Why the hell are we having Muslim hearings?

[Ravi]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

I think that they are trying to help the country have a better understanding of muslim viewpoints and culture with the hearings in order to gain a better understanding of the religion of choice of the majority of modern day terrorists.

 

[Ravi]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

I think that they are trying to help the country have a better understanding of muslim viewpoints and culture with the hearings in order to gain a better understanding of the religion of choice of the majority of modern day terrorists.

do you mean to say they are trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists? If so, how counterproductive.

 

[Valerie]

In his prepared testimony for today's hearing on radicalization in America’s Muslim community, U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Dearborn was set to charge that the discussion called by New York Republican Peter King had “a potential to create a continuation of the fear and hatred” experienced after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But he never said it out loud.

Dingell, the longest serving member of the House, submitted strong comments for the record, but was measured in his appearance, saying he was confident that King – who had called the hearing as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee – would take a thoughtful approach as he looked into the issue.

He added that he believed the committee, by not indicting Muslims en masse but looking at singularly radical elements, could “result in alerting the nation to a real concern.”

Dingell represents the large Arab-American population in Dearborn and pointed out in his testimony today that American Muslims work as community leaders and first responders. But in his prepared testimony, he took a stronger line in questioning the intent of the hearings. His office early today put out a letter he signed saying that, “Singling out one religious group and blaming the actions of individuals on an entire community is not only unfair, it is unwise.”

In his prepared testimony, Dingell, a Democrat who has served in the House longer than anyone in history, said America’s Muslims are “a community that demagogues continue to mischaracterize and misrepresent to the detriment of all of us.”

King has been criticized by those who said he has unfairly targeted Muslims. But the chairman argued in his opening remarks that the hearing was appropriate.

Dingell tones down comments on Muslim radicalization hearing | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

I think that they are trying to help the country have a better understanding of muslim viewpoints and culture with the hearings in order to gain a better understanding of the religion of choice of the majority of modern day terrorists.

do you mean to say they are trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists? If so, how counterproductive.

I dont think so at all.

The fact is that the majority of terrorist activities have been carried out by people who claim Islam as their faith. This fact has led many to do what you say above and paint all muslims as terrorists.

These hearings are an opportunity for the american people to hear from and about true muslims and giving americans the opportunity to see that the majority of muslims are not like those who hijacked their religion in the name of terrorism.

 

[AllieBaba]

So I guess the moral of the thread is that human rights violations and treason are A-OK w/Ravi so long as Muslims are doing it.

Thanks, Rav!

 

[Ravi]

I think that they are trying to help the country have a better understanding of muslim viewpoints and culture with the hearings in order to gain a better understanding of the religion of choice of the majority of modern day terrorists.

do you mean to say they are trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists? If so, how counterproductive.

I dont think so at all.

The fact is that the majority of terrorist activities have been carried out by people who claim Islam as their faith. This fact has led many to do what you say above and paint all muslims as terrorists.

These hearings are an opportunity for the american people to hear from and about true muslims and giving americans the opportunity to see that the majority of muslims are not like those who hijacked their religion in the name of terrorism.

I hope you are correct but somehow I doubt that is the intent.

The thing is...the majority of Americans ARE NOT terrorists, whether they follow a religion or not. This, IMO, is a smack in the fact to millions of Americans because of their religion.

I don't see this doing any good.

 

[Valerie]

The first Muslim member of Congress wept Thursday as he addressed a controversial hearing on homegrown Islamic terrorism, amid accusations that the probe smacks of bigotry and McCarthyism.

The Republican who called the hearing, Representative Peter King, promised a thorough investigation into the radicalization of Muslim Americans and notably whether leaders in the Muslim community are doing enough to stop violence.

Testimony reached an early emotional peak when Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress, who agreed to participate despite objecting to the hearing's premise, broke down in tears as he told the story of a 23-year-old Muslim American paramedic who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The young man was wrongly rumored to have been in collusion with the attackers immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group or just a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans," said Ellison.

AFP: Emotions run high at hearing on US Muslims

 

[dilloduck]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

The goal is to see if there is anything that can be done to stop them. It's a bad thing and we would be really stupid to pretend it doesn't exist.
It makes sense to try to stop people from killing other people.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Giggles and shits .

