Revisiting Islamophobia After bin Laden's Death
A follow-up conversation with Muslim activist Engy Abdelkader.
Angy Abdelkader speaking on Islamaphobia at Lacey Township High School, 4/28/11
Photos (1)
Photos
Two weeks ago, when I covered an Islamophobia discussion at Lacey Township High School for Lacey Patch, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Osama bin Laden seemed like a distant memory. In the past week, terrorism, bias, and inter-religious dialogue have dominated the news. There was, for example, welcome news from the Pew Research Center that favorable attitudes toward bin Laden among global Muslims have sharply declined since 2001.
Engy Abdelkader was the featured speaker at the Lacey event. She is a Muslim American attorney from Monmouth County who began wearing a hijab after Sept. 11, 2001, in part to reclaim her faith from radicals.
"I felt at that moment personally that my religion was being hijacked by the terrorists. They did not only damage and wreak havoc on innocent Americans at the World Trade Center, and not only did they instill fear in Americans across the United States, but they also caused great damage to their own religious community," Abdelkader told students.
After 9/11, bias incidents against Muslims in the United States increased exponentially and still persist, she said.
But in a new book and in an article for CNN, Claremont Institute Fellow William J. Bennett and his co-author Seth Leibsohn dispute this narrative. The authors cite 2009 U.S. Department of Justice statistics that indicate 8.4 percent of religious hate crimes in the United States targeted Muslims, while 72 percent were perpetrated against Jews. Additionally, the statistics show that 49 percent of all hate crimes were racially rather than religiously motivated, with 71.5 percent of those crimes directed at African Americans.
"This pattern has remained fairly consistent over the past decade. For example, in 2002, 10.5 percent of the religious bias crimes in America were anti-Muslim while 65% were anti-Jewish; in 2006 (just to pick another post- 9/11/2001 year), 11.9 percent of the religious bias crimes in America were anti-Muslim while 65.4 percent were anti-Jewish," the authors wrote at CNN.
"So what is that larger story?" they asked.
"Bigotry is, of course, abhorrent. But given that America has been targeted by a great deal of terrorism in the name of Islam over the past decade -- targeted by terrorists who say they are acting in the name of Islam -- America has not over-reacted in a wave of anti-Muslim bigotry. ...
A CNN poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans said they would be OK with a mosque in their community and that 'positive views of Muslim Americans are on the rise.' It is also worth noting that nearly 700 mosques have been built in America over the last decade," they concluded.
I talked to Abdelkader on Tuesday about the implications of Bin Laden's death for anti-Muslim bias.
"My general impression is that the message of his death was a welcome one both here and, for the most part, abroad as well," said Abdelkader.
"Look at all the trauma and the death and demise that he caused," she said when I told her that support for bin Laden had declined among global Muslims.
She compared his actions with peaceful protests against the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt this spring.
"They were able to achieve the change they desired through peaceful means as opposed to Osama bin Laden, who, 10 years ago, took the life of innocent people and has achieved nothing positive by doing that... His actions and his ideology are absolutely destructive," said Abdelkader.
There has been an "uptick" in discrimination against Muslims since President Obama's announcement, she said. Mosques have been vandalized in Maine and Lousiana, a high school student was harassed by a teacher in Texas, and two imams were forced to deboard a plane because of passenger fears, she said.
When I told her that Jews are targeted for hate crimes more frequently than Muslims, she said she was aware of this fact, but said Muslims are filing more employment discrimination claims now than they did immediately after 9/11.
"Over the past 10 years, American Muslims have become more savvy regarding what their civil rights are, perhaps garnering more courage in coming forth and reporting incidents than they were initially willing to do so," said Abdelkader.
She reiterated the contention she made two weeks ago that there is a correlation between bias incidents and what happens in the public square.
Because she had directly blamed a Florida pastor who burned a Qur'an in Florida for the deaths of 12 people in Afghanstan, I asked if she understands that some of the bias she mentioned, like opposition to a proposed Islamic center near the World Trade Center site, may be a reaction to the real violence that has been perpetrated against Americans and a function of frustration over delays in building a 9/11 memorial at the site?
