Get E-Mail Updates

The Theological Mistake of the King Hearings

There is no doubt, terrorism is real. And there are small groups of terrorists who threaten countless innocents across the world. They are waging a battle on two fronts. The first is physical and the second is theological. Both have consequences.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Of course, Americans want to protect their families and nation from physical attack by terrorists. And since 9/11 we are likely safer than before but, at the same time, terrorist threats have grown. And most Americans agree on the necessity of good intelligence and policing to protect against further terrorism. But it is a serious mistake to only address the symptoms and results of terrorism, without addressing the causes.

One cause is that the terrorists are making gains in the theological battle. The terrorist's ideology claims that every action they take is part of a global battle between Islam and the West. They want to convince the world that Islam is right and good, and that the West is wrong and Evil. And it helps the terrorists immeasurably when Americans say, in effect, that West is right and good, and that Islam is wrong and evil. Every time American voices say or imply that, it is counted by the terrorists as a victory. They love to point to those stories in the American media, and to use them to justify their cause, make themselves more righteous, and recruit more terrorists.

But the West and Islam are not at war. There is a small group of terrorists, motivated by both real and perceived grievances against the West, who justify their extreme response of violence against innocents by the continuing narrative of one side being good and the other evil. But, there is indeed a radical fringe of Islam that is fueled by hate and violence, and must be prevented from doing further violence. And the more they are marginalized, the less power they have.

The new hearings about to begin in Washington could make the situation worse. For Representative King's hearings, the medium is the message. And that message tells the story that the terrorists want to be told -- that Muslims are the problem. He doesn't say that, but the message comes through. By singling out the American Muslim community Rep. King is re-enforcing the story that the West and Islam are at war. That is a theological mistake and could result in another victory for the terrorists.

Make no mistake, we have to overcome terrorism. I'm grateful that we have not been attacked physically on American soil since 9/11. But our country is under theological attack every day in the polarized debate of the West vs. Islam, and that narrative must be changed. And Congressman King's hearings are more likely to reinforce, rather than transform that narrative.

portrait-jim-wallis

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.


+Click here to get email updates from Jim Wallis

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Charles Kiker

03-09-2011 @ 9:35pm

I think it was in today's (3/9) NY Times that I saw an article about Rep. King's support of terrorism in Northern Ireland a couple of decades or so ago. Does that count for anything in these hearings?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 9:45pm

You read correctly; he was a staunch supporter of the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:33pm

The Provos haven't counted in people's perceptions of terrorism (or the European New Left terrorists of the 1980s) for years.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:37pm

So is King going to address more domestic terrorism like the Klan, Posse Comitatus, anti-abortion assassins (not the peaceful protesters, just the type who threaten doctors and bomb clinics), militias, or anti-immigrant thugs (once again, opponents of immigration are not all thugs)?

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:47pm

Ngchen,
It's true there are both differences and extremists. However, even weak tolerance can be enough to stave off war. The difference between the West and the Soviet Union were just as stark, and there were nut jobs who pushed war at every chance, one of which was in charge of the Strategic Air Command between 1948 and 1965 (General LeMay). Fortunately we were able to avoid apocalyptic war. The current problems are nowhere near as horrifying as the Cold War, as the sides don't really possess the same firepower.

by: Sin_Boldly

03-09-2011 @ 10:52pm

I have always considered myself a an "unrepentant liberal", politically and religiously (maybe even radical). I have been intrigued with the Emergent Church movement for what I perceive as its call for the living of a Christ-like life (and I do believe that Christ/God ordained a radical way for man to live in community/relationship as such is way more radical or egalitarian than anything man has developed on his own). And one of the most radical ideas is that even though you may disagree with another , even to the threshold of violence, yet both sides can, and should, love each other and recognize that persons of differing views can and should be allowed to hold these conflicting views with out fear of being demonized. We all fall short, everyday. And no exceptions.

I am sorry to say that I think Jim has missed the mark here. I have stopped reading or listening to everything being said about Rep King's proposed hearings. Jim's fears may come to fruition. Yet the fear of what evil might evolve from any endeavor should not prevent us from taking any action whatsoever. Ostensibly the purpose of the hearings is to look at and understand the radicalization of certain demographic groups within the population of the United States. This is a concern we should all have (and I suspect most of us do). My observation is that such radicalization destroys lives. And I am not talking about victims of terrorist attacks. (Relatively few have died from such in the U.S since 9/11) No, the lives I speak of are those of the radicalized youth who die or more likely are discovered, tried , convicted and will spend most of their lives in prison. I speak of the lives of these youths' families who must bear the burden of having lost their sons and daughters to radical faith alien to themselves and of the guilt at believing that they may have failed their sons and daughters in some way. The families also suffer with the imprisonment of love ones. I speak of the diminishing of our collective sense of security and even our collective identity as citizens of the United States.

