Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Subway ads to promote Islam
A U.S. congressman is riled up over plans to place ads promoting Islam on New York subway cars. The ads, which are slated to debut in September to coincide with Ramadan, feature key words or phrases about Islam (such as “Head Scarf?” or “Prophet Muhammad?”) and then the words “You deserve to know” along with WhyIslam.org.
Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, says he doesn’t have a problem with the ad campaign itself, but he has a ”very, very real problem with those behind it.” While the main grass-roots organization sponsoring the campaign is the Islamic Circle of North America, one of the supporters is Siraj Wahhaj, an imam who was a character witness for convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.
On Monday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not join in King’s outrage about the ads.
“If you were to advocate becoming a Muslim, I assume the First Amendment would protect you,” he said.
But King, noting that the ads would be up during the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks, said, “I’m calling on the MTA not to have these ads, not to go forward with them, and I don’t see this as a free speech issue at all.”
What’s your take?
back to top65 Comments to “Subway ads to promote Islam”
Hmm, I thought the State was to remain neutral and not either support or defend religious beliefs. Since the transit authority is a government agency, maybe to offer a balanced view point, the transit authority should have adds for Judaism or Christianity? That probably will not happen. All this aside, I really think people need to read up on Islam by themselves and meet and talk to Muslims before they make an opinion. On cannot make an informed decision until they have all the facts.
Report comment to moderator
To Joe B.
Islamic people are fleeing Islamic societies to move to (currently) Christian societies.
That is all I need to know unless you can think of a advanced Islamic country.
Report comment to moderator
You’re totally right, Joe B. If these ads promoted Christianity, there would be lawsuits in about ten seconds.
Report comment to moderator
Anybody have a problem with ads promoting the terrorist Muhammad’s ideology on the anniversary of 9/11 on public transportation in NYC? Nah! It’s the religion of peace, right?
Report comment to moderator
As a New Yorker who spends a lot of time on subways:
#3 John – There are lots of ads promoting Christianity, as well as specific churches. They are placed there and paid for by the church.
There are also sometimes ads for other religious and humanist organizations, placed there – again – by a supporting organization rather than by the MTA. The only thing the MTA actually advertises are basic safety rules, guidelines for riding the subway (i.e., don’t ride if you’re sick, don’t try to jump the turnstile), and things like that.
#1 Joe B. – These ads are apparently sponsored by an Islamic association (as opposed to the MTA), so it’s not an issue in which the MTA needs to present equal views. They could probably choose to censor some ads, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they do, but these sound rather inane. Lots of Muslims (American and otherwise) live in New York, work alongside everyone else, contribute to the economy, and ride the subways.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I checked Faux News this morning and there wasn’t anything on there about the First Amendment being repealed, so that pretty much settles it.
We have to put up with offensive Christian ads, so I think we can live with these.
Report comment to moderator
Alissa,
Thanks for chiming in with the voice of actual experience and fact, rather than assumption that an ad by a Christian organization would not be accepted.
I will add that here in Buffalo, you will see many ads on busses for various churches, Catholic Charities annual campaign, various church lawn fetes, etc etc. I would be neither shocked, surprised, nor outraged, to see ads like those mentioned above. Bloomberg nails it, and King winds up sounding like a bloviating windbag.
I did find some irony in the WhyMuslim.org website which has a prominent advertisement featuring a link to this site. Perhaps they are not all that different from us in some regards, after all.
Report comment to moderator
I can think of a few ads I’d place for Islam in a New York subway…
Got Jihad?
Behead your local Infidel
Terrorism – it’s a good thing
Blow up a skyscraper today
Sharia, it’s the law
Granted. These are quite inflammatory. But think of something else. Do you really know what is being taught in your local mosque? And if you don’t, why not? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the production of such documentaries on that subject have been shut down?
If you still think that I’m stretching things, then think of this. Did you have any clue that Black Liberation Theology was so prevalent until Jeremiah Wright hit the spotlight? If not, then why would you think that there’s no way that militant Islam is being taught in your local mosque?