"I do understand the misapprehension, the fear. Even after the announcement by President Obama of Osama bin Laden's death, and the fact that there is this uptick in discrimination, I understand that people are afraid of reprisals happening against us," said Abdelkader.
"What I expect is greater tolerance and greater understanding. ...I can differentiate between what self-professed adherents to a religion do in the name of that religion versus what that religion teaches. I also expect greater responsibility by our elected officials," she added, saying that it is wrong for politicians to "capitalize on these issues for personal gain by castigating an entire community of people."
"They do that with everything, don't you think?" I replied.
"There's one standard that applies to certain minority groups. There's another standard that applies to Muslim Americans. There are certain things that can be said in the public square regarding Muslim Americans that cannot be said about African Americans or Latino Americans or Jewish Americans, and I think that's what needs to be changed," said Abdelkader.
Forty-eight percent of all hate crimes are racially motivated and 71 percent of those are perpetrated against African Americans, I said, and asked if she thought that despite these crime rates, racist speech has become socially prohibited while anti-Muslim speech has not.
Abdelkader said yes.
Some of the 50 comments on the Lacey article affirm her contention. But others reflect the kind of tolerance and empathy that Bennett and Leibsohn claim are more characteristic of the overall American response to the events of the past decade.
One thing is certain: we need to keep talking and trying to understand perspectives that differ from our own. We must also reason consistently, as Abdelkader suggests, and be scrupulous with facts.
It would have been prudent, and generous, for example, if she had told students that Jews and African Americans are victimized more frequently than Muslims. Not only would the students have heard a more accurate description of reality, but in doing so, she would have demonstrated that she cares as much about bias toward other groups as she does about bias toward her own.
Helen
9:54 pm on Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Thanks for doing this piece. I felt that an activist agenda was being promoted in the talk to the students rather than factual informtion presented. Students didn't have the knowledge to ask appropriate questions. She also planted seeds in the students minds linking the KKK etc. with Christians. The percentage of Christians that were members of the KKK was very small if even 1 percent where approx. 20 of Muslims are radical extremists. A recent poll showed that 26% of young muslims in the US support radical islam. A holocaust survivor as you probably know has been invited to speak also. I hope this person covers that fact that not only were millions of Jews killed but millions of Christians, the handicapped, gypsies and others were killed. I was disturbed by what I read and by her apparent activism in the school so I spoke to my church leader who disputed some of her claims. By inviting this activist to speak the school has opened up a "can of worms". A Christian should be invited to speak also since she made mention of them in her talk, points need to be clarified. Both side must be heard. Thanks again for your factual piece.
john jameson
10:12 pm on Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Then 26% of of young Muslims in the US that support radical Islam should be dealt with accordingly. Either by deportation or imprisonment. The USA has had quite enough of "radical extremists".
AndyK
12:42 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Please cite a reliable source for the 26% of young muslims in the US support radical Islam. Anyone can quote statistics... you need to provide a verifiable source to give them any weight.
For example in the 1920's the KKK claimed to have ~4 million members in the USA and here's a mainstream media source to support that contention (time magazine): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898581-2,00.html
And here's a direct quotation on the nature of the KKK, as their Christian background seems somehow in doubt: "Young set forth the Klan's goal in terms of Christian morality v. sin. The enemies of America, the Klan proclaimed, were booze, loose women, Jews, Negroes, Roman Catholics (whose "dago" Pope was bent on taking over the U.S.), and anybody else who was not a native-born white Protestant Anglo-Saxon. Many churchmen across the nation acclaimed the Klan's program, and in the South especially, Methodist and Baptist clergymen lent the K.K.K. massive support. It was not long before it blossomed into a mighty nationwide organization that claimed to number in its hooded ranks about 4,000,000 members."