We should embrace any legitimate effort to understand why we are losing some of our young to radicalization and endeavor to learn from the effort so as to prevent loss of our children. We should do it, though, with open minds and loving hearts. And we should be vigilant, ever ready to shut down or stop any such effort if same is hijacked for nefarious and selfish purposes by any individual or group(s).

In the end it bestows on us no honor to brand (implicitly or explicitly) someone with the label of "McCarthyism" until, and if, they show themselves to be such by their actions.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 10:55pm

I'm going to wait until after the hearing takes place before characterizing the hearing.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 11:11pm

I have to disagree with you here. King has explicitly stated that only Islamic extremism counts in his hearings.
(from the NYT article Jim linked above) "If we included these other violent events in the hearings, we'd be sending the false signal that we think there's a security threat equivalency between Al Qaeda and the neo-Nazi movement, or Al Qaeda and gun groups. There is none."
Mr. King added, "I'm not going to dilute the hearings by including other extremists."

I'm not sure how, after that statement, we can take it to be anything other than an attack on Muslim extremists alone. And given the general anti-Muslim feeling much of the country this will likely be viewed as an official attack on all Muslims.
Radicalism and violence of all types is soul killing, and a threat to the rest of us. And our youth are prey to it. There is nothing that had to be anti-Muslim about these hearings; King has made them that way. And rejected all advice not to run them in such a way.

by: mwalimu

03-11-2011 @ 12:11am

Thank you for your article. I must point out that on January 7, when Coptic Christians went to worship in Alexandria, Egypt, they found their church surrounded by Muslims. Because of a horrible terrorist attack on Christians, Muslims decided to form a human shield around the church to protect Christian worshippers. I incidentally learned about this from a sermon at church. (I also read about it in Jeune Afrique.)

Christians need to act. We need to form the equivalent of a human shield. Tolerance must be the first watchword of any and all religions. We must speak loudly and clearly against the King hearings. They are an assault on Christianity.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:32am

Too bad, because terrorism is terrorism; the nonviolent leftists didn't like the Red Army Fraction in the least.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:36am

Maybe not, but have you looked at what the conveners of those hearings are saying about those who are the "focus of their concern"? This looks a bit like the hearing on "juvenile delinquency" in the '50's and '60's to me.

by: David Moseman

03-11-2011 @ 3:29am

When we consider the radicalization of our youth, we need not stop with Islamic youths. Many of our youth from other traditions are willing to die for the common good. Fortunately most do not see the American society as the enemy. Most in fact join with our society in our common causes. Ask any soldier if they are willing to die for the good of our country? The protesters in the Middle East are also willing to die, either none violently or violently.
If we want to look into the religious backgrounds of terrorist then we ought to recall that Timothy McVeigh was raised in a Roman Catholic family. Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect. How many of the domestic militias claim to be Christians?
Would the King hearings better serve us by asking, "Why do some young people decide to Attack us instead of the enemies we have identified? And Second Why do they choose to resort to violent means, especially as we see how effective Non Violent means can be?"

by: JusticeBDone

03-20-2011 @ 7:41pm

While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:43pm

And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

The truth is that muslims worldwide continually denounce those who are responsible for the terrorism. The truth is that muslims worldwide renounce and forsake those who are responsible, who are enabled not by "the muslims" but by a few, muslim and not muslim, who finance them and then look the other way when they pass through security checkpoints. The truth is that you don't hear about it in the mainstream media because it's "not news," it's the "usual" and not "newsworthy." The truth is that all that gets talked about in most public discussion (whether dialogue or monologue) is the "wrong" muslims and the wrong they do.

The truth is that Catholics generally don't "speak out against" the sins of the priests. The truth is that when an American Jewish doctor slaughtered dozens of muslims praying in a mosque, one member of the Israeli cabinet "spoke out against" him for "making Jews look bad," and everyone else in the country was silent or praised the good doctor for his murders and called him a saint. The truth is that Americans "speak out against" America's oil wars and war crimes, and no one listens or does anything about it, but go on electing the usual suspects and paying taxes to continue it. The truth is that people mutter about crooked lawyers and judges, but those who go to court to stop "civil" corruption and wrongdoing are pilloried for "rocking the boat."

The truth is that in most Web discussion forums (Sojo is a notable exception), when a muslim starts writing as I have been doing, accurately, about Islam and about those "wrong" muslims, in most forums he's made the object of a false controversy and disruption continues until he's banished.

And the truth is that some people spend a lot of effort to paint all muslims with the black brush of a few "wrong" muslims, and readers are getting wise to it.

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:49pm

Peace to you all:

I, a muslim, am being accused of lying about Jesus by two of Sojo's

Christian guests ~ "Greg Dill" and "WitheringHeights." In href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">this

discussion, they are saying that I have written in these forums

things about Jesus that are false according to Scripture (which they

apparently have not read).

