US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional
Story
here.
The responses I've seen so far have mostly been harsh, from common folk to House Leader Dick Armey to Jerry Falwell...it seems outrageous to most people...it's our heritage, those judges should be impeached, etc.
The chances of this being overturned in the US Supreme Court appear pretty good...the vote in San Francisco was 2-1 against the pledge. But I am glad they made the decision and understand the panel's
rationale for doing so. I believe the phrase
"under God" should go.
Most of what happened today is based purely on interpretation. Sure, there are some facts involved, like previous rulings in this arena...but it all boils
down to how a judge "reads" things.
While the majority of this country believes in "God" and "practices" Christianity, we have a growing number of people who don't believe in God, doubt God, or do not subscribe to Christian beliefs. While certainly open to many interpretations, this is my own interpretation of the phrase "one nation under God":
The United States is subservient to God. God being the name used in Christianity for the being considered the creator of all in the world. Being subservient to someone can be a form of respect, and we may tend to agree with that person's beliefs in order to be more like them. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, considered by many to be the son of God, both human and divine. Therefore, I conclude that our nation respects the establishment of a religion. In this case, Christianity.
(That took a while to flesh out. But it's only my interpretation and my opinion...you may have your own.)
In the end, God is
subjective, unprovable. You may be a pure scientist; you may have two or three or ten Gods of your own. And the outrage expressed by some over the panel's decision makes me sick...I personally believe in God, believe in most of the tenets of Christianity, but damnit! Quit pushing your fucking religion on people. People like Falwell are the real freaks and outcasts of our society.
And what's wrong with "one nation indivisible?" That sounds kick-ass. :)
(LATE EDIT: My earlier editing was poor. Added or corrected words are in bold, except for "subjective," which was already bolded.)
I voted "Yes", because I don't think it should be there. For my stint at South Carroll High School, I stood in respect for my country, but I neither put my hand over my heart nor recited the words. My reason was, of course, because I don't believe in God. Yeah, I'm a dork.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
I voted "Yes", because I don't think it should be there. For my stint at South Carroll High School, I stood in respect for my country, but I neither put my hand over my heart nor recited the words. My reason was, of course, because I don't believe in God. Yeah, I'm a dork.
Yes, you ARE a dork, but not b/c of your lack of belief in God. :)
Originally posted by sycamore
Story here.
And what's wrong with "one nation indivisible?" That sounds kick-ass. :)
It makes it ironic that many of the hardcore fundie Christians who are ready and willing to kill the plaintiff and the judge are Southern Baptists positive that THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!
Ahem.
Removing this phrase from the Pledge IN NO WAY prevents students from reciting it themselves, before, during or after the Pledge.
Keeping organized prayer (of all denominations) out of public schools IN NO WAY prevents students from taking a moment at any time during their school day to silently reflect and pray to the deity of their choice.
Refusing to allow organized prayer into graduation ceremonies, football locker rooms and such IN NO WAY prevents the associated students from organizing themselves and engaging in a group prayer.
But if _you're_ the one who doesn't want to pray to the Christian God or take part in organized prayer or activities involving Christianity, you're a DANGEROUS ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST TRAITOR who should be shot on sight. Or so say many who are going ballistic over this particular ruling.
This case should have been a slam-dunk for the plaintiff, based on common sense and the First Amendment. The dissenting judge replied "What's next, currency?" Not a problem for me -- religious affirmations don't belong THERE, either.
And what's the aftermath of this Constitutionally-correct decision? A Senate resolution blasting it, with the vote going NINETY-NINE LIMP-WRISTED SHITHEADS TO ZERO. Predictable Republican bleating about "liberals" and "stupidity" and "common sense" was joined by DEMOCRATIC bleating about "stupidity" and "common sense." Not ONE elected official had sufficient fortitude to say a single word about "the Rule of Law", the Bill of Rights or freedom of religion in our nation. Not ONE elected official had the nerve to stand up for a decision that might be viewed as "anti-Christian." Might affect the reelection campaign and halt the gravy train of money flowing in, y'know.
The words were inserted at a point in American history when Christianity and patriotism were tightly linked, to fight GODLESS ANTI-CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM[tm]. The battle is long-dead, but the soldiers march on. And on. And on. And those elected to uphold the law cave in to them every single time. Have we no sense of decency, sirs? At long last, have we left no sense of decency?
Pardon me, I'm going to throw up and go to bed.
Should "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" in the USA guarantee that American children of Muslim faith ought to be able to say aloud in schools "one nation under Allah indivisble, with liberty and justice for all." without being labelled terrorists, or unpatriotic, or anti-American?
How would the bible thumping patriots feel about that expression of patriotism by their fellow Americans of a different faith?
http://www.allah.com/Jerry Falwell and attorney Gloria Allred were going at it on Hardball tonight. Falwell said something to the effect of..."They want to take everything involving God out of our society. They want to make us a secular nation, like Cuba, like China, like Russia..."
Like I said...freak. :)
Who didn't vote in that resolution? Jesse Helms. IIRC, he's been ill for some time. And I thought Strom was too...last I heard, he was staying at Walter Reed Hospital. Boy, I bet when he heard about this, he hauled ass down Georgia Ave. to vote. (Though, can't another Senator cast a vote for you? My knowledge of procedure is rusty.)
I'm not an American so it is not my call really and I didn't vote in the poll above, but I support all moves to further the separation of Church and State. America is further along this path then most countries, mostly by historical accident it seems to me, as I think the founding fathers may have wanted no Established Church like England had but they certainly didn't want an gnostically neutral State, like the current interruption is heading.
I had to go to a Jesuit school growing up, I didn't like it there, amongst my beefs was having to say the "Hail Mary" before each class and also having to go to Mass during school hours once a week. It is amazing what obscenities you can get away with saying aloud when your voice is being drowned out by the sound of 29 other people praying ;) But that experience has left me wary of any attempt to impose a cultural idea upon children at school that goes beyond say respect for human rights..that makes the Pledge of Allegiance, even without God seems suspect to me, the sight of US kids reciting it seems odd.