I do not intend to disparage any religious group, but people need to be honest. Every religion has had its criminals and perverted adherents who terrorize in the name of their religious convictions. However, it's easier to denigrate something foreign to us than to learn our own history and realize the similarities, good and bad, of the human experience.
AndyK
12:03 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
While I respect Ms. Scheller's right to push a view in this opinion piece, I have to question the intellectual honesty that helped create this piece. For example, the author quotes William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn's observation in their CNN opinion piece that nearly 70% of Americans in a recent poll stated they would be okay with a mosque in their neighborhood. Two points ought to be raised by any critical journalist, how does this compare to a black church or synagogue? Second, America is not a monolith, and indeed the survey revealed this: "Half of rural Southerners say they disapprove of a mosque in their neighborhood." Would Mr. Bennett and Leibsohn like to conduct a survey to determine if more than 50% of Americans disapprove of a black church or synagogue in their neighborhood across the various regions of the US?
Further, the authors of that CNN opinion piece Ms. Scheller is eager to quote close their article citing increasing Islamic radicalism as a trend that needs to me countered. Yet, where are their statistics to support this contention? None are provided. Suddenly, an official's opinion about a general increase in the risk of terror attacks serves as "proof" of increasing radicalism?! But let me offer a statistic that contradicts their opinion: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05
Muslim terror attacks in the US are in fact rare. But remember, there are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Christine A. Scheller
8:00 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Andy,
Thank you for your comment.
I included the opposing position to show a different perspective. I was not endorsing the authors or their overall argument, just as I was not endorsing Ms. Abdelkader or her point of view.
In my discussion with Ms. Abdelkader yesterday, she too cited the Department of Justice as the source of her claim that anti-Muslim bias increased 1600 percent after 9/11. Either those statistics are important or they aren't.
Thanks for including the link to the FBI report.
JSB
12:07 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Good luck getting the schools to allow a Christian speaker in.
AndyK
12:22 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
I would like to add one further comment about the 'statistics' cited in this article. It has long been known that certain crimes are underreported. For example, rape is widely believed to be vastly underreported due to the nature of the crime. Similarly, crimes against vulnerable populations (e.g., prostitutes, drug users) are widely believed to be underreported. Analagously, immigrants are another vulnerable population. Many immigrants may not understand their rights, may not wish to contact authorities based on negative experiences in their nation of origin, or may have immigration status issues that will prevent them from reporting crimes. Whereas, the muslim population in the US includes many recent/first generation immigrants, the Jewish and African-American populations in the US proportionally do not. It is quite likely that crimes against immigrants/ children of immigrants, including hate crimes, are being underreported for a number of reasons. This is likely to affect Hispanic-Americans and Muslims. The reported crime statistics comparing established religious and racial minority communities to a community with a large immigrant subgroup is highly questionable.
Finally, I know a middle aged Muslim woman who had two hate crimes committed against her (the first during the first gulf war, the second after sept 11, both in NJ) she reported neither, and has lived in this country as a citizen since the 1970's. More intellectual honesty and critical thinking plz.
AndyK
12:33 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
First, their attacks are certainly abhorrent and based on hate and bigotry and perversion of their own religion. However, "they" are al-qaeda, not all 1 billion muslims across the world. Just as 4 million KKK members (certainly more than Al-Qaeda will ever have) did not speak for all White Americans. No less a scholar than Bernard Lewis at Princeton University (and a former Bush advisor) states in his book Islam: the religion and the people:
"At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition).... Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements.... The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion."
But I'm glad that 9/11 provided all the education you needed. I suppose if you had a cross burned on your lawn and other people with your skin color lynched and burned, you'd probably think that was all you needed to know about White Protestants.
Richy Russo
2:29 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
A precious waste of time, stop trying to convince people on the merits and strong points of Islam. Everyone's perception is based on events they've witnessed in their own lifetime. 3k dead here, 13 dead there, bombs, beheadings, rapes, tortures, stonings, murders and other 11th century acts we see throughout the world every day perpetuated by the "religion of peace". All committed in the name of Islam, Jihad, fighting Infidels yada yada yada.
