Tag Archives: Islam

Cruz splits with Trump over Muslim registry

liberty religion

Are you sitting down?

Of course you are. So … I’m about to say something positive about Sen. Ted Cruz, who has actually expressed a difference of opinion with Donald Trump, a fellow Republican candidate for president of the United States.

Trump’s offensive notion of establishing a registry for Muslims has come between the men.

The only thing about Cruz’s criticism — such as it is — that bothers me is that he qualified it by calling himself a “big fan” of Trump. He differs with him on the idea of keeping such an eagle eye on Muslims because of their faith.

Cruz said the “First Amendment protects religious liberty.”

That, folks, is the central reason why Trump’s idea is a non-starter.

Some critics have compared the idea of a religious registry — even for U.S. citizens — smacks of what Nazi Germany did to Jews living in that country prior to the outbreak of World War II. We all know where that effort led.

Trump has been trying to take back what he apparently told a reporter about whether he’d like to establish a data base to monitor Muslims. He said he didn’t say that precisely. The record, though, suggests he did when pressed by a reporter.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “I don’t know what Mr. Trump did or didn’t say,” Cruz told reporters after a town hall Friday afternoon in Harlan. “On the question of should the federal government keep a registry of any religious group? The answer’s of course not.”

So, there you have it. Cruz and Trump actually disagree on something.

From where I sit as I watch Cruz’s campaign for the presidency, that’s progress.

 

What would ‘W’ do?

UNITED KINGDOM - JUNE 16: U.S. President George W. Bush waves upon arrival at RAF Aldgerove in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Monday, June 16, 2008. Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister said Britain is pushing the European Union to impose new sanctions against Iran, including freezing the assets of its biggest bank, to pressure the nation to give up its nuclear program at a press conference with Bush in London today. (Photo by Paul McErlane/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Mark Shields comprises one-half of a talk show tandem that appears Friday nights on public television.

He and the other half, David Brooks, were spot on in their analysis of the political talk arising from the Paris terrorist attacks one week ago.

Shields, a noted liberal columnist, noted how President Bush responded immediately after al-Qaeda monsters hijacked those four jetliners and inflicted the terrible carnage on U.S. soil on 9/11.

“He went to a mosque,” Shields noted, and said “we are not at war with Islam.”

Shields and Brooks — the more conservative member of the “PBS NewsHour” duo — then both described the white-hot rhetoric we’re hearing today from politicians of both parties as being un-American and unpatriotic.

President Barack Obama has sought to make the same case that his immediate predecessor made. Yet the Republicans who 14 years ago saluted President Bush’s stance contend that the current incumbent, a Democrat, is “soft,” that he isn’t serious about this war against radical Islamic terrorists.

George W. Bush was the first leading politician to declare that the current war against terror must not be seen as a war against a religion. Barack H. Obama is the latest one to say the same thing.

Yet we hear other leading politicians talking about shadowing people of a certain religious faith. One of them, Republican candidate Donald Trump, hasn’t yet told us whether he would intend to track U.S. citizens who also happen to be Muslim, which if that is the case is categorically in defiance of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.

This is what this current discussion has revealed.

George W. Bush had it exactly right. His political descendants have it exactly wrong.

 

Let’s not condemn them all

ku-klux-klan_3153153b

The image that jumps out at me from this picture might not be what you think it is.

It’s not the low-life cloaked in that robe. It is the burning crosses in the background.

What do the crosses symbolize? Well, I suppose you can say they represent Christianity’s holiest symbol, the crucifix on which Jesus Christ lost his earthly life.

Yet the Ku Klux Klansman pictured here no doubt proclaims he burned those crosses to stand up for “Christian values.” Isn’t that what those loons proclaim?

Well, as a practicing Christian, I do not consider them in any shape or form to represent my faith. They are outliers in the extreme.

So, too — in my view — are the terrorists who commit their horrible acts today in the name of Islam.

And yet …

There are individuals around the world — including Americans, some of whom are friends of mine — who continue to tar all Muslims with the same brush with which they are painting the monsters who commit hideous crimes against humanity.