Now I’m not saying that it is, but do you positively know that it isn’t?
Report comment to moderator
Buh, I did not mean inane, I meant innocuous. Now I’m off to get a cup of coffee.
Report comment to moderator
#8 Make It Man – I’m not sure how our inability to determine what is taught in any place of worship has anything to do with this subject.
Report comment to moderator
This is simple–if the ad is paid for by a private organization, it is acceptable. If it’s paid for by a government agency, it’s NOT acceptable.
Like others have said, there are ads from all sorts of religious organizations posted in or around public transportation. Deal with it.
Report comment to moderator
The adds themselves are certainly innocuous. The organization behind the ads does have some sinister connections especially as regards the timing of the campaign. And JJF, we do have actual evidence that virulent anti-semitism and anti-Americanism is taught in many mosques, madrasses and Islamic schools in the US.
Report comment to moderator
Alissa writes:
Well gee Alissa – I guess this quote doesn’t have anything to do with where our thoughts go on this subject?
I have to wonder what the purpose of your comment to me is?
For some reason I keep remembering what happens when people refuse to believe that evil people will do any harm. It’s happened time and time again throughout history and the world. Why should we repeat that mistake? I think we should keep our eyes open. Not all Muslims are peaceful and wish us well.
Your comment to me seems only to serve to shut down discussion of the real possibility that Islam is inherently violent and oppressive.
Report comment to moderator
#14 – I was just pointing out that this is a First Amendment discussion, not a discussion about whether or not Islam is inherently violent and oppressive.
Report comment to moderator
When I saw the title of this post, I thought it was going to be about Jared becoming a Muslim or Subway keeping halal restaurants.
Report comment to moderator
Well then Alissa, why not point that out to Kristin? What does this fellow who served as a character witness have to do with the first amendment?
Report comment to moderator
JJF writes:
“In other words, since we have no evidence that radical Islam is not being preached, it certainly/probably/very likely/possibly/maybe/it’s-a-long-shot-but-hey IS being preached?”
I’m not so sure it is a long shot.
Report comment to moderator
Me too, TJ.
Report comment to moderator
If it’s freedom of speech you want to talk about, then take a look at some Islamic speakers and their subject matter at local mosques:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26502
Report comment to moderator
Since the battle against terror must begin with its ideology, this is a perfect opportunity for the mayor to explain why the Islamic ads are threatening.
The Islamic Circle of North America should be publicly challenged to explain its positions on its ties with Al Qaeda, its goals to promote Sharia law in the US and much more. The head of ICNA, Ibrahim Negm a professor at Harvard Law School is funded by the Bin Laden family. In Egypt, he was active in the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat.
Anybody care?
Report comment to moderator
For those of you who don’t know Islamic people aren’t coming to assimilate they are coming to take over.
The people in Europe know it but it hasn’t dawned on the U.S. and Canada. It may be too late for Europe but we still have a chance to stop this insanity.
Report comment to moderator
It is disappointing to have a Representative who has such contempt for the First Amendment. But then, he is a Republican.
Report comment to moderator
Concerns over terrorist activity trump everything else, Anlir. Did you know that American soldiers are dying at the hands of terrorists every week so that you can have your First Amendment rights?
Report comment to moderator
To Outkast
Can I ask you a serious question?
If Iraqi insurgents are fighting U.S. servicemen (because they resent we are there in the first place) considered terrorists by you?
Report comment to moderator
If I thought you were really serious I’d respond, Nick. BTW, whose side are you on?
Report comment to moderator
Concerns over terrorist activity trump everything else, Anlir
Not the Constitution, they don’t.
I’ve never understood why conservatives have so much contempt for our Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
The U.S. Constitution gives the national government authority to go after the terrorists wherever we can find them, Anlir. Duh.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Anlir, you lose even more credibility when you say conservatives have “contempt” for the Constitution. We love the Constitution because it offers us freedom of religion.
Report comment to moderator
To Outkast
I think we should be able to look at this from the Iraqi side. Correct me if I am wrong but shouldn’t we try to think the way our enemy does?