Get off of the podium and convince your own to stop committing these primitive acts, fly to Afghanistan or some other backward third world Islamic nation (many to choose from) to pitch your angle. I suspect they will find your body in one town and your head in another in a rather short time, another victim of Sharia Law. The mere fact that you have your feet on American soil makes you an enemy of Islam. I believe you know that already.
The saying is true, everything we know about Islam, we learned on 9-11. The truth is on Sept. 10th most people had no real opinion about Muslims, myself included. In fact, I defended Muslims and their right to keep faith. But I digress, buildings falling to the ground, fires and people jumping out of windows and > nary a peep from the Islamic leaders<. This led me to believe the silence that the "filthy" Americans heard was an indication that most of your compatriots relished in the fact that "America got what it deserved." We didn't place this stigma on your religion, your own kind did. Begin there.
Dan
8:01 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
If everything YOU (please do not ever include me in any broad generalization, thanks) learned about Islam was on September 11th, everything I learned about Christianity took place between 1933-1945 in Germany, or April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, or during The Troubles in Ireland and England. As for Judaism, everything I learned about them came from Israels actions in Palestine, or Yitzhak Rabin's assassination.
The fact that any person can claim to have learned an entire religion based on the actions of a few on the outer fringes is just as scary as someone who would kill in the name of a religion, or almost any cause for that matter.
And for the sake of being forthright, I am an atheist, another group who knows about being mistrusted and disliked in America.
Richy Russo
12:46 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Dan wrote "And for the sake of being forthright, I am an atheist, another group who knows about being mistrusted/ disliked in America."
Sorry Dan, every Atheist says they are one until they are on their death bed, then they repent.
The point that you fail to understand is that we are talking about Islam. A religion which devours cultures, destroys just about any aspect of society it comes in contact with. Europe is as done as a Thanksgiving Turkey for opening their doors to these people.
By the way, I used the above in my comment about Islam as a holding point, most Americans share my sentiments even if you do not. I won't tell you where I was on 9-11, but I was surrounded by concrete, broken glass and rumpled stainless steel. To see what happened to 3000 people on that day because some religious nuts decided to crash planes makes one wonder. What makes me more suspect is that people danced in the streets that day and they weren't Jewish, German or French.
I will point out how wrong/ misinformed you are, Tim McVeigh was not Catholic, he was Agnostic, so do your homework. He also didn't kill anyone in the name of Jesus or God, but for his dislike of Government, so choose your words carefully. In fact, there is some published info that the middle east is connected to that event since the third accomplice was identified as an Iraqi who was never arrested or even questioned by the Gov't. 9-11 educated everyone Dan, but your eyes are obviously closed.
Christine A. Scheller
7:34 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Ms. Abdelkader emailed to say that she was asked by the Lacey teachers to speak specifically about Muslim Americans and Islamophobia, rather than the state of discrimination in America more generally. She also reminded me that she made several comments during the presentation that discrimination toward any group is wrong. I did not mean to imply that she endorses any kind of discrimination. In fact, she tells me that she works on racial justice issues.
Doug
8:59 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
"I felt at that moment personally that my religion was being hijacked by the terrorists. They did not only damage and wreak havoc on innocent Americans at the World Trade Center, and not only did they instill fear in Americans across the United States, but they also caused great damage to their own religious community," Abdelkader told students.
Why can't she tell the truth here and say that on that day, nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Muslims? Wreak havoc? Damage? BS! Killed, senselessly MURDERED!
There are over 100 verses of the Qua-ran that advocate violence against non-muslims and women. I have no respect for any so-called religion that says it is okay to make a woman obedient and to kill others that will not convert. Read it for yourself. It is all there in their book.
I am no religious expert and do not profess to be. I researched this out of curiosity after it was pointed out to me.
Dan
9:20 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Okay, here we go.
This country was not founded on Christian values, rather secular ones. The public and private writings of the architects of this country illustrate this clearly. I will post a follow up to this comment with one that gives quotations/citations backing this up.