This prejudice and bigotry goes far beyond declarations by state governors, such as Greg Abbott in Texas, that seek to ban refugees from Syria from entering their states. They are concerned over whether some so-called refugee is a closet terrorist seeking to deliver more misery.

The bigotry being displayed by many against all Muslims is no more acceptable than it would be to label all Christians as believing in the hatred that is spread by Klansmen.

Yes, the Islamic State carries the name “Islam” in its own label. It does not, however, represent the tenets of what remains one of the world’s great religions. It is a murderous cult that has perverted Islam’s teachings to suit the demented ends of a terrorist organization.

And that, I do believe, cuts straight to the view that’s been expressed by the nation’s two most recent presidents — Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama — that the war in which we are engaged is not a war against Islam.

It is a war against murderous perverts.

Muslims are Target No. 1

muslims

A little perspective might be in order as the world ponders how it should respond to the Islamic State’s most recent act of terror.

It is that the Islamic State has killed more Muslims than anyone else.

The Muslim death count far outnumbers those of Christians and Jews. Thus, it falls on Muslims to express their fear and hatred of the Islamic State … which is what we’re hearing in the wake of the Paris attacks.

It was barely a week before the Paris attacks that ISIL terrorists struck in Beirut, Lebanon; 43 people, mostly — if not entirely — Muslims, died in that carnage. Yet the world hardly took notice, at least compared to the way it has responded to the Paris massacre.

Muslims are condemning the attacks. Yet for reasons that no one can yet explain to my satisfaction, the media are giving those condemnations little attention. It’s being left, then, to many political observers — and that include those sitting way up yonder in the peanut gallery — to wonder aloud, “Why don’t Muslims speak out?”

Well, they are speaking out. They hate ISIL as much as, say, Christians and Jews do. And with good reason. ISIL is killing many more Muslims than any other religious group.

So, before some of us declare war on Islam and those who follow the Islamic faith, let’s lock arms with those who have the most to fear from the terror cabal … the Islamic State.

That would be the international Muslim community that wants to see the Islamic State eradicated as much as the rest of us.

 

Hate gives way to … tolerance

islam

An anti-Muslim rally planned for Saturday didn’t materialize in little ol’ Amarillo.

It was billed as a protest against Islam and was going to take place at an Islamic Center on South Soncy Road. What happened, though, was something quite remarkable.

It became a rally in support of those of varying religious faiths. Imagine that. The 100 or so demonstrators were arguing in favor of what the U.S. Constitution lays out there, which is that all faiths are to share honor equally in this country.

The anti-Muslim protest not only fizzled; it never got lit.

The Islamic center is the project of Dr. Ali Jaffar, a renowned physician in Amarillo, who built the center to honor his late mother.

I recall distinctly when it was going up some comments I heard from acquaintances of mine who — are you ready for this? — were certain that the center would become a “place where they could train terrorists.”

My response? Sure it is. They’re going to train the bad guys to do evil things in a place where everyone on Earth can see it.

Well, such nutty “thinking” — and I use the term loosely — was supposed to resurface again this weekend.

It didn’t. Instead it gave way to a more reasonable and rational world view.

Thank goodness.

 

No place for religious bigotry

ellison

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., is one of just two Muslim members of Congress.

He has just posted this item on social media. I feel compelled to share it here.

He is answering two leading Republican presidential candidates’ recent assertions about those who practice the Islamic faith.

Ellison writes:

“The freedom of religion is a founding principle of our nation. Our Constitution gives this right to all Americans – including elected officials. For Ben Carson, Donald Trump, or any other Republican politician to suggest that someone of any faith is unfit for office is out of touch with who we are as a people. It’s unimaginable that the leading GOP presidential candidates are resorting to fear mongering to benefit their campaigns, and every American should be disturbed that these national figures are engaging in and tolerating blatant acts of religious bigotry.”

I believe I’ll let Rep. Ellison’s words stand on their own.

 

Muslims, Christians … whatever

Image #: 21630241 Dr. Benjamin Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, speaks to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, March 16, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH) REUTERS /JONATHAN ERNST /LANDOV

Ben Carson now has weighed in on the matter of religion and politics.

