representatives, as we see in the case of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon..
Now, don't get me wrong. We are not talking about American Muslims here.. We are talking about Muslims worldwide. There is no evidence to suggest that American Muslims, as a group, are not Americans first and Muslims second. However, there is credible evidence that foreign Muslim groups are trying to recruit American Muslims.
And THAT is a link that MUST be investigated..
And, if it as I say, that American Muslims are Americans first and Muslims second, then they would surely support and ENCOURAGE such investigations.
CW,
Bonus points for anyone who can quote from Frank Herbert's book "The White Plague" -- the most chilling book ever written on the diverse subjects of what terrorism could do in the hands of someone who is very intelligent... and the Irish situation, tangentially.
Oooooo!! A reading assignment! :D
I'll get right to that.. :D
Michale.....
Muslims number 1.8 Billion people on the planet. Of that 1.8 Billion, only about 10,000 are part of terrorist groups.
There is absolutely NO WAY that a Muslim terrorist organization should be allowed to exist, let alone flourish, if the majority of Muslims worldwide opposed them.
I would agree with your fact, Michale, (first part) but not your conclusion (second part).
If you divide 10,000 by 1.8 billion you get 5.5 x 10-6 chance that a Muslim is a terrorist. Or, a 99.99994 chance that the person is not a terrorist.
Put another way, this means that you could meet 180,000 Muslims worldwide and, out of these, one of them would be a terrorist.
Basically, the number is so low statistically that it falls within the margin of error for "crazies" in society.
We have our Timothy McVeighs and Jared Loughners, for example.
Does this mean that its Christianity's fault because we're a "Christian nation"?
No. That would be ridiculous. It means there are crazy people in the world.
You can't predict crazy. It comes in all religions, non-religions, races, sexes, etc.
My 2 cents ...
-David
p.s. "The White Plague" has been added to my reading list :)
I would agree with your fact, Michale, (first part) but not your conclusion (second part).
That's because you misunderstand my conclusion.
My conclusion is not that x number of Muslims are terrorists...
My conclusion is that organized terrorist groups that are threats to society simply could NOT exist without the tacit approval of the majority of Muslims...
Just like the KKK and the IRA ceased to exist as threats to society, groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah will cease to be a threat to peace and stability when they lose support of Muslims worldwide...
It's really that simple...
Michale.....
Let me put it another way..
Can you see a possibility in the here and now of a Timothy McVeigh or a David Karesh or a Jim Jones being elected to the US Senate or House??
Of course not. Because no one in their right mind would select such scumbag terrorists are their representatives..
But that is EXACTLY what has happened in Gaza and in Lebanon... Muslims elected scumbag terrorists as their representatives...
Which is why it is simply not possible for Muslim terrorist groups to exist and be the threat that they are without the tacit approval of the majority of Muslims worldwide...
Michale.....
Which is why it is simply not possible for Muslim terrorist groups to exist and be the threat that they are without the tacit approval of the majority of Muslims worldwide.
You truly are a glass is always half full (of terrorists) type guy, Michale!
I guess you're right. There's no other possibilities :)
(cue the wavy dream lines)
What if:
- A wealthy Saudi financed a terrorist group and subsequent plot to bomb the WTC. Hmmm ... nah that couldn't be possible. It must have been sanctioned by a majority of Muslims.
- An old war such as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict leads to groups still at odds with each other. Both sides see the other as "terrorists". One side happens to be in power w/ significant influence in the U.S. Nah ... that couldn't be. It must be the Muslim hatred of Christianity and their desire to impose Sharia Law that lead to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict!
(wavy lines end)
I guess you're right, Michale. There's no other reasons why terrorist groups exist. They must have the approval of a majority of Muslims - which would be, according to your calculations, over 600 million terrorist-supporting Muslims!
Quick: time to elect some more conservatives! Wait ... what?
:)
-David
Your first "What If" *might* be feasible to explain a local or short-lived threat. But there is no way one wealthy Saudi could simutaneously finance all the different terrorist groups that use Islam as the basis for their terrorism..
Your second "What If" assumes that the 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' saying is a true and valid theorem.
However, we BOTH know that that line of thinking is THE biggest piles of crap of ALL the piles of crap that exists in the world today..
I guess you're right, Michale. There's no other reasons why terrorist groups exist.
We are discussing Muslim or Islamic terrorist groups, not all terrorist groups...
They must have the approval of a majority of Muslims - which would be, according to your calculations, over 600 million terrorist-supporting Muslims!
Probably a lot more...
Shall we run thru the evidence that supports my conclusion??
Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11...
Muslims electing Hamas as their representatives...
Muslims electing Hezbollah as their representatives..