Understanding how your enemy thinks is not the same as agreeing with them.
I will try it again: should people who fight an invading army be considered terrorists?
Report comment to moderator
The U.S. Constitution gives the national government authority to go after the terrorists wherever we can find them, Anlir. Duh.
I’m relieved that Outkast agrees with my point that any action taken has to be Constitutional.
As for Outkast’s personal attack on me, I’ll assume it’s because he’s upset that I was right all along.
Report comment to moderator
“I will try it again: should people who fight an invading army be considered terrorists?”
Your question is too simplistic given the situation.
Report comment to moderator
This organization has had a billboard on I-95 in Baltimore City for quite some time.
Report comment to moderator
Whew! Am I glad TJ said something about the headline of this thread. (#16) Otherwise I would probably have made the executive decision to switch to Quiznos for my sammiches.
Now, on to more important things, eh?
Anlir said (# 6): We have to put up with offensive Christian ads, so I think we can live with these.
Really? Who is the “We” you are referring to? If you are referring to smarmy, intolerant athies, yes, I can see where you’d be offended. Oh, while your tired anti-christian screed is fresh on my mind, let me ask you a question I hope you’ll be honest enough to answer fully. What christian ads have offended thee, Anlir????
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Wow, talk about thin skinned. And where exactly is the personal attack? I’ve gone back and re-read all the posts, and I don’t see it. But if you feel one was made, maybe you should report it to someone who can do something about it, rather than whining here. Just a thought.
Now to the people who would actually like to discuss this in a civil way. Xion is correct in who the ICofNA really are. Read this, from discover the networks dotorg;
http://tinyurl.com/5rz6d5
From the link;
“The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) was founded in 1971 as a “non-ethnic, non-sectarian, open-to-all, independent” grassroots organization. Its goal is “to seek the pleasure of Allah … through the … establishment of the Islamic system of life as spelled out in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad.” Toward this end, ICNA endeavors to: “invite mankind to submit to the Creator by using all means of communications”; “motivate Muslims to perform their duty of being witnesses unto mankind by their words and deeds”; “organize those who agree to work for this cause in the discipline of ICNA”; offer educational and training opportunities to increase Islamic knowledge, to enhance character, and to develop skills for all those who are associated with ICNA”; “oppose immorality and oppression in all forms, and support efforts for civil liberties and socio-economic justice in the society”; “strengthen the bond of humanity by serving all those in need anywhere in the world, with special focus on our neighborhood across North America”; and “cooperate with other organizations for the implementation of this program and unity in the ummah [Muslim community].”
ICNA has established a reputation for bringing anti-American radicals to speak at its annual conferences. Moreover, experts have long documented the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorist groups. Yehudit Barsky, a terrorism expert at the American Jewish Committee, has said that ICNA “is composed of members of Jamaat e-Islami, a Pakistani Islamic radical organization similar to the Muslim Brotherhood that helped to establish the Taliban.” (Pakistani newspapers have reported that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a leading architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was offered refuge in the home of Jamaat e-Islami’s leader, Ahmed Quddoos.) On September 27, 1997, another Pakistani Islamist leader, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, played host to an ICNA conference at his Florida-based fundamentalist madrassa (religious school), which served as a recruitment center for Taliban fighters.”
Now some here have pointed out that all kinds of churchs advertise on the subway. But none are the same type of organization as this. You cannot compare them to the Catholic, or any other church.
Report comment to moderator
And there’s more here, from Frontpagemag;
http://tinyurl.com/5e2fx6
“Both MAS and ICNA use the internet to spread violent forms of bigotry. MAS is currently propagating material via the internet calling for the murder of Jews and the waging of war against non-Muslims, while ICNA runs a website, Why Islam (WI), where WI leaders and members target Jews and discuss the merits of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Also, both MAS and ICNA have had individuals involved in their organizations that are serving prison sentences after having been charged with terrorist activity. Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer, the former Communications Director for MAS, was convicted of conspiring with Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT), an Al-Qaeda related group, to attack Americans and Indians overseas. And four members of the ICNA-related ‘Houston Taliban’ were charged with jihad training with firearms for the purpose of joining the Taliban to, as well, attack Americans overseas; so far, three of the four have been found guilty.