The good doctor’s take: Americans shouldn’t elect a Muslim as president, apparently because he believes the faith isn’t compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Carson weighs in

I’m trying to find where in the Constitution it speaks to its compatibility with any religion. The only thing I can determine is that the Constitution — the finished document — is expressly non-religious. It doesn’t condone any religion. Not Christianity, or Judaism, not Islam, not Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto.

Surely, Dr. Carson — one of 16 individuals seeking the Republican presidential nomination — knows this. Doesn’t he?

It’s neutral. Get it? The only reference I can find even to the word “religion” is in Article VI, where it declares “no religious test” shall be given to anyone seeking public office anywhere in the United States of America.

How about we not talk about whether one’s religious faith qualifies — or disqualifies — him or her from serving a nation that comprises people of many faiths?

 

Religious intolerance is alive and kicking

liberty religion

The fellow who stood up in that Donald Trump town hall event and made those disparaging remarks about Muslims brings to mind a serious hypocrisy that fuels so much of today’s political debate.

You’ll recall the guy who said that Muslims present a problem in this country and he asked Trump how should the federal government “get rid” of those who adhere to Islam. Trump, of course, didn’t condemn the remarks as being bigoted and hateful.

It struck me, though, that so many on the right and far right keep saying two mutually exclusive things.

They keep harping on “religious liberty,” and accuse those on the left of “declaring war on Christians and Christianity.” The leader of that anti-Christian movement, in their eyes, is the president of the United States, who many of them believe is a closet Muslim.

Well, “religious liberty” is written into the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It’s a cherished civil right that — as I understand it — means that all Americans are free to practice whatever religion they wish.

That includes those who believe in Islam.

Why, then, do some — maybe many, for all I know — keep insisting, as that Trump town-hall yahoo said the other evening, that Muslims need to be shut down, silenced, denied their basic right to practice their religion?

That is precisely what that guy said, to applause from the rest of the crowd who had come to listen to Trump.

Do they believe in “religious liberty” for all … or just those who believe as they do?

 

Stereotyping can pose major problems

Ahmed%20Mohamed_jpg_CROP_promo-xlarge2

Ahmed Mohamed is a 14-year-old high school student who lives in the Dallas suburb of Irving.

He brought a homemade clock to school the other day as part of some classroom project.

The reaction from school officials? They called the cops, who then slapped handcuffs on the boy in front of his classmates. They thought he’d brought a bomb into school.

Ahmed was taken to a juvenile detention center and then released to the custody of his parents.

And why all the fuss?

Was it because he’s a practicing Muslim? Irving police and school officials, quite naturally, insist his faith had nothing to do with the overreaction. They insist they’d have reacted the same way with any student who brought a “suspicious-looking” device into school.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I am having a little difficulty believing that. I guess it’s best just to take them at their word.

Clock was not a bomb

President Obama, of course, entered the fray by tweeting something about Ahmed’s “cool clock,” while inviting the youngster to the White House to show the device off. He said the boy’s innovation is a big part of what “makes America great.”

The overreaction in one American city to this youngster’s attempt at creativity sends quite another message.

There is good news to report. Irving police won’t press charges against Ahmed.

Now, how about a public apology to the boy and his parents?

 

Is this the same as yelling 'fire!'?

It’s been said many times about the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that free speech is protected except when you yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

Therefore, I’m wondering if it’s fair to ask if staging an event that you know could provoke a violent reaction from someone offended by is the same as yelling “fire!”

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Activist-blogger-says-9-11-inspired-criticism-of-6249483.php

Pamela Geller told The Associated Press she has no regrets over playing host to a contest to draw the Muslim prophet Muhammad in Garland, near Dallas. The event resulted in gunfire by two Muslims who then were shot to death by a Garland police officer.

Free-speech advocates — and I’m one of them, to be sure — suggest that Geller was exercising her right of free speech as a leader of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. She stands by her constitutional right. Her organization is virulently anti-Muslim. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls it a hate group.

The Constitution’s right of free political expression is rock-solid. Everyone knows that.

However, is it responsible to engage in free speech when you can expect with some reasonable certainty that it’s going to result in violence?

This is a troubling question for me. I don’t have the answer. I’m looking for help.

I’m all ears.