Thousands upon thousands of quotes from Muslims supporting the aims of Al Qaeda and Jihad...
Now, let's look at your evidence that disputes my conclusion....
.......
............
Well, I think that says it all. :D
Seriously.. What evidence is there that disputes the conclusion that the majority of Muslims outside of the US support terrorist groups??
"Anyone?? Anyone?? Bueller??"
Michale.....
I realize it's not the politically correct attitude to have...
But hell... I'll take political incorrectness over saving lives any day of the week and twice on Sunday...
I am also constrained to point out that my attitude is, surprisingly enough, the same attitude that the Obama Administration has put forth...
"It is one of the things that keeps me up at night. The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who, for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation."
-Attorney General Eric Holder
And DHS Secretary Napolitano has warned about Americans "who have become radicalized and associated with Al Qaeda or Islamist terrorism beliefs and techniques and tactics."
There IS a threat from Muslims who have been radicalized and who are intent on radicalizing other Muslims..
To pretend otherwise is simply to invite another 9/11.. Or worse...
Michale.....
Aha! I seem to have whetted your interest...
A quote from the terrorist in "The White Plague" who has struck back after being a victim of IRA terrorism himself:
"Do not cry that I have been unfair, you Irish and English and Libyans. You chose your leaders or tolerated them. The consequences were predictable. You pay now for the failure of reason. You Irish, at least, should have known better. Like a one-crop society, you staked your survival on violence. Is the lesson of the potato blight grown so dim? As you sow, so shall you reap."
It really is a chilling book, by the same guy who wrote "Dune."
-CW
Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11.
Have you been watching the FoxNews History Channel again?
What about all the offers of help and condemnations after 9/11? I remember that the entire world was horrified after 9/11. I don't remember any "dancing Muslims". Maybe there were but overwhelmingly I remember people being horrified. I remember mourning the world over. This includes all the Muslims I know.
Muslims electing Hamas as their representatives...
Muslims electing Hezbollah as their representatives..
As I mentioned before, this has as much to do w/ the Palestinian conflict as anything else.
Thousands upon thousands of quotes from Muslims supporting the aims of Al Qaeda and Jihad.
I know many Muslims, Michale. Without exception, what they tend to say goes something like this. Anyone responsible for terrorist attacks should be held responsible. Terrorists should be punished as terrorists. Don't use "terrorism", however, to justify what the U.S. wants to do politically.
The 9/11 terrorists were in Afghanistan. The U.S. invaded Iraq. This does not make sense unless its not about terrorism. Many Muslims will say that they don't support the U.S.'s political aims to secure Middle East oil.
The Muslims I know also struggle to understand why people here blame them for something that they had nothing to do with.
Now I know this isn't "politically correct" for you, Michale. But the bigger picture here is that this is about politics - not terrorism. Let's be honest.
Look at Moammar Qadhafi telling us that Al Qaeda could become a threat in Eastern Libya.
Does anyone believe this? I don't think anyone here does seriously. But see what he's doing?
He's using the same fears our own media use here at home. He's using the fear of Al Qaeda and terrorism to try to convince us to back up his dictatorship.
Politics ... it's easier to get people to do things if you can point to an enemy.
But I encourage you, Michale. Get to know some Muslims. Go to a Mosque. Ask them what they think w/o accusing them first.
It's a cliche, but I think you'll find that people are people ... regardless of race, creed, or country.
-David
How many Muslims do you know that aren't American Muslims, David?
You can try to convince me that Muslims all over the world love the USA and hate the terrorists..
But you will not be successful...
Because I know better..
Michale.....
What about all the offers of help and condemnations after 9/11? I remember that the entire world was horrified after 9/11. I don't remember any "dancing Muslims". Maybe there were but overwhelmingly I remember people being horrified. I remember mourning the world over. This includes all the Muslims I know.
http://sjfm.us/temp/snopes911.jpg
I had to use a JPG because Snopes doesn't allow for C&P...
Michale.....
On another note... (Since this is an Archive Commentary, I hope CW won't mind going off on another tangent... :D)
Ya got to hand it to NPR. They manage to do the worst possible thing at the worst possible moment. :D
Michale.....
How many Muslims do you know that aren't American Muslims, David?
Actually, most of the folks I know are from other countries - Turkey, Lebanon, Iran largely.
You can try to convince me that Muslims all over the world love the USA and hate the terrorists.
I'm not trying to convince you that Muslims love the USA. I don't think I said anything about that.
Again, most Muslims I know would say something like the following: We like Americans, but we disagree with your country's politics in the Middle East.
What I'm arguing is that targeting all Muslims (or even all foreign Muslims) for the actions of a few terrorists is counter-productive to our national security interests.