Furthermore, ICNA has been involved in terror financing. When the Al-Khidmat Foundation (AKF), a Pakistani “charity” run by JI, gave $99 thousand to the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, in August of 2006, ICNA was the group’s top donor. As well, shortly before and shortly after the attacks of 9/11, the Southeast division of ICNA (ICNA-SE) was soliciting funds for Al-Qaeda related groups via the web.”
They may spout off about unity, but they actively work for the opposite. Unless you’re muslim.
Report comment to moderator
#34: If you’re going to eat $5, you might as well make sure it’s halal.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir puts up with “offensive Christian ads” but I note he doesn’t consider ads about Islam offensive. That, in and of itself, is offensive. He’s becoming a tad scratchy these days.
While I might personally feel it insensitive to run these ads during September, especially in NY, there really isn’t anything that can be done. But if I were the head of a Christian organization, I’d take a page out of this ad book and get creative, even if it did upset Anlir (or perhaps because I could be sure that it would upset Anlir).
As Islam grows in the US, as the liberals who want to foster “diversity” endorse it, they will come face to face with the fact that as they advance one group in a form of media, others get to do the same. They will be faced with more religion than they can tolerate (and yes, I use the word “tolerate” deliberately).
While I may agree with Nick’s post at #2 and appreciate his warning to realize what’s happened in Europe, I would remind him that Europe is a very different place (as is Canada for that matter). They accept a lot of things without ever thinking about them because they accept excessive government intervention in their lives, but there is something about being an American that those countries will never understand. I’m going to bet that Islam will not take over America. (That said, I learned last week that Sharia is here in NJ and Texas and probably a lot of other states, certainly in contract law.)
Report comment to moderator
In actuality I consider ads for any religion to be personally offensive. Religion is a highly personal matter, not a product to be marketed. The Jewish faith has it right – they don’t advertise or promote their faith.
But we live in a country with a First Amendment, which is a very fine thing indeed. Unlike our conservative Christian friends who would gladly violate the First Amendment rights of Muslims, I gladly support the right of every religious group to advertise and promote their faith.
When one sees the anti-Muslim vitrol on here one gets discouraged that there will ever be any peace between Christianity and Islam. Religion’s capacity for great evil remains ever present.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir #39. There can never be peace (i.e. agreement) between Christianity and Islam since the two are diametrically opposed.
However, there can be peace from Christians since we are commanded to love those who hate us. That’s why we love you Anlir!
On the other hand, Muslims are commanded to torture us to death. If they do not, I suppose we can thank them and have a little party. You’re invited.
Report comment to moderator
This was one of the most amusing sentences I have ever read posted by Anlir: “In actuality I consider ads for any religion to be personally offensive.”
How he condemns what he calls “anti-Muslim vitriol” after all the anti-Christian vitriol he has hurled is even more amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Unlike our conservative Christian friends who would gladly violate the First Amendment rights of Muslims, I gladly support the right of every religious group to advertise and promote their faith.
How are Christians proposing to “gladly violate the First Amendment rights of Muslims,” my dear Anlir? We’re merely asking the government not to fund their ads.
Sheesh, you’ve gotten more than just a TAD scratchy these days!!
Report comment to moderator
I really can’t believe I have to explain this.
The NY subway sells ad space in their subway cars.
There is no government subsidy for the ads. In fact, the ads provide income for the subway to operate.
Yeesh!!
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t posting about the subway incident, my dear Anlir. I had in mind Graceland’s comments above:
This is simple–if the ad is paid for by a private organization, it is acceptable. If it’s paid for by a government agency, it’s NOT acceptable.
Like others have said, there are ads from all sorts of religious organizations posted in or around public transportation. Deal with it.
Sheesh!!