I almost spat my coffee when i heard this - absolutely amazing, particualry post S11. I"m with vsp, although it doesn't have the slightest effect on me. I'm already boycotting part of our national anthum ('for those who come across the seas we've boundless plains to spare' ') as it is.
I was a pledge resister in high school. Bringing God into it is probably a violation of some students rights but my main beef was with the ugliness of flag worship and enforced nationalism. To me, it just looks like something more appropriate to an unfree society, where the maintenance of the state is the most important value. The fun part of this whole thing is watching the politicians posturing, its a beautiful thing.
The requirement to <strike>take the loyalty oath</strike>recite the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional enough without the "under God". That just makes it even more blatantly so.
One doesn't <b>have</b> to say the pledge of allegiance. Like I said, I got away all through high school without saying it once. I love my country, but I haven't said the pledge for almost seven years. I'll tell my kids that they don't have to either, if they don't want to. And if they have any shit about it in school, I'll be on the phone. Freedom of speech also entails the freedom to not speak, and one cannot force them to say something that they don't want to.
It seems blatantly obvious to me that this is a good thing. Yet 99% of everyone interviewed on tv is pissed, including all the politicians! What kind of world do I live in? Am I some sort of alien?
Originally posted by russotto
The requirement to <strike>take the loyalty oath</strike>recite the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional enough without the "under God". That just makes it even more blatantly so.
I agree with this, which is why I voted for "no opinion"... I don't know how much difference it makes.
Mind you, I consider myself very patriotic, and when I think about Things That Made This Country Great(tm), coerced reverence for symbols of the country (symbols, even, not the substance) is not on the list.
I also consider myself a Christian, and I dislike anything that smacks of state involvement in religion. Not only is the espousal of Christian and quasi-Christian ideas by the state an infringment of the rights of those who hold non-majority religious beliefs, I also believe it ultimately insults and trivializes Christian teachings(among which, found in the Bible, are that you should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, and that religious observance should be private and humble, not public and extravagant).
Martin Luther said it better than I can. I invite you to read his Large Catechism, specifically
the commentary on the First Commandment, and then consider if what he describes as idolatry doesn't sound an awful lot like some of the pro-flag rhetoric we've heard in the last day or so.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
One doesn't <b>have</b> to say the pledge of allegiance. Like I said, I got away all through high school without saying it once. I love my country, but I haven't said the pledge for almost seven years. I'll tell my kids that they don't have to either, if they don't want to. And if they have any shit about it in school, I'll be on the phone. Freedom of speech also entails the freedom to not speak, and one cannot force them to say something that they don't want to.
This is true. But imagine what the fundies would do if they were suddenly transported to Bizarro World, where the relevant section of the Pledge went like this:
"one nation, under NO gods, indivisible..."
or
"one nation, under Allah, indivisible..."
or
"one nation, under Odin, indivisible..."
...and their kids were surrounded by sheep^H^H^H^H^Hclassmates dutifully reciting the oath word-for-word, because that's what they'd been taught to do from their earliest school days.
They'd go BALLISTIC at the notion. How DARE they subject good Christian children to affirmations of someone ELSE'S religious beliefs (or lack thereof)! How DARE they create an environment where their kids are stared at by their classmates, because they're weirdos who won't chant along with the rest of the group!
And, yet, the average American Bible-thumper can't grasp the irony that that's _exactly_ how many atheists and non-Judeo-Christians feel about God being plastered all over American culture, government and currency.
Blah.
Originally posted by juju
It seems blatantly obvious to me that this is a good thing. Yet 99% of everyone interviewed on tv is pissed, including all the politicians! What kind of world do I live in? Am I some sort of alien?
Not at all. Unlike 99% of the US population, you seem to be intelligent, and look at this logically rather than emotionally. :)
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
--Former Pres. George Bush Sr.
Do new citizens have to recite "the pledge" as part of their process?
Interesting that you brought that up UT...
"The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."--George W. Bush
To go along with vsp, the concept of "no God" is apparently incredibly hard for most people in this country to grasp.
And now, the judge is staying his decision, opening the possibility of all 11 judges on the panel to review it. The decision would have been stayed for 45 days anyway, but I wonder if the judge did this out of genuine concern or intimidation. I also wonder if Judge Goodwin realized the potential impact of his ruling.
Originally posted by warch
Do new citizens have to recite "the pledge" as part of their process?
I believe some of them do, but not all.
official: "Say it! Say it you puke!"
potential new citizen: "Ummm...I, ummm...pledge..."
official: "You took too long! No citizenship for you!"
“The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.” -- President George W. Bush
God Save The King. ;)
God save great George our King,
Long live our noble King,
GOD SAVE THE KING.
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
GOD SAVE THE KING!
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On him our hopes we fix;
God save us all!
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On George be pleased to pour,
Long may he reign;
May he defend our Laws,
And ever give us cause
With heart and voice to sing
GOD SAVE THE KING!
Source: Songs Naval and Military, published by James Rivington, New York, 1779.
America's founding fathers hated that crap!
I'm with this dude
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/27/63448/0050
I find the concept of the UShaving a state religion bloody scary, might be the start of the next crusades, disturbing images of Ashcroft on a horse rampaging across europe with a flaming brand. (Irony unlimited)
And we're well on our way already.
Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent.
Our Chimp-in-Chief responded to the 9th Circuit's decision with this jaw-dropping statement: "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." Say WHAT? It's not as if Bush had planned to fill the court with atheists and agnostics prior to this statement, but this is an absolutely bald-faced declaration that there _will be_ a religious litmus test applied to all of Bush's court nominees. If you don't buy into Judeo-Christianity, or feel that separation of church and state is a good idea, you have no place in America's court system and are unfit to uphold the law -- or so says the President.