I also believe all this stuff about "Muslims hate America" and "Muslims want to impose Sharia law on us" is bunk.
But I encourage you to talk to some Muslims, even if they are American. Or even just watch a little Al Jazeera - their news coverage lately of the situations in Northern Africa has been tremendously impressive.
Cheers
David
Again, most Muslims I know would say something like the following: We like Americans, but we disagree with your country's politics in the Middle East.
And, if you could unequivocally state (and provide facts to back it up) that the Muslims you know are representatives of Muslims in general, then I would say that you might have a point.
But I don't think you can state that. And I know there are no facts to back that up...
Whereas I can provide fact after fact, testimony after testimony, video after video that unequivocally shows that majority of Muslims support Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah methods and goals...
How else could a small group of 10k still be a worldwide threat if the majority of 1.8 BILLION are against them??
What I'm arguing is that targeting all Muslims (or even all foreign Muslims) for the actions of a few terrorists is counter-productive to our national security interests.
It's really quite simple..
Muslim groups won't police their own. They actually elect terrorist groups as their representatives.. They actively thwart FBI investigations..
And yet, you still think it is counter-productive to investigate the links between radical Muslim groups and their attempts to use American citizens..
Even after the likes of Major Hasan etc etc show us, quite painfully, that there is a very real, present and credible danger in this..
Your logic escapes me..
Unless you have any facts to support that the threat isn't real, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the threat...
As far as targeting Muslim groups...??? Can you show me a Christian or Jewish suicide vest??
No??
Until you can, I don't think it's worthwhile to target Christian or Jewish groups if the concern is Muslim and Islamist terrorists...
But, don't take my word for it...
Let's hear from a Muslim...
An American Muslim's View -- Why Our Community Needs the King Hearings On Radical Islam
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/09/american-muslims-view-community-needs-king-hearings-radical-islam/
Michale.....
How else could a small group of 10k still be a worldwide threat if the majority of 1.8 BILLION are against them?
How else could a small group of 10k still be a worldwide threat if the 13.5 million Lutherans in our country are against them?
Therefore, terrorism must be the result of the Lutherans!
This is clearly a Lutheran problem. How much evidence can you show me that Lutheran's aren't the problem?
Now I'm not saying that there aren't good Lutherans. But what if we let the bad ones commit even a single act of terrorism. Is it worth it?
Heheheheh. I love 'ya, Michale, but sometimes you're silly.
How else could a small group of 10k still be a worldwide threat if the 13.5 million Lutherans in our country are against them?
Therefore, terrorism must be the result of the Lutherans!
Which Lutheran terrorist group that is a threat worldwide are you referring to? :D
How many suicide bomber vests have you seen used by Lutherans??
You prove my point for me... Why investigate Lutherans when there aren't any organized Lutheran Terrorist groups??
Or is it your position that there are no organized Muslim terrorist groups??
That groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda just stepped off the good ship Lollipop to bring goodness and light to the world??
Is THAT what you are saying??
Personally, I would think that moderate Muslim groups would WELCOME Congressional hearings. They would LOVE to have the oppurtunity to differentiate themselves from the radical and extremist groups..
Wouldn't that be logical??
Michale.....
That groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda just stepped off the good ship Lollipop to bring goodness and light to the world?
Yeah, Michale. I've said that over and over. I'm a hippie, Communist, homosexual, socialist, liberal, Muslim, terrorist lover. Remember?
Why do you feel the need to resort to such extreme statements to make your case?
Once again ...
Terrorists are terrorists. Muslims are Muslims. The fact that some terrorists are Muslim does not make all Muslims terrorists. Just like the fact that members of the IRA were Catholic does not make all Catholics terrorists.
No one likes being accused of being a terrorist.
-David
Why do you feel the need to resort to such extreme statements to make your case?
To counter your extreme statements that "that targeting all Muslims (or even all foreign Muslims) for the actions of a few terrorists is counter-productive to our national security interests. "
Terrorists are terrorists. Muslims are Muslims. The fact that some terrorists are Muslim does not make all Muslims terrorists. Just like the fact that members of the IRA were Catholic does not make all Catholics terrorists.
No one is claiming otherwise..
But it is undeniable that the vast majority of terrorist attacks against the US have used Islam as the basis for their attacks..
So, isn't it logical to investigate the Muslim connections??
If a cop has a report of a Chinese guy that just committed a murder, is he going check out Little Italy or Chinatown first???
When you hear hoof beats, do you think "horse" or "zebra"???
Seriously, forget what is politically correct and look at things in the cold light of objectivity..
If the majority of terrorist attacks are being committed bu Muslims, why waste time investigating Christian groups???