I have asked that anyone bring forth anything I have

written about Jesus at Sojo that contradicts Scripture, several times,

and in the week or so since I made that request, no one has brought

forth anything of that character, let alone the two accusers. I am

posting this comment in every thread I can that contains something I

have written, to ask for anyone's help who cares to help in this

discordance.

God damns those who lie about Jesus. This is true according to both

Christianity and Islam. Lying about Jesus is Denial according to Islam,

or deliberate falsification of the truth (although usually translated

simply as "unbelief"), and is termed "blasphemy" or "infidelity" in

Christianity. Lying about the Messiah is a crime punishable by stoning

in the Torah. An accusation of lying about Jesus is a curse. I am

being cursed by two people in that conversation who say they are Christians.

So I'll ask again, of all who read this: please bring forth anything I

have written about Jesus that is not true according to Biblical

Scripture, and post it in href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">that

conversation. And should anyone wish to contradict the accusers, I

would certainly appreciate that as well.

I did not come here to become an object of controversy, although I knew

it was possible despite the "Comment Code of Conduct" by which

commenters agree to avoid slandering others. This, in my view, is false

slander of the worst sort possible in these forums. I'm not personally

offended or disturbed by it, and although the topic of the discussion ~

ironically ~ is "An Apology to My Muslim Friends, by Lynne Hybels," I

have no wish for any "apology" from anyone for anything that anyone may

do, Christian, Denier, or otherwise. But I don't think that these

accusations and curses are what the members of Sojo's on-line community

have in mind for these discussion threads.

Thank you, and may God return to you the best of what you do.

~~ Ankaboot,

Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad al-Amriki al-Qadiri

hajj@muslimamerica.net (509) 258-9031

Muslim America, Springdale, Washington

by: Ngchen

03-20-2011 @ 8:45pm

JusticeBDone wrote:
While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

I find the analogy inadequate. During WWII we fought against Germany as a whole because of the impossibility of fighting solely against the Nazis, since the Nazis had successfully taken over Germany. In terms of Muslims, would it be appropriate to criticize us by analogy for not speaking out (forcefully enough) against the Westboro heretics?

by: dlowen

03-11-2011 @ 2:15pm

The anti-Islamic sentiment in this country and willingness of the Republicans to tap into that fear and hatred for political gains certainly parallels the mood of the country and the demagoguery of the red scare days. Time will tell if the name King will become equivalent to the name McCarthy. At this point, the only difference that I see is that Muslims are those dark-skinned others, easily targeted, while anyone could be a closet communist.

Is there a political and ideological reason that neo-Nazi, KKK, nativist, and other racially motivated and violent hate groups are not included in these hearings? I suppose we will all draw our on conclusions on this subject.

In any case, Christians would do well to remember we are called to a spiritual battle in heavenly place and not to destroy our brothers.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:59pm

Take the time to read a review of Rob's book by Kevin DeYoung called-- GOD IS STILL HOLY AND WHAT YOU LEARNED IN SUNDAY SCHOOL IS STILL TRUE: A review of Love Wins by Rob Bell.
Look him up. He is a young guy (30's) who has looked at the emergent church movement and how it stacks up to what God says in His Word about the same issues.
Pretty Cool and thought provoking.

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:44pm

Got a great book you should read. Helped me understand Emergent movement today. It's called,
"Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be"
Kevin DeYoung (Author), Ted Kluck (Author),

by: JusticeBDone

03-20-2011 @ 7:41pm

While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:43pm

And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

The truth is that muslims worldwide continually denounce those who are responsible for the terrorism. The truth is that muslims worldwide renounce and forsake those who are responsible, who are enabled not by "the muslims" but by a few, muslim and not muslim, who finance them and then look the other way when they pass through security checkpoints. The truth is that you don't hear about it in the mainstream media because it's "not news," it's the "usual" and not "newsworthy." The truth is that all that gets talked about in most public discussion (whether dialogue or monologue) is the "wrong" muslims and the wrong they do.

The truth is that Catholics generally don't "speak out against" the sins of the priests. The truth is that when an American Jewish doctor slaughtered dozens of muslims praying in a mosque, one member of the Israeli cabinet "spoke out against" him for "making Jews look bad," and everyone else in the country was silent or praised the good doctor for his murders and called him a saint. The truth is that Americans "speak out against" America's oil wars and war crimes, and no one listens or does anything about it, but go on electing the usual suspects and paying taxes to continue it. The truth is that people mutter about crooked lawyers and judges, but those who go to court to stop "civil" corruption and wrongdoing are pilloried for "rocking the boat."

The truth is that in most Web discussion forums (Sojo is a notable exception), when a muslim starts writing as I have been doing, accurately, about Islam and about those "wrong" muslims, in most forums he's made the object of a false controversy and disruption continues until he's banished.

And the truth is that some people spend a lot of effort to paint all muslims with the black brush of a few "wrong" muslims, and readers are getting wise to it.