There are many, MANY Bible verses that advocate violence against a variety of people. I'll put some of them below.
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:17
"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman." - 2 Chronicles 15
And here is a link from an NPR article discussing the violence in holy texts:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788
And one from the Boston Globe highlighting violence in both texts:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/
Dan
9:33 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second kown use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)
Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.
JSB
10:23 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
yopu can read the Letter from the Baptist and jeffersons entire response at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65
Dan
9:33 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800
JSB
10:32 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, p. 414, Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822.
It was not, however, to be understood that instruction in religious opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public authorities as indifferent to the interests of society. On the contrary, the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation. 13
Dan
9:34 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
JSB
10:37 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
John Adams
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3
Dan
9:35 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries... "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams
I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.
-- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here refers to the proposed United States Constitution
Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
I have ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect.
-- James Madison, letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818
JSB
10:44 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
John Quincy Adams
My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.
John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817
Dan
9:36 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.
-- James Madison, explaining to Congress during the House Debate what the First Amendment means to him, 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789), That his conception of "establishment" was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)
Dan
10:47 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Notice how none of the writings you posted contain arguments involving government while many of mine did? Most notably:
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries... "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams
JSB
10:47 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Samuel Adams
I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.10
The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.11
Samuel Adams to Elizabeth Adams on December 26, 1776.(Return)
JSB
10:54 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Dan I can cut and paste just like you. To say the founding of our country was not influnced by the strongly held mostly Christian beliefs of the founders of our country is just wrong. You may not like it but the facts are out there for anyone to find.
Dan
10:57 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
When the government writes a law stating the country is not a country founded on ANY religion, it passes Congress unanimously, and is signed by the president, then this country is NOT a Christian nation.
JSB
11:09 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26
John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
Dan
11:17 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Maybe you should read the entirety of the letter before using it to buttress your claims:
Now, compare the paragraph in the answer with the paragraph in the address, as both are quoted above, and see if we can find the extent and the limits of the meaning of both.
Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien.” Very few, however, of several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty.
Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers?
Dan
11:17 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.
JSB
11:26 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Have you ever wonder when visiting a older town any place in the US why there is a old church in the center. Kind of a strange thing for a bunch of atheist to do?
I need to go back to work.
Spooner
11:41 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
While I enjoy your history lessons. . .lets get back to the purpose of our Constitution: "the rule of law". . .which now will be used against us:
...The statement, provided to The New York Times on Tuesday by one of OBL's older sons: saying the family was asking why Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, “was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world.”
Citing the trials of Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, and Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian leader, the statement questioned “the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated,” but the principles of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial were ignored.
“We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems,”, adding "that justice must be seen to be done.”
Now let's talk about "habeas corpus" oops: there's no "body". . .can't prosecute a dead man. . .How does it go in in the sixth amendment. . . the accused shall have the right to confront those who accuse him. . .not here!
Now lets talk about international law: invading another country's sovereignty. . . an act of war. . .execution of political individuals of other countries. . . against our own laws and international law.
The bottom line. . . all that history is going to it's grave. . .while America becomes an imperialist nation of the world and respects it's own Constitution and laws less and less. . .
Dan
11:59 am on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Federal government doesn't lay out towns, settlers do.
JSB
12:13 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
That is correct and those same settlers formed this nation and its laws we now live under.
Vince Latchford
12:08 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Fundamental to American citizenship are the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Fundamental to the type of Islamism promoted by the juhadists is imposition upon all nations of Islamic religious law. The two cannot coexist. The mass of Americans are suspicious and fearful of the extremists methods and aims, and do not see a way to differentate between them and the mass of Muslims. The tools to alleviate the suspicions and fears of the American public are in the hands of the "moderate" Muslims. By public speech and actions, show us that they do not support mass murder, government overthrow, and imposition of dark-ages barbarism. Otherwise, do not complain that Americans are fearful and suspicious. Don't blame the potential victims for their justified fears.