And, as the quote several messages above restated, the President's daddy isn't so sure that non-believers should even be citizens of this nation, much less in a position of authority to weigh and measure SECULAR law. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
And where is the loyal opposition, the Democratic response to Republicans trying to inextricably bind together God (that is, their God) and patriotism? Robert Byrd declares the lead judge in the decision an "atheist lawyer" and says that said judge had better never come under his Congressional scrutiny, "because he will be remembered." Nice threat, there. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, calls for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently cement the words into place in the Pledge. The Senate lines up to deliver a unanimous vote denouncing a CORRECT legal decision, and in the House's version, only three Dems had the courage to vote "no."
No, I didn't expect the Democrats to rise up as one and support the Pledge's revision. It's a meaningless issue at its core, but one that can be replayed four hundred thousand times during this election season. Stating the actual facts and laws involved instead of screaming "ME TOO!" would start a blizzard of faxes, emails, death threats and public mockery. But there's a big difference between failure to support the decision and OPEN RIDICULE of its underlying principles. Democrats pushed each other out of the way to be the first to face the camera and shout "The decision is ridiculous and wrong." Ninety-nine senators, 99% of the House and 99% of the media pundits shouted as one that yes, this IS a Christian Nation, and yes, the Judeo-Christian God IS the foundation for our system of laws, and anyone who believes otherwise can go sit out in the hall because they're clearly out of their minds.
I repeat: Say WHAT?
Democratic leadership (and much of the media) mocked those who defected to vote Green in 2000, calling Nader's assertion that "there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans" ridiculous. Well, while it's not true on all issues, exactly how are non-Christian Democrats supposed to look at this rush to join the Republicans at the pulpit (which, if you listened to Lieberman on the campaign trail, didn't start this week) and NOT feel the least bit disenfranchised?
Perhaps, we take all this a bit too seriously ...
so here's a brief humorous interlude courtesy of
SatireWire.
Originally posted by vsp
Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent.
I'm actually okay with this, probably because I live in a city with a horrible school system. My only real concern is the loss of revenue to the school district, and what school districts will do, so as not to hurt the quality of education to the remaining students.
But I see it as giving the parents a chance to give their child an education that they're probably won't get in a school district like Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd say that the majority of private schools are parochial (Catholic or Lutheran, primarily), so I'd say by default, many of these kids will wind up in a Catholic or Lutheran school.
And I don't think that's necessarily so bad. When I was in high school, we had quite a few non-Catholics who were there because of the education. Sure, they had to put up with the religious B.S., but by high school, the indoctrination part tends to wear off and you delve into issues like social justice. So long as the parents are involved (e.g. The child and parents talk about the differences between their own religion/beliefs and those at the school they're attending), I think it could work well.
I have heard conflicting information on whether teachers were required to say the pledge and I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer. The reason I ask is when I subbed a couple of years ago they made it seem like I had to, and being that my parents taught in the same district I didn't want to press the point but now I want to know for sure.
The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/3554067.htmSF, it depends on the state. For example, "California, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, and Alaska all have laws that require schools officials to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance on a regular basis."
From
hereThe rules vary by district and maybe by state. A number of schools I subbed at replaced the pledge with a recording of the National Anthem, no standing required. My brother teaches in California and his building doesn't bother.
I guess to the Christian fundementalist the schools already feel like re-education camps. Isn't the primary purpose of Prussian style mandatory schooling, to break the kid away from his roots so he's a more useful tool of the state? As a whole, schools do ere to the side of promoting the dominant local religion, which I oppose, but there are also cases where children and teachers are prevented from expressing their beliefs, like the little girl whose teacher prevented her from saying grace before lunch. What I'm trying to say is tolerance must go both ways and coercion from either side is unacceptable.
Originally posted by sycamore
SF, it depends on the state. For example, "California, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, and Alaska all have laws that require schools officials to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance on a regular basis."
From here
So, what I don't get is how is that constitutional? Cause you can quit and starve? what a country....
Originally posted by dhamsaic
One doesn't <b>have</b> to say the pledge of allegiance. Like I said, I got away all through high school without saying it once.
i never even stood. at first, because i *was* religious, and the idea of practically worshiping a piece of cloth, despite what it stood for, went against what i believed in (having no other gods [not worshiping anything else] besides the christian god) as my religious views changed, i refrained from it because of the "under god" statement. i felt standing would be showing my support of the pledge, which i dont believe in (mainly because of that statement). my senior year of high school, i was an announcer at my school for the morning announcements, and i was given a LOT of shit from one particular vice principal because i always chose to skip my turn reciting the pledge for the school. for a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion, this particular phrase is unacceptable. if the country did not want to have a national religion, they should have completely stood clear of the issue. some have argued (in their effort to persuade me to recite the pledge) that the "under god" statement means "under a god," however one wants to look at that. be it the christian god, buddah, ganesh, a particular goddess, whatever. as dham said, freedom of speech also protects ones freedom to remain silent. likewise, freedom of religion protects ones freedom to not have a religion. to not believe in a god at all. so while this (granted very far-fetched) translation of "under god" may apply to many, how do you translate it to apply to those of us who do not believe in a god? you cant, really, and so i think it should be trashed.
im tired and havent read some of this thread, so excuse me if im repeating someone elses thoughts. :)
Originally posted by spinningfetus
I have heard conflicting information on whether teachers were required to say the pledge and I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer. The reason I ask is when I subbed a couple of years ago they made it seem like I had to, and being that my parents taught in the same district I didn't want to press the point but now I want to know for sure.
my mother is a teacher in a middle school in northern maryland, and (although im sure they want her to) she is not FORCED to say the pledge, as it is a violation of her religion, and therefore it would be unconstitutional for the school to require her to say it. in the statement that sycamore made about particular states having laws saying that school officials are required they lead students in the pledge, if it goes against a school officials religion, id be willing to bet that they do not have to say it. this actually has come up in court cases many times in the past (i am most familiar with cases involving jehovah's witnesses, my mom's religion) with both students and teachers. and it was always (to the best of my knowledge) deemed unconstitutional to force a person to recite the pledge if it is against their religion. with jehovah's witnesses, as i stated in my previous post, it is because the pledge is seen as flag worship, and their god has said that they should worship nothing but himself. i dont have any links to any stories or anything to back this up, but i can locate some if there is interest.