 

[bodecea]

So I guess the moral of the thread is that human rights violations and treason are A-OK w/Ravi so long as Muslims are doing it.

Thanks, Rav!

How incredibly self-serving on your part to twist what another poster said like that. I wonder how you manage to do such things and yet look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The reason for hearings?

Simple actually. Fear and mistrust is what motivates the GOP, so, to get ready for 2012, they're starting up the fear machine to stir up their base.

Why? Because if you scare people with Muslims and crap like that, they're more likely to ignore what is going on in WI, as well as what the plans are for 10 other states with GOP governors.

 

[emilynghiem]

Below is my opinion on how this issue should be addressed:

TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)

Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.

What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.

I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.

By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens’ due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.

Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers’ resources:

1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.

2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.

3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).

Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:

[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally

[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.

Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).

EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates’ destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.

Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of “Constitutional freedoms” to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.

I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas

I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute

the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.

Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:

A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)

[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]

 

[bodecea]

The first Muslim member of Congress wept Thursday as he addressed a controversial hearing on homegrown Islamic terrorism, amid accusations that the probe smacks of bigotry and McCarthyism.

The Republican who called the hearing, Representative Peter King, promised a thorough investigation into the radicalization of Muslim Americans and notably whether leaders in the Muslim community are doing enough to stop violence.

Testimony reached an early emotional peak when Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress, who agreed to participate despite objecting to the hearing's premise, broke down in tears as he told the story of a 23-year-old Muslim American paramedic who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The young man was wrongly rumored to have been in collusion with the attackers immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group or just a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans," said Ellison.

AFP: Emotions run high at hearing on US Muslims

They should have the families of the Sikhs beaten and killed come testify too.

 

[AllieBaba]

So I guess the moral of the thread is that human rights violations and treason are A-OK w/Ravi so long as Muslims are doing it.

Thanks, Rav!

How incredibly self-serving on your part to twist what another poster said like that. I wonder how you manage to do such things and yet look at yourself in the mirror.

It's easy because I know I stand up for the innocent and the vulnerable.

Instead of just pitching my tent with anyone who attacks the US and calling it good.

 

[Valerie]

"As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we cannot allow the memories of that tragic day to fade away," he said. "...Today, we must be fully aware that homegrown radicalization is part of al Qaeda's strategy to continue attacking the United States."

In his opening statement, ranking committee member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) expressed his disappointment that the investigation did not have a broader focus and include anti-government and white supremacist groups. He warned that an investigation with such a narrow focus "that excludes known threats" lacked clarity and "may be myopic."

"I've heard concerns that today's hearing would stoke a climate of fear and distrust in the Muslim community. It may also increase the fear and distrust of the Muslim community -- for law enforcement officials' outreach, and cooperation may become more difficult," he added.

Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison breaks down in Muslim radicalization hearings - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Valerie]

The charges have alarmed US Muslim communities -- the very ones President Barack Obama's administration insists have been crucial to helping reduce the extremist threat.

Several Democratic representatives on the committee launched fierce assaults on King's probe, with congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee loudly branding the proceedings an "outrage" which sought to "demonize and castigate a whole broad base of human beings."

"This hearing today is playing into Al-Qaeda right now around the world," she charged.

Representative Laura Richardson of California was equally blunt. "The narrow scope of this hearing is discriminatory and an abuse of power," she said, adding that it "is setting a dangerous precedent" in investigating a broader community for actions of a few.

AFP: Emotions run high at hearing on US Muslims

 

[Ravi]

So I guess the moral of the thread is that human rights violations and treason are A-OK w/Ravi so long as Muslims are doing it.

Thanks, Rav!

How incredibly self-serving on your part to twist what another poster said like that. I wonder how you manage to do such things and yet look at yourself in the mirror.

Sometimes it is better to ignore her stupidity as it only serves to throw the thread off topic.

 

[Sheldon]

Peter King in 2011: merely a concerned citizen, trying to weed out any terrorist sympathizers or enablers

Peter King in the 1980s: merely a staunch supporter of the Irish Republican Army.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.......if you're gonna single out someone who uses religion for terrorist activities, then I've got one quick question...........

Where the fuck are the hearings on Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Oh wait.......forgot......."Christians" are the peaceful ones, right?