Doug
12:10 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Well said Vince.
AndyK
1:02 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
First, you can be suspicious and fearful if you wish, it will be to your own detriment. Second, the Muslim activist in this article is going out and speaking about her beliefs and how they differ from Al-Qaeda's. She is differentiating herself from Al-Qaeda and condemning their actions... and many Muslim organizations across the US and the world have condemned terror, a simple google search (search:muslims condemning terrorism) is all you need to do to verify this... however, you will need to open your eyes and ears to see and hear. Third, the best way to differentiate between people is always to interact with them. Racism dies when blacks and whites interact because people are forced to come to terms with the similarities of all human, good and bad. The same will be true of Muslims, once there are more of them and we are interacting with them regularly, you will be able to tell very easily that your neighbor raises kids to go to college, help improve the world, buy a house and live the american dream... just like most of us are trying to do.
Finally, you are free to hold your own prejudices, we all do whether we admit them openly, appear proud of them, hide them in shame, or deny them. However, if you act in a prejudiced manner based on your fears and suspicions, then you should be held accountable. Just as we do not tolerate racism or anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred. That is part of the protection of rights and the rule of law you mentioned.
Alexander
12:45 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Unlike most topics discussed on this patch this has been for the most part respectful. It was a good read. Thank you
AndyK
1:14 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
For all those who think that the events of 9/11 speak for themselves and somehow implicate 1.2 billion people as co-conspirators, why not pick up a book written by a former Bush advisor and an Orientalist scholar, a Princeton professor, and someone who is not an avowed liberal: Bernard Lewis. He states in his book Islam: the religion and the people:
"At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition).... Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements.... The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion."
My point is simple, you cannot accurately paint 1.2 billion people with one brush. You need to learn more about the history and religion of those peoples before jumping to conclusions. Of course, in the end people generally hear what they want and move on. Regardless, bigotry is rarely overcome through debate... it generally requires direct experiences with people viewed as the other.
Richy Russo
2:45 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Andy, I would not put all of my faith and backing into anyone who draws upon one component of Islam. The sad truth is the "good" book in question does make reference to "Jihad" and the "all bets are off clause" when it is declared. Instead of reading one mans (or woman's) interpretation, one has to simply has to pick up a Koran and read it. You won't get 15 pages in without references to the fact that they believe Islam (submission) is above all and should be defended to the death (preferably our and not theirs.) BTW, the FBI suppressed evidence during the 9-11 commission which lead the doorstep of the Saudi's as the major financiers of 9-11. I guess we will find out if that is true in another 15-20 years as it was sealed. This came from a person on the committee who had the paperwork removed from his office by the Feds. Lets face it, there wasn't any Joey Capicola's or Irving Winstein's listed as hijackers on 9-11 and it took alot of financing for their operation. Follow the money..
Maybe the don't all hate us, but I've seen enough evidence to say that an overwhelming majority do. To cover for the "religion of peace" every day is whitewashing at its best. Being in a position to see documentation from the Feds on terror crimes carried out around the world one would have to disagree. On a daily basis, I can say without any question or prejudice that the word, radical, muslim, extremist and death are at the core of every brief I read.
AndyK
2:49 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
I would welcome you to please find and post a reliable statistic on the number of murders or rapes committed by Muslims in the US (you can even adjust for the fact that there are ~3-6 million muslims) versus the number of murders or rapes committed by White, Black, Asian, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Mexican, or Agnostic Americans. The difference is, when an Iraqi immigrant runs over his daughter for being "too Americanized" (I'm very familiar with that case and at no time did he report that he killed her for not being Muslim enough, nor did he make any religious reference when committing that reprehensible act), you blame the religion, not the culture. You purposely conflate the two. However, when non-muslim children shoot students and teachers in American schools, people talk about the violent nature of our culture and not the specific Irish, Polish, Italian, etc background of the perpetrator. You just wonderfully illustrated that point as most of the actions you speak about were committed by Muslims, but NOT in the name of Islam. Yet, you still attribute it to their religion. Yet, most murderers and rapists in the USA are Christian because it is the dominant religion. Do you wish to attribute their acts to their religion as well? Or suddenly when dealing with your own faith are you able to discern that someone who belongs to a certain faith can commit actions that their faith would detest? Double standards.