Originally posted by jennofay
and it was always (to the best of my knowledge) deemed unconstitutional to force a person to recite the pledge if it is against their religion. with jehovah's witnesses, as i stated in my previous post, it is because the pledge is seen as flag worship, and their god has said that they should worship nothing but himself. i dont have any links to any stories or anything to back this up, but i can locate some if there is interest.
If I understand the religion, Islam would forbid the pledge too, as it forbids pledging yourself to anyone but Allah.
I'm sure there is a way around the "requirement" for religious reasons, but I bet they make you jump through a bunch of hoops.
vsp - scary, scary stuff. All these scary freaky overtones of the 'war on terror/islam' become the next crusades....
You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.
Keep wishing...
YOU know it's not about that. I know it's not about that. Unfortunately, it has that appearance to some. To others, they would love nothing more.
Lou Dobbs has coined it a
war against radical islamists but he's pretty much alone on that one that even though he's had a whole month of thrice daily CNN broadcasts to focus the war on terror against radical islamists, whom he sees as the defined enemy.
Google "
war against radical islamists"
Google "
war on terror"
Judging by the hit counts on Google, virtually nobody is engaging in Dobbs' brand of rhetoric on this subject.
I think Dobbs is well-intentioned, but do we really need another word to describe what is going on?
Using Gail Shister...I am impressed Nic. :)
Originally posted by dhamsaic
You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.
Go out into the street in traditional Muslim clothing, then say that...
(And here we go again...)
Good point. I'll probably be arrested and thrown in jail for being a Muslim!
Er, wait... no, that won't happen. 'Cause it's not a war on Islam, like I said.
Furthermore, <b>most</b> places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they're having a fine time.
There are a <b>few</b> people in the US that are ignorant enough of the Islamic religion to attack all Muslims that they see. Fortunately, those people are few and far between.
I'm not sure exactly what you hoped to prove by your point, but the fact of the matter is that it is <b>not</b> a war on Islam.The main targets may be Muslims, but that does not mean that all Muslims are the main target.
a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?
If you see Delta Force, it's not Delta Force.
Originally posted by jaguar
a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?
Hey smartguy, look at the last sentence in my post.
Originally posted by jaguar
a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?
This IS supposed to be a war on all terror, but the US apparently believes that al-Qaeda is the most important group to go after right now. I tend to agree with them on that one. The US could give two shits less about the Basque or the IRA...at least right now. It took the US a while to get involved in Kosovo, but they finally did. Unfortunately, we won't know how comprehensive the war on terror will be until we reach that bridge, i.e. wipe out al-Qaeda.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Furthermore, most places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they're having a fine time.
I wish I could agree with you on this one Dave, as that is how it should be. But as a whole, there has always been some suspicion towards Muslims in the States for ages, and that suspicion has probably increased since September 11th. Although, I would say it has probably been "easier" for Muslims in cities where they are in higher numbers (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, Detroit).
Originally posted by sycamore
I wish I could agree with you on this one Dave, as that is how it should be. But as a whole, there has always been some suspicion towards Muslims in the States for ages, and that suspicion has probably increased since September 11th. Although, I would say it has probably been "easier" for Muslims in cities where they are in higher numbers (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, Detroit).
Sycamore:
Are they getting thrown in jail? Is there state-sponsored persecution such as the Jews during the holocaust?
That's right. They aren't, and there isn't. That's because <b>it is not a mother fucking war on Islam</b>. Period. End of story.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Are they getting thrown in jail?
Some have been. The doctor from Texas comes to mind. To my knowledge, there is no state-sponsored persecution of Muslims, though the call for increased surveillance in Muslim communities (mosques and the like) could be considered persecution by some.
That's because <b>it is not a mother fucking war on Islam</b>. Period. End of story.
I understood your point on that, and agree with you. I disagreed with you on this statement:
"Furthermore, most places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they're having a fine time."
I don't agree with you. I think the suspicion and contempt towards Muslims have grown in the past 9 1/2 months, which could cause psychological stress to them...therefore, I would argue that they are not fine. I think Muslims are doing better in cities like DC and Philadelphia, but are probably under greater stress in smaller communities.
The point is that they are <b>not</b> being jailed just because they are followers of Islam.
Taken as two separate sentences (which is what I meant them as), both statements are true. In most places in the US, you will <b>not</b> be persecuted because you are Muslim. I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they are having a fine time (as in, not being persecuted because of their clothing). The incidences of attacks on mosques/muslims have fallen <b>radically</b> since 9/11. Even if they <b>hadn't</b>, they are certainly <b>not</b> being persecuted by the government.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
The point is that they are <b>not</b> being jailed just because they are followers of Islam.
Most are not. However, some are under the gun because of a relation to a group or person that is considered suspect by the government. Therefore, one could argue that some are being jailed because they are followers of Islam.
In most places in the US, you will <b>not</b> be persecuted because you are Muslim.
If we base this statement on media reports from various sources around the country, yes, this could be a true statement.
However, I don't think we can be truly certain of this. First, we have to look at the definition of
persecute (from Merriam-Webster):
"to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief"
Based on this definition, this leaves a lot of things out there that could be considered persecution. Ignorant looks, "Die you fucking Muslims!", etc. Given that there are thousands of communities in this country, it's hard to really know how much persecution is out there. As of now, I'd say it ranges from slight (big cities) to moderate (small town America).
Anyone wish to fund me for a study of this? :)
I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they are having a fine time (as in, not being persecuted because of their clothing).
I don't doubt you. But you're only one person in the Washington metro area. I too see people in Muslim clothing every day...I also work with one. I have never asked her how she personally is faring after 9/11, although she seems to be doing alright. I see Muslims on the streets of Philadelphia, and many seem to be doing alright, but I also see the strange looks and angry stares that some of them receive. I also wonder how Muslims in places like Atlanta, or San Diego, or Show Low, AZ are faring.