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:49pm

Peace to you all:

I, a muslim, am being accused of lying about Jesus by two of Sojo's

Christian guests ~ "Greg Dill" and "WitheringHeights." In href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">this

discussion, they are saying that I have written in these forums

things about Jesus that are false according to Scripture (which they

apparently have not read).

I have asked that anyone bring forth anything I have

written about Jesus at Sojo that contradicts Scripture, several times,

and in the week or so since I made that request, no one has brought

forth anything of that character, let alone the two accusers. I am

posting this comment in every thread I can that contains something I

have written, to ask for anyone's help who cares to help in this

discordance.

God damns those who lie about Jesus. This is true according to both

Christianity and Islam. Lying about Jesus is Denial according to Islam,

or deliberate falsification of the truth (although usually translated

simply as "unbelief"), and is termed "blasphemy" or "infidelity" in

Christianity. Lying about the Messiah is a crime punishable by stoning

in the Torah. An accusation of lying about Jesus is a curse. I am

being cursed by two people in that conversation who say they are Christians.

So I'll ask again, of all who read this: please bring forth anything I

have written about Jesus that is not true according to Biblical

Scripture, and post it in href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">that

conversation. And should anyone wish to contradict the accusers, I

would certainly appreciate that as well.

I did not come here to become an object of controversy, although I knew

it was possible despite the "Comment Code of Conduct" by which

commenters agree to avoid slandering others. This, in my view, is false

slander of the worst sort possible in these forums. I'm not personally

offended or disturbed by it, and although the topic of the discussion ~

ironically ~ is "An Apology to My Muslim Friends, by Lynne Hybels," I

have no wish for any "apology" from anyone for anything that anyone may

do, Christian, Denier, or otherwise. But I don't think that these

accusations and curses are what the members of Sojo's on-line community

have in mind for these discussion threads.

Thank you, and may God return to you the best of what you do.

~~ Ankaboot,

Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad al-Amriki al-Qadiri

hajj@muslimamerica.net (509) 258-9031

Muslim America, Springdale, Washington

by: Ngchen

03-20-2011 @ 8:45pm

JusticeBDone wrote:
While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

I find the analogy inadequate. During WWII we fought against Germany as a whole because of the impossibility of fighting solely against the Nazis, since the Nazis had successfully taken over Germany. In terms of Muslims, would it be appropriate to criticize us by analogy for not speaking out (forcefully enough) against the Westboro heretics?

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:59pm

Take the time to read a review of Rob's book by Kevin DeYoung called-- GOD IS STILL HOLY AND WHAT YOU LEARNED IN SUNDAY SCHOOL IS STILL TRUE: A review of Love Wins by Rob Bell.
Look him up. He is a young guy (30's) who has looked at the emergent church movement and how it stacks up to what God says in His Word about the same issues.
Pretty Cool and thought provoking.

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:44pm

Got a great book you should read. Helped me understand Emergent movement today. It's called,
"Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be"
Kevin DeYoung (Author), Ted Kluck (Author),

by: john316

03-09-2011 @ 7:43pm

Make no mistake about this. Representative King's words will be amplified in the Arab street and used as a recruitment tool to draft more radicals to the cause. Can't we substitute the words of Rodney King in the place of this demagogue (Can't we all just get along?). If the dreams of Martin Luther King are ever to be realized, we desperately need to search for reconciliation instead of division.

by: Ngchen

03-09-2011 @ 9:18pm

A very troubling question though is whether a conflict among the three powers is inevitable in the 21st century. Christianity, Islam, and secularism are fundamentally different, and each has probably more than a billion followers. Can we expect their adherents to live peacefully with each other, or is conflict and perhaps WWIII inevitable due to their differences? Each side believes it's right, and the radicals on each side will claim that the world would be a better place if only the other two were wiped out. People are becoming more, not less polarized with time, and the amount of damage radicals can do has increased. Can people be persuaded to not choose the war option even in the face of massive provocation? Can ideals such as freedom and justice survive in face of 9/11 style terror? Does being faithful mean that we ignore the siren song for war?

King's hearings are not going to do anything positive. There are already reports that he's going to segregate his witnesses from the "opposing" witnesses so that a one-sided story can be presented.

by: Charles Kiker

03-09-2011 @ 9:35pm

I think it was in today's (3/9) NY Times that I saw an article about Rep. King's support of terrorism in Northern Ireland a couple of decades or so ago. Does that count for anything in these hearings?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 9:45pm

You read correctly; he was a staunch supporter of the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

by: Ankaboot

03-12-2011 @ 11:33am

Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect.

The terrorists at Waco were the government agencies, not the Branch Davidians with government licenses for every weapon they had ~ and had never used against anyone.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:33pm

The Provos haven't counted in people's perceptions of terrorism (or the European New Left terrorists of the 1980s) for years.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:37pm

So is King going to address more domestic terrorism like the Klan, Posse Comitatus, anti-abortion assassins (not the peaceful protesters, just the type who threaten doctors and bomb clinics), militias, or anti-immigrant thugs (once again, opponents of immigration are not all thugs)?