AndyK
2:58 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Richy, did you know that the bible calls for genocide? I've read the bible and can't get very far in without multiple passages about killing men, women, even babies and smashing their heads... it's all in there. Again, people seem to deploy double standards. If you want to say the bible is evil because it has violent passages, then no problem, you can say the same about the Koran. But you need to use the same standards in judging both. Anyone educated in religious studies knows the key is not in the text, but in how that text is interpreted by adherents of the faith. And sorry, but Bernard Lewis is familiar with how Muslims have interpreted their religious texts for >1300 years... and you wish to debate that with your interpretation based on reading the Koran without any context and the 'briefings' you received? I'm sure if the FBI was actually interested in investigating crimes by the KKK in the 1900's, most briefs would have talked about violence perpetrated by hateful, White, Protestant, Anglosaxons... I should conclude that I therefore can generalize for all WASPs? Your briefings are clearly not intending to speak about 1.2 billion muslims... just think about that for a second. 1.2 billion, really, you're ready to say you know anything definitively about 1.2 billion people based on some briefings you receive about a fringe group of them.
AndyK
3:50 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Frank, you don't actually care to respond to the issues I raised. The Iraqi immigrant who killed his daughter and the upstate NY husband who killed his wife. You raised both as evidence of the evils of Islam, yet neither crime was committed in the name of Islam, just happened to be committed by Muslims but neither claimed to be acting in the name of their religion. Why do you (and many others) conflate the two? And regarding Muslim women, I don't think they need 4 witnesses in the US to report a rape. Further, rape is both a prevalent and very underreported crime in the US. I don't suppose you blame our Judeo-Christian culture for that long standing evil?? Again, just looking for consistency here.
In terms of converting and joining them... I thought we were debating ideas. Such comments on your part seem to imply that someone is either with your view of Judeo-Christian culture or against it? Sounds remarkably like the Jihadis you seem to despise.
Osama Bin Sinkin
2:33 am on Saturday, May 14, 2011
Andy,
He didn't bring the Bible into this, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone nowadays splitting babies in half or any of that fun stuff from centuries ago in the name of Christianity. I can find many instances of this behavior today in any Muslim country following Sharia Law. Stop defending these "pirates in dirty night shirts" who point their bodies towards Mecca and wish us dead. BTW, your figure is wrong. It's no longer 1.2 billion Muslims, they just caught 2 more "Religion of Peacers" in NY yesterday trying to buy grenades and guns to kill jews on every corner so its now 1.1+ billion and dropping fast.
Osama Bin Sinkin
2:33 am on Saturday, May 14, 2011
See how much Muslims are loved in the Netherlands,The UK and Mainland Europe. They multiply like Tribbles, consume and abuse every social service and voice their opinions in the streets with rocks, molotov cocktails and riots. They even slaughter their own in droves. Read all the books you care to, but this is the reality of the situation here and abroad. Sure their are good Muslims, since you're the expert, maybe you can suggest a book that I can read where I can learn how to spot a "good one vs a bad one" when I see one around.
I would love to see one of you "do gooder defenders" rent your vacant basement apartments to them or allow them to move in with you since you feel so "warm and fuzzy" about them. Call me whatever label you want, but I will continue to view the world as I see it and not how one person who wrote a book perceives it or how a Lone Muslim on a stage tells me how it should be.
Vince Latchford
11:49 am on Sunday, May 15, 2011
Congratulations Patch. This was a fine example of how a discussion on topics of general public interest should be conducted. Opposing positions presented clearly and energetically, and mostly respectfully. I'm not a web fanatic but this is just about the only fourm that is so open and balanced. Too often the editors have an agenda and insure that opinions expressed support their position. Great Job.