The incidences of attacks on mosques/muslims have fallen <b>radically</b> since 9/11. Even if they <b>hadn't</b>, they are certainly <b>not</b> being persecuted by the government.
I agree with the first sentence. However, as I mentioned in the first part of this post, some are under the gun because of a relation to a group or person that is considered suspect by the government. Therefore, one could argue that some (not many, but some) are being persecuted by the government because they are followers of Islam.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Sycamore:
Are they getting thrown in jail? Is there state-sponsored persecution such as the Jews during the holocaust?
Then what do you call the people that have been held in commudicado since shortly after Sept. 11? And the holocaust is an extreme example, as well as being irrelevant. What that says is as long as we aren't throwing people in ovens we can't be <b> that </b> bad.
That's right. They aren't, and there isn't. That's because <b>it is not a mother fucking war on Islam</b>. Period. End of story.
Then why aren't we stopping the Vietiemse and Laotian terrorists working out of CA. Or why do we continue to train people at FT. Benning to use terrorist techniques thoughout South America? And don't that it's somehow different, it isn't.
The US has supproted some of the wrost regimes ever to come into existance, partiuclar in south america, but that is irrelavent.
syc
...at least right now.
You really think they will? Really? With a straight face you seriously think they will do that?
Hey smartguy, look at the last sentence in my post.
I'm not sure exactly what you hoped to prove by your point, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a war on Islam.The main targets may be Muslims, but that does not mean that all Muslims are the main target.
My origional point was that the 'war on terror' is an inaccurate, title becase its not a war on terror. Its a war on Al-queda, its a war on Islamic fundamentalism (ironic as hell) or fundamentalist terrorism but NOT ALL TERRORISM. That is all. Even saying Islamic terroism is not accurate, i don't see those pakastani-backed terrorists being rounded up by US forces, despite them being in the same country. Its an iccurate title, its a misleading title, its a title that can be manipulated ot include anyone the administration does not like and thereby almost garantee public support for the latest jihad against whoever became a terrorist today, crackers, crumbling soviet states etc. I don't like that.
jag -
My very point is that it is <b>not</b> a "War on Islam". It may be a "War on al-Qaeda" (which I have argued before), and it just so happens that those al-Qaeda folks call themselves followers of Islam. This does not, in any way, mean that it is a "war on islam" as you called it.
Then what do you call the people that have been held in commudicado since shortly after Sept. 11? And the holocaust is an extreme example, as well as being irrelevant. What that says is as long as we aren't throwing people in ovens we can't be that bad.
"Unfortunate." Actually, those people are being held on immigration violations. Are they being held <b>because</b> they are suspected to have terrorist links? Yes. But they are <b>not</b> being held because they are Muslims. You're confusing the two.
The Holocaust <b>is</b> an extreme example, but it is a <b>good</b> example of state-sponsored persecution. It's not irrelevant because it was a war against a religion which was effected by a government. This "war on terror" was previously referred to as a "war on islam" which I feel is grossly inaccurate. Basically, what I was saying is "no, a war against a religion would be like the holocaust". For the record, I find the Japanese-American "camps" back in World War II to be one of the most despicable things the US Government has done. So we <b>can</b> be almost "that bad" without throwing people in ovens. Fortunately, neither of those is going on today - the US Government is neither rounding up Muslim Americans nor throwing them in ovens. Happy happy joy joy.
Then why aren't we stopping the Vietiemse and Laotian terrorists working out of CA. Or why do we continue to train people at FT. Benning to use terrorist techniques thoughout South America? And don't that it's somehow different, it isn't.
Okay. Speaking of irrelevant... I said, basically, "this is not a war on Islam" and you said what I just quoted. Huh?
Look, we've discussed previously that this is a war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. You and I have personally gone over that. I've never said that it was a "War On All Forms Of Terror That Are Currently Happening In The World." I said it was <b>not</b> a war on Islam.
Now, is it a shame that we're not taking out terrorists <b>everywhere</b> they are? Yes. But you and I both know that the US Government can't do that lest it spread itself too thin and not be able to conquer all of the violent extremists in the world. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.
People are being held for secret trial without benefit of counsel.
'Tards an being excuted in droves.
And our entire political system comes to grinding halt over two fucking words!
That's the saddest thing about this whole quagmire, unless it's the no-balls judge who reversed himself when he stepped too deep in the shit...
Actually, the Appeals Court Justice didn't reverse himself as much as he stayed the decision of the panel of three, pending an appeal to the full bench of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That's an appropriate ruling once it was clear that the decision would be appealed. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose to be off-again on-again about the effectiveness of laws, which may be unconstitutional.
The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendement to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion.
That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court.
It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America.
Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard.
God Bless America
God Save the King ... er, President.
its closer to a war on islam than a war on terror. The effect is more like a war on islam than a war on terror.
It's most definitely a war on Wahhabi Islam and kinda-sorta a war on any other Islamic country with crappy leadership.
The US's Islamic buddies in Qatar and Turkey are quite safe. And probably even happy about how things have turned.
Originally posted by jaguar
its closer to a war on islam than a war on terror. The effect is more like a war on islam than a war on terror.
Any supporting evidence? Or are you just going to spout off without providing justification for your assertions?
It's <b>not</b> a war on Islam. Nanny nanny boo boo. I'm right and you're wrong. Can we at least provide some evidence to support our claims? Or are you content to discuss this as a child?
Originally posted by Undertoad
It's most definitely a war on Wahhabi Islam and kinda-sorta a war on any other Islamic country with crappy leadership.
The US's Islamic buddies in Qatar and Turkey are quite safe. And probably even happy about how things have turned.
No offense, but I definitely feel you're incorrect on this. While many in the United States feel that Wahhabi Islam is a perverted strand of Islam (with its restrictions on women and the like), we are hardly waging war against it. So I ask you, what would a "war on Wahhabi Islam" entail?
To me, it would be the round-up of Wahhabi Islamists and the jailing/punishment of them. It would be invasions of nations (such as Saudi Arabia) that widely practice, with government permission, Wahhabi Islam. It would be the interrogation of Wahhabi Islamists to find out where others of their religion are located. It would be a war against a religion.