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:47pm

Ngchen,
It's true there are both differences and extremists. However, even weak tolerance can be enough to stave off war. The difference between the West and the Soviet Union were just as stark, and there were nut jobs who pushed war at every chance, one of which was in charge of the Strategic Air Command between 1948 and 1965 (General LeMay). Fortunately we were able to avoid apocalyptic war. The current problems are nowhere near as horrifying as the Cold War, as the sides don't really possess the same firepower.

by: Sin_Boldly

03-09-2011 @ 10:52pm

I have always considered myself a an "unrepentant liberal", politically and religiously (maybe even radical). I have been intrigued with the Emergent Church movement for what I perceive as its call for the living of a Christ-like life (and I do believe that Christ/God ordained a radical way for man to live in community/relationship as such is way more radical or egalitarian than anything man has developed on his own). And one of the most radical ideas is that even though you may disagree with another , even to the threshold of violence, yet both sides can, and should, love each other and recognize that persons of differing views can and should be allowed to hold these conflicting views with out fear of being demonized. We all fall short, everyday. And no exceptions.

I am sorry to say that I think Jim has missed the mark here. I have stopped reading or listening to everything being said about Rep King's proposed hearings. Jim's fears may come to fruition. Yet the fear of what evil might evolve from any endeavor should not prevent us from taking any action whatsoever. Ostensibly the purpose of the hearings is to look at and understand the radicalization of certain demographic groups within the population of the United States. This is a concern we should all have (and I suspect most of us do). My observation is that such radicalization destroys lives. And I am not talking about victims of terrorist attacks. (Relatively few have died from such in the U.S since 9/11) No, the lives I speak of are those of the radicalized youth who die or more likely are discovered, tried , convicted and will spend most of their lives in prison. I speak of the lives of these youths' families who must bear the burden of having lost their sons and daughters to radical faith alien to themselves and of the guilt at believing that they may have failed their sons and daughters in some way. The families also suffer with the imprisonment of love ones. I speak of the diminishing of our collective sense of security and even our collective identity as citizens of the United States.

We should embrace any legitimate effort to understand why we are losing some of our young to radicalization and endeavor to learn from the effort so as to prevent loss of our children. We should do it, though, with open minds and loving hearts. And we should be vigilant, ever ready to shut down or stop any such effort if same is hijacked for nefarious and selfish purposes by any individual or group(s).

In the end it bestows on us no honor to brand (implicitly or explicitly) someone with the label of "McCarthyism" until, and if, they show themselves to be such by their actions.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 10:55pm

I'm going to wait until after the hearing takes place before characterizing the hearing.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 11:11pm

I have to disagree with you here. King has explicitly stated that only Islamic extremism counts in his hearings.
(from the NYT article Jim linked above) "If we included these other violent events in the hearings, we'd be sending the false signal that we think there's a security threat equivalency between Al Qaeda and the neo-Nazi movement, or Al Qaeda and gun groups. There is none."
Mr. King added, "I'm not going to dilute the hearings by including other extremists."

I'm not sure how, after that statement, we can take it to be anything other than an attack on Muslim extremists alone. And given the general anti-Muslim feeling much of the country this will likely be viewed as an official attack on all Muslims.
Radicalism and violence of all types is soul killing, and a threat to the rest of us. And our youth are prey to it. There is nothing that had to be anti-Muslim about these hearings; King has made them that way. And rejected all advice not to run them in such a way.

by: mwalimu

03-11-2011 @ 12:11am

Thank you for your article. I must point out that on January 7, when Coptic Christians went to worship in Alexandria, Egypt, they found their church surrounded by Muslims. Because of a horrible terrorist attack on Christians, Muslims decided to form a human shield around the church to protect Christian worshippers. I incidentally learned about this from a sermon at church. (I also read about it in Jeune Afrique.)

Christians need to act. We need to form the equivalent of a human shield. Tolerance must be the first watchword of any and all religions. We must speak loudly and clearly against the King hearings. They are an assault on Christianity.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:32am

Too bad, because terrorism is terrorism; the nonviolent leftists didn't like the Red Army Fraction in the least.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:36am

Maybe not, but have you looked at what the conveners of those hearings are saying about those who are the "focus of their concern"? This looks a bit like the hearing on "juvenile delinquency" in the '50's and '60's to me.

by: David Moseman

03-11-2011 @ 3:29am

When we consider the radicalization of our youth, we need not stop with Islamic youths. Many of our youth from other traditions are willing to die for the common good. Fortunately most do not see the American society as the enemy. Most in fact join with our society in our common causes. Ask any soldier if they are willing to die for the good of our country? The protesters in the Middle East are also willing to die, either none violently or violently.
If we want to look into the religious backgrounds of terrorist then we ought to recall that Timothy McVeigh was raised in a Roman Catholic family. Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect. How many of the domestic militias claim to be Christians?
Would the King hearings better serve us by asking, "Why do some young people decide to Attack us instead of the enemies we have identified? And Second Why do they choose to resort to violent means, especially as we see how effective Non Violent means can be?"