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ at #35 and #36 provides quite a lot of factual evidence to prove a point that most of us (except Anlir) know and readily acknowledge: Islam is both a religion and a political movement.
Considering both aspects of Islam, these days I would say that the balance weighs very heavily on the political side. Islam’s religious face is used primarily as a constitutional cover, allowing it to get away with things we would never tolerate from a pure political movement in a time of war.
Ah, “a time of war.” That is another facet of this issue that makes it difficult to pin down. In contrast to WWII, we are in a time of undeclared war with no single, dominate nation we can zero in on. The American public has not yet seen this conflict as equivalent to WWII in terms of its threat to our national security.
However, in many ways I see it as an even more serious threat than what we faced in 1941. For all these reasons I regard the subway ad campaign for Islam in the same way I would have viewed a soft-sell ad campaign for the Nazi Party during WWII.
It is extremely deceptive and hides terror and tyranny behind a false cloak of religious tolerance that America continues to tolerate at her peril.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly Michael!
And Anlir completely misses the point. While many churchs and organizations advertise on the subway, none of them actively work against American interests thru out the world. None of them are bombing American interests either. It’s sad that the subway folks have completely forgotten about what Islam has cost them. Anybody remember the subway train that goes to the World Trade Center? The one that had to be repaired after the 9-11 attacks. If someone blew up your car, would you take money from his brother to put a bumper sticker on your new one, advertising the reason for blowing up the first one? Didn’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Once we start down the road of sacrificing the liberty of our fellow citizens where does it stop? Do we build internment centers for Americans who are Muslim? Do we force everyone to carry religious identity papers? Will we use the state police to break down the doors of people’s home suspected of being Muslim? Will we have an American “Kristalnaught” on their mosques?
If you are willing to sacrifice the liberty of your fellow citizens, what will you do when they come for you someday?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast:
Perhaps we all agree, then. I’m sure Anlir doesn’t want the government funding Islamic ads. Do we all agree with the following two statements?
1. The government should not fund advertisements for any religion, including Christianity and Islam.
2. Any religion, including Christianity and Islam, has a Constitutional right to publicly advertise their faith.
Report comment to moderator
It sure does sound, Outkast, like you’re saying that concerns over terrorist activity trump the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, that the government is justified in acting contrary to existing laws about first amendment rights (which already rule out inciting to violence, etc) if it suspects that someone may be involved in terrorist activities.
For example, if the government thought you might have ties to a radical Christian states’ rights militia in the midwest, would they be justified in forbidding you from preaching the gospel or posting your political opinions on blogs? Would I be allowed to say “HR 4231 is a bad law” because I’m not suspected of anything, but you are barred from saying “HR 4231 is a bad law”?
Report comment to moderator
While I find it tasteless that they want to put these ads in the subway in September, you really can’t blame every Muslim for 9-11. We believe in religious freedom. Let’s use the same means to teach people about Christ rather than separate the Muslims.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer,
I believe in religious freedom too. It should be accorded to everyone who also believes in religious freedom, but not to those who seek its destruction.
One of the problems with Islam as a religion is that it does not support religious freedom. In every country where Islam dominates, religious freedom is denied. A country under Sharia law, dominated by true and faithful Muslims, will not tolerate the presence of other religions. This is undeniable fact.
Herein lies our difficulty with American Muslims. Some have modified the basic tenets of their religion to sincerely accept the American concept of religious freedom along with the other freedoms we enjoy.
Many others have not done so, and they consider their “brothers” who have as traitors to the faith. However, these true Muslims have no moral compunction against masquerading as sincere believers in religious freedom in order to promote Muslim interests, which they hope will ultimately lead to majority political power. Then all pretense of religious freedom will be dropped. This true and faithful Muslim should not be allowed to deceitfully use our religious freedom as a means to ultimately destroy it. As a shepherd, would you allow a wolf to roam freely among your sheep, merely because he tells you that he also likes sheep and respects their freedom?
As a practical matter freedom has its limits. In our society we do not allow criminals to roam freely when they have shown no respect for the freedoms of others. Ah, but the counter argument is that these are criminals who have actually committed criminal acts and not just expressed their beliefs. True.