As I see it, we are currently waging war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. I have explained these views in other threads which I'm sure you've read. So you're aware of my justification for holding these thoughts. That is a war.
It's my contention that the government is not supporting such an operation against Wahhabi Islamists. While there are undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the US is working to capture, I think the reason we are going after them is because they are militants. Their religion isn't the reason for their pursuit.
I'm interested in hearing your explanation because, honestly, I'm not sure how you could have come to that conclusion. We are simply not doing those things. So I'm curious as to what exactly represents a "war on Wahhabi Islam".
Well, yes, you're right, it's not a war. (It might be a "war", but it's not a war.)
They've kinda sorta declared war on us, but unless they have control of a country we don't really notice.
They appear to fire shoulder-mounted missiles at our planes taking off in Saudi Arabia, but they MISS, so hey what's a few untrained assholes with major weaponry between trading partners?
They appear to lob missiles into Israel from Lebanon and Syria, but there's bigger news in that section of the world, so nobody has a chance to get worked up about it.
Some of them were in Afghanistan, but they weren't FROM there. They were from Arabia, predominantly, but also from Marin County and Britain and all over the world. It was convenient that they went there, and then attacked the US directly, because then the US had a specific target. But if they hadn't gone there, they would be -- SHOULD be as much an enemy to target.
But we can't declare war on them because we aren't really sure who they are. The "they" in all these sentences is what? Is there a smart missile smart enough to target it, all over the world?
Originally posted by Nic Name
The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendment to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion.
That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court.
It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America.
Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard.
I have read this, and re-read this, and re-re-read this about fifteen times at this point. Either I'm misinterpreting what you're suggesting, or I am justified in being _terrified_ that otherwise rational individuals are buying into this kind of rhetoric.
The issue is not whether the lawmakers have the power to alter the Constitution; they do. If the powers that be want to amend the Constitution to give official sanction to "under God," to prohibit the burning of the national flag except for proper disposal procedures, to ban smoking in all public places, or to make Kraft Macaroni & Cheese the officially-recognized national food, they can do so if they can gather up sufficient "yes" votes. The issue is whether they
should.
The Pledge issue is not one of vast national importance, a full-fledged Constitutional crisis; it's a bunch of prick-waving following a decision that was legally correct but widely unpopular. It's an opportunity (in an election year) for politicians to jump up and down in front of the cameras and show off how godly and patriotic they are. It's not something that affects our daily lives in a significant way, frankly, and I won't lose sleep nightly if (more like when, given the uproar) the decision is overturned. It's hardly the full-barrel assault on God, America, patriotism, apple pie and Chevrolet that many in Congress and the media are making it out to be; I don't even live in one of the nine states that it affected.
But when people start talking about
overriding the most significant portion of the First Amendment to give "under God" official sanction, now we _are_ talking "national crisis." Now we _are_ talking about chipping away at one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded.
There is a significant and distinct minority in this country who view the world in strict Christian fundamentalist terms. In their eyes, the country is corrupt and should be ripped apart brick-by-brick and replaced with a theocracy where Old Testament Biblical law reigns supreme. They live by a simple with-us-or-against-us mentality, have a grass-roots network second to none, and are thoroughly unapologetic about their intolerance for other religions, ideas and cultures. They have a grass-roots network second to none, have an annoying tendency to run "stealth candidates" at a local level (candidates who run little or no public advertising, counting on a grass-roots word-of-mouth campaign to gain votes and win elections with little turnout, revealing their extremism only after victory), and (while a minority) are a sufficiently large voter block that they influence the policy and philosophy of the mainstream Republican Party.
All of the previous paragraph is PERFECTLY LEGAL and should remain so. Why? Because the First Amendment protects _their_ rights to worship, believe, speak and evangelize according to their religious beliefs, and protects _my_ right to believe differently. The First Amendment also prevents any religious group from being singled out and either officially sanctioned _or_ persecuted. This allows them to refer to people like me as dangerous heretics who're gonna BURN BURN BURN, allows people like me to refer to them as dangerous fanatics thoroughly out of touch with reality and the times they live in, and allows the government to carry on business as usual without promoting or sanctioning either of those views.
Now, the "under God" phrase is not an open, non-denominational statement of general religious fealty; it is a direct reference to the Christian deity. That's not surprising, as the religious right's attempts to work religion into American law are usually monotheistic in nature; look at how quickly the Falwells of the world complained when the likes of Scientology and Wicca lined up to take part in the faith-based charity concept.
This is not to paint all Republicans or all Christians as dangerous moral crusaders bent on retaking America from the heathens; far from it. The average person who self-identifies as Republican, Christian or both looks at the extremists just as warily as the rest of us. The problem is that American politics aren't generally based on fairness, upholding the law and doing the right thing; they're based on getting reelected and keeping the money train rolling.
Over time, the public has been desensitized to the blurring of God, patriotism and America into one muddled concept. Public debate has been framed in such a way that legislators on BOTH sides of the spectrum fear to challenge the hardcore right, lest they be labeled as GODLESS LIBERAL TRAITORS or REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY and tossed out of office by a wave of enraged Christian voters who feel like they've been personally attacked. It's rare that a politician shows up to tell the other side of the story, to explain the principles of law behind what's going on and to take the risk of defending an unpopular action.
The Pledge issue is an obvious example: look at the Democrats who scurried forth to denounce the decision, with some Republicans openly grumbling that they couldn't find a prominent Democrat to stigmatize with the "anti-Christian" label. Look at the knee-jerk reactions of much of the media, painting it as if the entire Pledge was being eliminated or that anyone who dared to say the two forbidden words in schools would be arrested or reprimanded. Look at how many pundits publically mock the decision against the two words, and how few are bringing up how they got into the Pledge fifty-odd years ago, why they were added and
whether they should've been added in the first place. Look at Joe Lieberman (a braying ass of the highest order), who (as a powerful Democrat) should be one of the foremost in opposing the way the Republicans blew this far out of of proportion, and who instead is the FIRST to call for a Constitutional amendment. He wouldn't want to jeopardize that Presidential campaign in 2004, after all... "The lawmakers should have to face the people," you say; I'd be satisfied if they'd just face the LAW instead of the polls.