Be logical about it..
No one likes being accused of being a terrorist.
What's worse??
Being accused of being a terrorist or allowing people like Hasan to kill Americans because people were afraid to offend Muslim groups??
Michale.....
[Editor's Note:] Michale, sorry for hijacking your comment here, but I had problems posting in the usual way.
I notice that in today's terrorist news, a man was arrested for planting a bomb targeting a MLK Day parade. He had white supremicist links.
So, we should hold hearings immediately? I would love to hear your take on this, which (I assume) will be consistent with your other comments here.
-CW
[Editor's Note:] Michale, sorry for hijacking your comment here, but I had problems posting in the usual way.
I notice that in today's terrorist news, a man was arrested for planting a bomb targeting a MLK Day parade. He had white supremicist links.
So, we should hold hearings immediately? I would love to hear your take on this, which (I assume) will be consistent with your other comments here.
-CW
No worries, CW.. This is your place after all.. :D
One incident?? No, I don't think hearings are warranted...
However, if we see a rash of incidents over a relatively short period of time that all purport to be from White Supremacist groups then.. yes.. Hearings would definitely be warranted..
However, we are not seeing that..
But we ARE seeing.....
Faisal Shahzad
Mohamed Osman Mohamud
Umar Abdulmuttalab
Nidal Hasan
Like I asked above... If we are cops on patrol and we get a report of a chinese person that committed a murder, are we going to check Little Italy first?? Or should we head straight over to Chinatown??
I am all for taking down all radical religious groups...
But we don't target the little old christian lady across the street who is only walking her dog, when we have a scumbag Muslim in a suicide vest right in front of us...
Michale.....
Couple of tidbits of new information..
Interesting parallel from the past..
When AG Robert Kennedy was investigating organized crime, he targeted the Italian community for investigation.
How is that any different than targeting the Muslim community today, if the goal is to root out extremists??
American Muslims should WELCOME and wholly support these investigations because they stand to lose much if the extremists in their midst succeed in terrorist attacks... Many American Muslims DO support these hearings.
And we also have this POST article about one Congresscritter who wants to focus on the KKK more than Muslims...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/10/audio-cbc-congressman-twt-terror-hearing-your-pape/
Seriously!???
The last recorded attack by the KKK that resulted in multiple deaths was September 16, 1963, according to Wikipedia.
Anyone who claims that the KKK is as much of a threat as Islamic terrorists is either A} a moron of the highest caliber or B} has ulterior motives in trying to divert attention away from Muslim extremists.
If we had seen a Ruby Ridge, a Waco, an Oklahoma City and an Eric Rudolph in a short span of time, then Congressional investigations targeting extremist Christian groups or Supremacist groups would be completely appropriate.
And I think ya'all would agree with me on that.
What I can't figure it is, given the assumed agreement on targeting Christian/Supremacist groups, why ya'all think that, given similar circumstances, investigations targeting extremist Muslim groups are NOT warranted...
Michale.....
If we had seen a Ruby Ridge, a Waco, an Oklahoma City and an Eric Rudolph in a short span of time, then Congressional investigations targeting extremist Christian groups or Supremacist groups would be completely appropriate.
And I think ya'all would agree with me on that.
I wouldn't.
As you like to say, I think we're talking apples and hand grenades.
I don't believe you should "target" anyone who hasn't committed a terrorist act or where there's no evidence that they are going to commit a terrorist act.
Not Muslims. Not Christians. Not Jews. Not Lutherans.
Please note: Evidence is not someone out on a website talking about how much they hate someone else. (Otherwise, we would have to investigate all conservative pundits :)
Cheers
-David
So, what you are saying is that we shouldn't investigate any group based on attacks that are committed in their name in order to prevent future attacks.....
That our CT activities should be solely re-active..
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that...
Please note: Evidence is not someone out on a website talking about how much they hate someone else. (Otherwise, we would have to investigate all conservative pundits :)
And all liberal pundits as well... :^D
Michale.....
That our CT activities should be solely re-active.
Yup. Though I'd phrase it as "innocent until proven guilty." Otherwise, we're pursuing "thought crimes".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Probably and that's ok. You'd make a great "pitch man" for CT though, Michale.
Otherwise, we're pursuing "thought crimes".
If it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the "thought crime" would have likely resulted in a real crime, I really don't have a problem with it...
The problem with being RE-ACTIVE is that it usually results in hundreds or thousands of innocent people brutally murdered....
Probably and that's ok. You'd make a great "pitch man" for CT though, Michale.
Comes from over two decades in the field... I have seen first hand the tragedy that a re-active mindset produces...
It ain't pretty...
Michale.....