However, we do lock people up before they actually commit criminal acts. To illustrate that point, just write a traceable and seriously threatening letter to the president and see how long you remain free. Yet, in the name of religious freedom, we tolerate Muslim madras schools here in our own land who covertly preach hate America and the takeover of our government. This is an application of “religious freedom” of such stupidity that it borders on the moronic.
As this conflict grows in intensity we have a real problem in distinguishing between sincere, freedom loving Muslims and those who seek to do us harm. To be perfectly frank, considering his Muslim background, there are many who are not sure about Barack Hussein Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I know you mean well. But how can I, as a believer in Lord Jesus, take your comment seriously? I refer to your post # 39. If you are offended by a faith that’s been proven time after time, then THAT offends me. Actually, Christ Himeself has articulated the importance of “marketing, as you call it” the faith from a truly biblical viewpoint. We are mandated to preach the gospel to every creature (humans of course) and to make deciples of EVERY NATION!
I believe Xion has expertly stated it in post # 40 the real difference between islam and Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Claiming that a particular religion or it’s adherents represents a “threat” to our freedom that justifies arresting them and/or locking them up even though they have committed no crime is of course the stuff that fascism is made of. It’s contrary to the U.S. Constitution and it’s a violation of human rights.
Report comment to moderator
Ha. I can hear the responses on these topics before I even read the comments.
Freedom of religion is an absolute right … for Christians.
whine whine we are soooooooooooooo persecuted (#3)
We love the Constitution, as long as those nasty Muslims don’t use it. (#29)
Predictable.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin at #51: However, we do lock people up before they actually commit criminal acts. To illustrate that point, just write a traceable and seriously threatening letter to the president and see how long you remain free. Yet, in the name of religious freedom, we tolerate Muslim madras schools here in our own land who covertly preach hate America and the takeover of our government. This is an application of “religious freedom” of such stupidity that it borders on the moronic.
It’s not religious freedom at work there .. it’s that we don’t lock people up who have committed no crimes, contrary to what you say.
Threatening the president IS a crime. The letter itself is a direct threat, and it’s illegal.
Talking about hatred of America or taking over the government is not illegal. Timothy McVeigh hated America and wanted to take over the government, but he didn’t become a criminal until he harmed others based on that hatred.
If you want to live in a country where the government can lock people up for what they think, you’re welcome to move to one, but don’t try to make America into such a place. Your ignorance of the importance of our freedoms is what is “such stupidity that it borders on moronic.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#55):
You have ignored and failed to address the details of my argument. This is a complex situation which demands careful thought and careful actions if both the security of our country and the freedoms of our citizens are to exist together in a proper balance.
We are involved in a complex and worldwide war with an enemy who is deceptive and difficult to find. Domestically we are faced with a situation comparable to that faced by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan: a cowardly enemy who hides behind and endangers good people in order to pursue his own evil. How do we distinguish between the good and the bad? This is vital for our own security. There is also the factor of a movement that is both religious and political and of its practitioners dishonestly using the one to shield the other. There is the additional consideration that none of our freedoms are absolute. Each one of them has its limits and finding those limits under the changing circumstances of peace and war is what this debate is all about. I raised all of these issues in posts #45 & 51.
Yet, instead of considering these things, you have ignored them and purposely misstated my position to one of a simplistic solution of imprisoning people for what they believe. That is not at all what I advocate.
Your view of the Timothy McVeigh case is equally incorrect. You say, “…but he didn’t become a criminal until he harmed others based on that hatred.” Unless I am mistaken, I think you are a little more intelligent than that foolish statement implies. McVeigh became a criminal when he planned and purposed to carry out his act, NOT merely after he had done it. We do not have to wait for someone to kill thousands before we stop them, as you seem to think.
As I said before, the stupidity of that approach borders on the moronic. Come on Steve, rise a little above that and address some of the issues I have raised here.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin:
Post #56 seems to raise a lot of issues and pose a lot of leading questions, but you don’t quite deliver answers. It seems as though your point is, broadly and unsettlingly, that the current situation is so complex that the old ways of understanding the Constitution may no longer apply. Can we get to some specifics?
Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so: For everyone, or just for Muslims?
I believe Steve G’s point (and the salient point, at any rate) is that McVeigh did not become a criminal until he committed a crime. Hating America is not a crime. Planning a terrorist attack is a crime. The same rule applies for Muslim groups in the United States. Hating America and preaching about her evils is not a crime. Inciting people to violence or the overthrow of the government is a crime.
If the government could prove that a Muslim madras was planning or inciting people to violence, I don’t think any liberal in America would have a problem with imprisoning the leaders after convicting them under due process of the law. But until they have committed such a crime, they get first amendment rights just like the rest of us, including the right to advertise for their church or to preach hatred of America.
Report comment to moderator
Despite Firefox’s objections, the word is madrassa, not madras.
The spellchecker that you gave me offered me the word and I ate.
Report comment to moderator
JJF(#57),
Steve’s point in #55, which I quoted directly, was that McVeigh did not commit a crime until he had actually harmed someone (i.e., detonated the bomb). He apparently does not consider the intent and planning of the attack a crime.
You and I are in agreement on that point, but Steve is not. You say that ”Inciting people to violence or the overthrow of the government is a crime.” That is sedition, and you and I are also in agreement on that point. Considering Steve’s aforementioned view, I doubt that he is in agreement on sedition either. So, on these points I find his position untenable, if not downright foolish.
You further say, ”If the government could prove that a Muslim madras was planning or inciting people to violence, I don’t think any liberal in America would have a problem with imprisoning the leaders after convicting them under due process of the law.” I don’t think you are correct, since liberal Steve, from what he has said here, would most likely object.
The “Islamic Saudi Academy” (K-12) in Fairfax County, VA has been accused of preaching hatred and violence against Jews and Christians based on the contents of the Saudi supplied textbooks that they use. Of course, they deny it. Such allegations would be almost impossible to prove unless a government monitor were in attendance at all times in all classes. Yet, they openly teach the Quran where hatred and violence against Jews and Christians is also implicitly taught—freedom of religion, you know. It is not surprising then that one of their class valedictorians, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, after graduation joined al Qaeda and was later convicted of several serious offenses including planning to assassinate President Bush. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Is all of this enough evidence to shut the school down? I think so, but most liberals would balk at the idea. Most liberals, from what I have seen, would also balk at the idea of monitoring the activities and preaching that occur in mosques all across America. In the liberal view, It’s OK to aggressively preach active hatred of America, Jews, and Christians, but it’s not OK to even monitor that speech to determine when it easily and quickly changes into sedition.
You are correct that I raise a lot of issues and provide few answers. The answers are not easy to come by, but discussion is certainly needed to find them. From what I have seen most liberals don’t even want to seriously consider the issues. They are more interested in just shutting off the debate with their standard knee-jerk accusations of unconstitutionality (see #’s 53, 54, & 55).
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: Your view of the Timothy McVeigh case is equally incorrect. You say, “…but he didn’t become a criminal until he harmed others based on that hatred.” Unless I am mistaken, I think you are a little more intelligent than that foolish statement implies. McVeigh became a criminal when he planned and purposed to carry out his act, NOT merely after he had done it. We do not have to wait for someone to kill thousands before we stop them, as you seem to think.
Fair enough, but he wasn’t a criminal when was just ranting about how much he hated the government. We don’t lock people for their beliefs or opinions.