The First Amendment is phrased the way it is for a reason; it's there to make sure that _no_ single religious viewpoint gets the upper hand in the laws of this country. To amend it further to effectively say "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion (
except for the Christian God, which will be affirmed daily by schoolchildren)" would be an abomination of the highest order, and one step closer to the theocracy that many desire. It would open the door for waves of Christian-themed morality legislation and significantly hinder the defense of those trying to ward them off.
"The world has changed post-911." Bullshit! This is _still America_. The Constitution does not have a hidden clause that says "If non-Christian terrorists attack within America's borders, all bets are off and the President can pick and choose which portions of the preceding document to suspend." The Christian God did not pick up four jets and fling them like paper airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania because Americans weren't following his Biblical instructions properly, or because an atheist in California was anxious about exposing his kid to a daily state-led recitation containing a religious reference.
And, yeah, I'm long-winded about this kind of thing, but that's because
I take this sort of thing extremely seriously. The opposition certainly does, and owe much of their success to the fact that few others do.
Originally posted by Undertoad
But we can't declare war on them because we aren't really sure who they are. The "they" in all these sentences is what? Is there a smart missile smart enough to target it, all over the world? [/B]
That, in a nutshell, is why this "war" is thoroughly pointless. Until "they" is defined and, more importantly, _why_ "they" are so intent on attacking us is worked out, all our military responses are doing is perpetuating the cycle.
My take: it's a war where "they" are whoever we declare to be "terrorists," whoever it is politically expedient to sic our bombers and our soldiers on, and whoever we can target without jeopardizing relations with nations our leaders (or our oil companies) would rather be social with.
Now, we (as a nation) can take stock of _why_ there is so much anti-American sentiment around the world, and what we can do (or should do) to eliminate some of it. We can question why Afghanistan was Target 1 and the hawks are circling Iraq like cat stalking a mouse, but nobody says boo about anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia. We can ask whether bombing the shit out of Afghanistan did much of anything that was productive, or whether it killed more people who had nothing to do with the WTC than those (if any) who did, and helped reinforce the America The Bully image among those who loathe our country. We can ask why when these kinds of accountability questions are asked of the current administration, the response is often hostile and contains veiled accusations of "aiding the enemy" or "helping the terrorists win."
Or we can go back to bed and watch Everybody Loves Raymond.
Tony -
I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you (if I'm interpreting you correctly). But now you're talking about <b>people</b>, not a religion. That's a mighty big difference, I think. And that's my point, and it frustrates me to no end that some don't see this as a fight between <b>people</b>, they see it as us vs. their religion. It's not so.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Tony -
I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you (if I'm interpreting you correctly). But now you're talking about <b>people</b>, not a religion. That's a mighty big difference, I think. And that's my point, and it frustrates me to no end that some don't see this as a fight between <b>people</b>, they see it as us vs. their religion. It's not so.
It's not, but that's how both sides choose to portray it.
Echoing part of my overlengthy Pledge rant, how do the minority who _do_ want open religious warfare escalate it so that the moderates will go along? Make it appear as though the moderates are being attacked or repressed. Generalize the other side, don't name names or seek specific targets, just paint them as a dark and evil country/organization that wants to destroy everything you stand for.
Thus is America generalized as the Great Satan, a bully that lurches around the world and bombs, shoots or screws with anyone it chooses to. There's some truth to that, of course, but the leaders of America (and those who drive its foreign policy, military and intelligence agencies) perform actions and 200,000,000 everyday Joes are held accountable, whether or not they have any idea what's going on overseas (much less whether they'd approve).
Thus did the post-WTC War On Terra morph from Osama: Dead or Alive, to The Sinister Forces of Al-Qaida, to Terrorists Wherever They May Lurk In The World (and they're everywhere, maybe hiding in your back yard, and never mind that Osama character, we'll get him someday). It's a lot easier to keep a war revved up when your end-of-engagement criteria keep shifting and becoming more unreachable -- and when you're not chasing individuals, you're just bombing and shooting lots of Faceless Evil Brown People Who Hate America And Freedom.
An average Afghani sees a friend or neighbor die at the hands of American bombing, someone who had nothing to do with terrorism or even cared about America, and it might as well be an Al-Qaida recruitment film. If X opposes Y, and Y just waltzed in and did something unspeakable, X must be correct. Right?
An average American sees the WTC collapse on TV, sees our leaders declare that shadowy terrorists from a country most Americans couldn't find on a map did it, and suddenly everyone in that country is Public Enemy Number One. We root for America and against Afghanistan (and Al-Qaida) as if they were sports teams, and the team that blows up the most things wins. Right?
Religious hatred is like an Outlook virus. Not everyone is dumb enough to fall for it, but all you need are isolated incidents to keep it propagating.
vsp, my opinion is that the legal reasoning of the 9th Circuit is correct. Many constitutional lawyers would agree ... many would disagree. That's why we have a complete judicial system.
My comments were not in support of a constiutional amendment to abridge the separation of church and state.
Rather than see the courts take a political stand to allow the words "under God" to stand in the Pledge of Allegiance as used by government institutions, including public schools, I'd like the legislators to take responsibility for such lawmaking.
If they did, they'd have to face public opinion, including yours and mine, which are likely in the minortity on this issue right now.
An amendment could entrench the Pledge of Allegiance in whatever words are politically acceptable, without infringing the Constitution. I wouldn't want to see "under God" in there, but I'm out of step with the American public as represented by their legislators. (I'm not even an American, so this is an academic or legal debate for me.)
I think that legislators might have to think harder on the subject than just strutting out on the steps and placing their hands on their hearts and reciting. They'd have to deal squarely and fairly with the issues, rather than hoping some judges will save them from their responsibility by ruling that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance don't mean what they mean.