by: dlowen

03-11-2011 @ 2:15pm

The anti-Islamic sentiment in this country and willingness of the Republicans to tap into that fear and hatred for political gains certainly parallels the mood of the country and the demagoguery of the red scare days. Time will tell if the name King will become equivalent to the name McCarthy. At this point, the only difference that I see is that Muslims are those dark-skinned others, easily targeted, while anyone could be a closet communist.

Is there a political and ideological reason that neo-Nazi, KKK, nativist, and other racially motivated and violent hate groups are not included in these hearings? I suppose we will all draw our on conclusions on this subject.

In any case, Christians would do well to remember we are called to a spiritual battle in heavenly place and not to destroy our brothers.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

by: john316

03-09-2011 @ 7:43pm

Make no mistake about this. Representative King's words will be amplified in the Arab street and used as a recruitment tool to draft more radicals to the cause. Can't we substitute the words of Rodney King in the place of this demagogue (Can't we all just get along?). If the dreams of Martin Luther King are ever to be realized, we desperately need to search for reconciliation instead of division.

by: Ngchen

03-09-2011 @ 9:18pm

A very troubling question though is whether a conflict among the three powers is inevitable in the 21st century. Christianity, Islam, and secularism are fundamentally different, and each has probably more than a billion followers. Can we expect their adherents to live peacefully with each other, or is conflict and perhaps WWIII inevitable due to their differences? Each side believes it's right, and the radicals on each side will claim that the world would be a better place if only the other two were wiped out. People are becoming more, not less polarized with time, and the amount of damage radicals can do has increased. Can people be persuaded to not choose the war option even in the face of massive provocation? Can ideals such as freedom and justice survive in face of 9/11 style terror? Does being faithful mean that we ignore the siren song for war?

King's hearings are not going to do anything positive. There are already reports that he's going to segregate his witnesses from the "opposing" witnesses so that a one-sided story can be presented.

by: Ankaboot

03-12-2011 @ 11:33am

Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect.

The terrorists at Waco were the government agencies, not the Branch Davidians with government licenses for every weapon they had ~ and had never used against anyone.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: john316

03-09-2011 @ 7:43pm

Make no mistake about this. Representative King's words will be amplified in the Arab street and used as a recruitment tool to draft more radicals to the cause. Can't we substitute the words of Rodney King in the place of this demagogue (Can't we all just get along?). If the dreams of Martin Luther King are ever to be realized, we desperately need to search for reconciliation instead of division.

by: john316

03-09-2011 @ 7:43pm

Make no mistake about this. Representative King's words will be amplified in the Arab street and used as a recruitment tool to draft more radicals to the cause. Can't we substitute the words of Rodney King in the place of this demagogue (Can't we all just get along?). If the dreams of Martin Luther King are ever to be realized, we desperately need to search for reconciliation instead of division.

by: Ngchen

03-09-2011 @ 9:18pm

A very troubling question though is whether a conflict among the three powers is inevitable in the 21st century. Christianity, Islam, and secularism are fundamentally different, and each has probably more than a billion followers. Can we expect their adherents to live peacefully with each other, or is conflict and perhaps WWIII inevitable due to their differences? Each side believes it's right, and the radicals on each side will claim that the world would be a better place if only the other two were wiped out. People are becoming more, not less polarized with time, and the amount of damage radicals can do has increased. Can people be persuaded to not choose the war option even in the face of massive provocation? Can ideals such as freedom and justice survive in face of 9/11 style terror? Does being faithful mean that we ignore the siren song for war?

King's hearings are not going to do anything positive. There are already reports that he's going to segregate his witnesses from the "opposing" witnesses so that a one-sided story can be presented.

by: Ngchen

03-09-2011 @ 9:18pm

A very troubling question though is whether a conflict among the three powers is inevitable in the 21st century. Christianity, Islam, and secularism are fundamentally different, and each has probably more than a billion followers. Can we expect their adherents to live peacefully with each other, or is conflict and perhaps WWIII inevitable due to their differences? Each side believes it's right, and the radicals on each side will claim that the world would be a better place if only the other two were wiped out. People are becoming more, not less polarized with time, and the amount of damage radicals can do has increased. Can people be persuaded to not choose the war option even in the face of massive provocation? Can ideals such as freedom and justice survive in face of 9/11 style terror? Does being faithful mean that we ignore the siren song for war?