You seem to be advocating locking up Muslims who rant about how much they hate America, even when they’ve made no move to actually do anything about it. The fact that they’re Muslim seems to be enough for you, and I don’t think that’s a very American attitude.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin:
I appreciated your response, and feel like we’re getting to the heart of the issue here:
You raise a couple central issues worth discussing:
(1) the practicality of surveilling schools suspected of inciting violence
(2) the morality of surveilling such schools
(3) whether preaching the Quran (i.e., being Muslim) automatically makes one a terrorism suspect
To (1) and (2), this is exactly what our court system is in place for. This issue, as you say, is very complex. The best way to deal with complex issues is on a decentralized, case by case basis. If there is evidence sufficient to convince a judge of the need for a warrant, then put wiretaps in every room, cameras in every vent, seize records, question teachers, whatever. I (not quite a liberal, but a libertarian, which is close enough for most conservatives) have no problem with that. If you have not obtained that warrant, then the Constitution does not allow you to surveille them. Even if you believe the President needs expedited powers elsewhere so he can listen in to any conversation on a moment’s notice, surely the threat of a Muslim school teacher indoctrinating students is not so immediate that the normal methods of justice would not work.
As for (3), you again seem to be suggesting (but not coming out and directly saying) that we need special rules for Muslims. I’d like to ask you again:
Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so, for everyone? or just for Muslims?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think you are correct, since liberal Steve, from what he has said here, would most likely object.
No I wouldn’t. Actively and deliberately inciting violent action is a very different thing than just ranting about your complaints.
Report comment to moderator
JJf (#61),
Pardon my delay in addressing your question at the end of your post. I will get to it soon.
Thanks,
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Nick,
When a country is invaded (though I’m not conceding that’s what happened in Iraq), its government may assemble a uniformed army to resist. When the soldiers of that army are wearing uniforms and holding to the Geneva Convention, then they are soldiers. When they abandon their uniforms and/or the GC, then they become terrorists.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (#61):
I apologize for my delay in reply to the questions of your last post:
”Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so, for everyone? or just for Muslims?”
The United States Constitution begins with the its important preamble:
After many months of debate and revision our forefathers reached a common understanding and agreement on how they were going to govern themselves with mutual respect around a common set of goals. All citizens of the United States, either by birth or via a naturalization citizenship oath, are bound to support the same Constitution.
In contrast, the basic tenets of Islam are hostile to the citizenship rights provided by our Constitution. The Islamic concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are important factors in this hostility. Islam divides the world into two spheres. Dar al-Islam is an abode, country, territory, or land where Islamic sovereignty prevails. Dar al-Harb is called the “abode of war” and it denotes any territory that is NOT governed by the assembly of Islam. There is no separation of church and state in Muslim lands. Where Islam prevails as a religion, it also governs by Islamic standards and destroys all competition. Muslims are expected to bring Allah’s word and Allah’s will to all of humanity, by force if necessary. Freedom of speech, as we know it, is not allowed in Muslim lands, neither is freedom of religion.
A strict, or “good and faithful” Muslim cannot sincerely support a constitution such as ours, which allows infidels to live and govern in defiance to Islamic law. They can however, profess support for our Constitution while engaging in “al-Taqiyya.”
“Al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “dissimulation.”
While Muslim “scholars” of both Shia and Sunni persuasions differ as to the application of this concept among fellow Muslims, the definition is of such a general nature that its application in relations with infidels allows the justification of almost any lie or deception imaginable. Such Muslims will actively use our freedoms with the ultimate goal of destroying them.
However, I am sure that there are Muslims in America who do sincerely support our Constitution and its freedoms for all of our citizens. They would be among those who would fall into the category of “We the people…” as stated in the preamble. They are our brother and sister citizens who are of like-mind with the ideals of our Constitution. Yet, they would seem to be, by most definitions, not very good Muslims, since they have been “corrupted” by western concepts foreign to the very nature of Islam.
So, with all of these things in mind, I believe that every American Muslim has a dangerous internal conflict of allegiance. In March of 2003, U.S. Army Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar tossed three grenades into the tents of fellow 101’st Airborne soldiers in Kuwait. He killed two Americans and injured 15 others because, when his allegiance was tested, his oath to the U.S. Constitution and his fellow soldiers meant nothing to him, compared to his loyalty to Islam. ALL American Muslims face the same internal conflict. Where does their loyalty lie? And can we expect a truthful answer?
JJF, the answers to these questions will determine the answers to your questions.
”Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so, for everyone? or just for Muslims?”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!