If the people overwhelmingly want such expressions, there is a mechanism for Constitutional amendment ... and it's not the Supreme Court.
My argument and closing barbs in the post above, were just to draw out the discussion of the issue whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, not whether it is legitimate that it "is" already ... for only 48 years, at that.
i think, maybe, the reason it is being worded as a "war on terror" is because of a few reasons...
one. it *really* began as a reaction to a terrorist action. yes, things may have been going on before hand, but you didnt hear about it like afterwards.
two. it is not a war on a specific country or a specific group of people. in reality, it may appear to be, but i dont remember the US declaring war on islamics. probably because they didnt. if japan bombed pearl harbor (hypothetically speaking...) we might declare war on japan. we might also become suspicious of japanese people in the US, but we would declare war on a specific country. if a particular group of people moved into your country, lived in your neighborhood, bought groceries at the safeway down the street, and then proceeded to aid in attacking your country, you might, likewise, become suspicious of other people similar to them. unfortunate, but true. but since they were not acting on behalf of a country, we can not declare war on a country. we also can not attack their religion. its their actions, not their religion that are being fought. there wasnt a "war on islam" before, and theres not one now, because "islam" didnt attack, terrorists did.
three. while, no, we are not fighting ALL terrorists now, this particular threat is the most dangerous at the moment. i think that it is hoped that if they are defeated, other terrorist groups will back off.
four. i will repeat myself some... we are not going after people because they worship a particular diety. we are going after them because they killed people. other innocent people will die in the process, but it IS a war...
i am not very good at putting thoughts into words, so appologies for sounding like an idiot. :biggrin:
Originally posted by jaguar
You really think they will? Really? With a straight face you seriously think they will do that?
Jag, you're dealing with the Cellar's resident optimist here. :)
I WANT to believe that they will. I really do. If this is a war on terror, then it should be a war on ALL terror 'round the world. From November the 17th (Greece) to the ETA (Basque) to Mugabe and his wackos (Zimbabwe). Let's take down al-Qaeda and then take on the next challenger.
The reality of it happening? I'll give it a 30% chance. Now you wipe that cynical look off your face and light a hope candle. ;)
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Actually, those people are being held on immigration violations. Are they being held because they are suspected to have terrorist links? Yes. But they are not being held because they are Muslims.
Dave, I suspect that you and I have very different perceptions of the actions of the government following 9/11, which could be why we do not see eye-to-eye on this.
As I see it, our government made some knee-jerk reactions regarding Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11. Most of those detained by the INS in the few months following 9/11 were from the Middle East and South Asia. Lots of people overstay their visas, but the focus (from what I saw) was clearly on Arabs and Muslims. I think the intention was good...the US was going after terrorists who happened to be Muslims...certainly, I can see that. But innocents were caught in the crossfire, like Albader Alhazmi or Malek Zeidan. I think cooler heads have prevailed since then, although I think the government is still going to sweat Muslim organizations like the Holy Land Society, perhaps unfairly.
As I mentioned last night, to my knowledge, there is no state-sponsored persecution of Muslims. (But conspiracy theories aside, I believe that there is an underlying desire by some in the government to squash Muslims like bugs.)
Dham - the onyl people i see being attacked are Islamic fundamentalists, if you ahve anything to conter that i'd be facinated to hear it. My point never was that it is a war on Islam, i merely meant to suggest it was closer to that than a war on terror but since you've decided to get anal about it...
Syc - I do foreign relations, as a result my assesment of the chances of a broarder war on terror is around 0.03% +- 0.0.3% . :p
Its not a war in Islam, give me some credit, but any muslim will be under some degree of suspicion if only by the general public and you are already seeing vastly hightened survaliance of mosques, charaities etc The weight of the CIA/Military in nations where islamic extremism is thought to be is already being felt. This combined with a stupidly hardline approach to the Isreali conflict does give the impression that Islam is certainly not on the right side of the US. But....
It's not a war on Islam. Nanny nanny boo boo. I'm right and you're wrong. Can we at least provide some evidence to support our claims? Or are you content to discuss this as a child?
Biting political shots from dhamsaic there, how about interpreting what i said correctly, it might help.
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS A WAR ON ISLAM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD I SAID IT WAS CLOSER TO NOT THAT IT WAS, IT WAS A SUBTLE SUBSTATEMENT THAT YOU COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry.
Why is it more like a war on islam than terror?
1. All those targeted are islamic.
2. Noone else has been targed or implicated in anything other than the 'axis of evil'(DPRK).
3. There has been no military engagement against anyone apart from Islamic fundamentalists.
4. There has not even been suggestion attending to other terrorist groups.
5. The US has and will continue to use and train terrorists for its own political ends
The same statments can be applied for the effect statement as well. I was going to provide sources for all of those, but i honeslty could not be bothered. If you don't like them, provide counterevidence.
thankyou.
Originally posted by jaguar
'war on terror/islam'
*cough*
*wacks head into brick wall*
IT WAS A SUBTLE SUBSTATEMENT THAT YOU COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Originally posted by Nic Name
I don't read Kuro5hit.
Take one for the team Nic. :)
why not? one of the most interesting sites i've found recently, sure you gotta filter the crud but...
If you read even the links the guy has provided, you see that the story is far from as clear as he makes it sound. It's another case of crappy journalism that K5 promotes as fast as it can because it fits 60% of the users' philosophy.
I'm sick and tired of having to debug stories myself.
I didn't say that I don't read Kuro5shin. I was just commenting on the link. It didn't get throught my Kuro5hit filter. ;)
It was a joke on my part Nic. To be honest, the story really didn't hold my interest. :)
I posted this in the current Ashcroft thread, but props must be given to the judges in this case for having some cojones.
Court Upholds RulingNot that it'll matter when it goes before Scalia & Co., of course, but I'll give the 9th Circuit full points as well.
I don't know what to think of the Court anymore. Scalia voted for giving the guy in Texas a chance to argue over a racially-stacked jury. Thomas was the only one that voted against that. Strange...