King's hearings are not going to do anything positive. There are already reports that he's going to segregate his witnesses from the "opposing" witnesses so that a one-sided story can be presented.

by: Charles Kiker

03-09-2011 @ 9:35pm

I think it was in today's (3/9) NY Times that I saw an article about Rep. King's support of terrorism in Northern Ireland a couple of decades or so ago. Does that count for anything in these hearings?

by: Charles Kiker

03-09-2011 @ 9:35pm

I think it was in today's (3/9) NY Times that I saw an article about Rep. King's support of terrorism in Northern Ireland a couple of decades or so ago. Does that count for anything in these hearings?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 9:45pm

You read correctly; he was a staunch supporter of the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 9:45pm

You read correctly; he was a staunch supporter of the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:33pm

The Provos haven't counted in people's perceptions of terrorism (or the European New Left terrorists of the 1980s) for years.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:33pm

The Provos haven't counted in people's perceptions of terrorism (or the European New Left terrorists of the 1980s) for years.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:37pm

So is King going to address more domestic terrorism like the Klan, Posse Comitatus, anti-abortion assassins (not the peaceful protesters, just the type who threaten doctors and bomb clinics), militias, or anti-immigrant thugs (once again, opponents of immigration are not all thugs)?

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:37pm

So is King going to address more domestic terrorism like the Klan, Posse Comitatus, anti-abortion assassins (not the peaceful protesters, just the type who threaten doctors and bomb clinics), militias, or anti-immigrant thugs (once again, opponents of immigration are not all thugs)?

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:47pm

Ngchen,
It's true there are both differences and extremists. However, even weak tolerance can be enough to stave off war. The difference between the West and the Soviet Union were just as stark, and there were nut jobs who pushed war at every chance, one of which was in charge of the Strategic Air Command between 1948 and 1965 (General LeMay). Fortunately we were able to avoid apocalyptic war. The current problems are nowhere near as horrifying as the Cold War, as the sides don't really possess the same firepower.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 10:47pm

Ngchen,
It's true there are both differences and extremists. However, even weak tolerance can be enough to stave off war. The difference between the West and the Soviet Union were just as stark, and there were nut jobs who pushed war at every chance, one of which was in charge of the Strategic Air Command between 1948 and 1965 (General LeMay). Fortunately we were able to avoid apocalyptic war. The current problems are nowhere near as horrifying as the Cold War, as the sides don't really possess the same firepower.

by: Sin_Boldly

03-09-2011 @ 10:52pm

I have always considered myself a an "unrepentant liberal", politically and religiously (maybe even radical). I have been intrigued with the Emergent Church movement for what I perceive as its call for the living of a Christ-like life (and I do believe that Christ/God ordained a radical way for man to live in community/relationship as such is way more radical or egalitarian than anything man has developed on his own). And one of the most radical ideas is that even though you may disagree with another , even to the threshold of violence, yet both sides can, and should, love each other and recognize that persons of differing views can and should be allowed to hold these conflicting views with out fear of being demonized. We all fall short, everyday. And no exceptions.

I am sorry to say that I think Jim has missed the mark here. I have stopped reading or listening to everything being said about Rep King's proposed hearings. Jim's fears may come to fruition. Yet the fear of what evil might evolve from any endeavor should not prevent us from taking any action whatsoever. Ostensibly the purpose of the hearings is to look at and understand the radicalization of certain demographic groups within the population of the United States. This is a concern we should all have (and I suspect most of us do). My observation is that such radicalization destroys lives. And I am not talking about victims of terrorist attacks. (Relatively few have died from such in the U.S since 9/11) No, the lives I speak of are those of the radicalized youth who die or more likely are discovered, tried , convicted and will spend most of their lives in prison. I speak of the lives of these youths' families who must bear the burden of having lost their sons and daughters to radical faith alien to themselves and of the guilt at believing that they may have failed their sons and daughters in some way. The families also suffer with the imprisonment of love ones. I speak of the diminishing of our collective sense of security and even our collective identity as citizens of the United States.

We should embrace any legitimate effort to understand why we are losing some of our young to radicalization and endeavor to learn from the effort so as to prevent loss of our children. We should do it, though, with open minds and loving hearts. And we should be vigilant, ever ready to shut down or stop any such effort if same is hijacked for nefarious and selfish purposes by any individual or group(s).

In the end it bestows on us no honor to brand (implicitly or explicitly) someone with the label of "McCarthyism" until, and if, they show themselves to be such by their actions.

by: Sin_Boldly

03-09-2011 @ 10:52pm

I have always considered myself a an "unrepentant liberal", politically and religiously (maybe even radical). I have been intrigued with the Emergent Church movement for what I perceive as its call for the living of a Christ-like life (and I do believe that Christ/God ordained a radical way for man to live in community/relationship as such is way more radical or egalitarian than anything man has developed on his own). And one of the most radical ideas is that even though you may disagree with another , even to the threshold of violence, yet both sides can, and should, love each other and recognize that persons of differing views can and should be allowed to hold these conflicting views with out fear of being demonized. We all fall short, everyday. And no exceptions.

I am sorry to say that I think Jim has missed the mark here. I have stopped reading or listening to everything being said about Rep King's proposed hearings. Jim's fears may come to fruition. Yet the fear of what evil might evolve from any endeavor should not prevent us from taking any action whatsoever. Ostensibly the purpose of the hearings is to look at and understand the radicalization of certain demographic groups within the population of the United States. This is a concern we should all have (and I suspect most of us do). My observation is that such radicalization destroys lives. And I am not talking about victims of terrorist attacks. (Relatively few have died from such in the U.S since 9/11) No, the lives I speak of are those of the radicalized youth who die or more likely are discovered, tried , convicted and will spend most of their lives in prison. I speak of the lives of these youths' families who must bear the burden of having lost their sons and daughters to radical faith alien to themselves and of the guilt at believing that they may have failed their sons and daughters in some way. The families also suffer with the imprisonment of love ones. I speak of the diminishing of our collective sense of security and even our collective identity as citizens of the United States.

We should embrace any legitimate effort to understand why we are losing some of our young to radicalization and endeavor to learn from the effort so as to prevent loss of our children. We should do it, though, with open minds and loving hearts. And we should be vigilant, ever ready to shut down or stop any such effort if same is hijacked for nefarious and selfish purposes by any individual or group(s).

In the end it bestows on us no honor to brand (implicitly or explicitly) someone with the label of "McCarthyism" until, and if, they show themselves to be such by their actions.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 10:55pm

I'm going to wait until after the hearing takes place before characterizing the hearing.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 10:55pm

I'm going to wait until after the hearing takes place before characterizing the hearing.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 11:11pm

I have to disagree with you here. King has explicitly stated that only Islamic extremism counts in his hearings.
(from the NYT article Jim linked above) "If we included these other violent events in the hearings, we'd be sending the false signal that we think there's a security threat equivalency between Al Qaeda and the neo-Nazi movement, or Al Qaeda and gun groups. There is none."
Mr. King added, "I'm not going to dilute the hearings by including other extremists."

I'm not sure how, after that statement, we can take it to be anything other than an attack on Muslim extremists alone. And given the general anti-Muslim feeling much of the country this will likely be viewed as an official attack on all Muslims.
Radicalism and violence of all types is soul killing, and a threat to the rest of us. And our youth are prey to it. There is nothing that had to be anti-Muslim about these hearings; King has made them that way. And rejected all advice not to run them in such a way.

by: histrogeek

03-09-2011 @ 11:11pm

I have to disagree with you here. King has explicitly stated that only Islamic extremism counts in his hearings.
(from the NYT article Jim linked above) "If we included these other violent events in the hearings, we'd be sending the false signal that we think there's a security threat equivalency between Al Qaeda and the neo-Nazi movement, or Al Qaeda and gun groups. There is none."
Mr. King added, "I'm not going to dilute the hearings by including other extremists."

I'm not sure how, after that statement, we can take it to be anything other than an attack on Muslim extremists alone. And given the general anti-Muslim feeling much of the country this will likely be viewed as an official attack on all Muslims.
Radicalism and violence of all types is soul killing, and a threat to the rest of us. And our youth are prey to it. There is nothing that had to be anti-Muslim about these hearings; King has made them that way. And rejected all advice not to run them in such a way.

by: mwalimu

03-11-2011 @ 12:11am

Thank you for your article. I must point out that on January 7, when Coptic Christians went to worship in Alexandria, Egypt, they found their church surrounded by Muslims. Because of a horrible terrorist attack on Christians, Muslims decided to form a human shield around the church to protect Christian worshippers. I incidentally learned about this from a sermon at church. (I also read about it in Jeune Afrique.)

Christians need to act. We need to form the equivalent of a human shield. Tolerance must be the first watchword of any and all religions. We must speak loudly and clearly against the King hearings. They are an assault on Christianity.

by: mwalimu

03-11-2011 @ 12:11am

Thank you for your article. I must point out that on January 7, when Coptic Christians went to worship in Alexandria, Egypt, they found their church surrounded by Muslims. Because of a horrible terrorist attack on Christians, Muslims decided to form a human shield around the church to protect Christian worshippers. I incidentally learned about this from a sermon at church. (I also read about it in Jeune Afrique.)

Christians need to act. We need to form the equivalent of a human shield. Tolerance must be the first watchword of any and all religions. We must speak loudly and clearly against the King hearings. They are an assault on Christianity.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:32am

Too bad, because terrorism is terrorism; the nonviolent leftists didn't like the Red Army Fraction in the least.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:32am

Too bad, because terrorism is terrorism; the nonviolent leftists didn't like the Red Army Fraction in the least.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:36am

Maybe not, but have you looked at what the conveners of those hearings are saying about those who are the "focus of their concern"? This looks a bit like the hearing on "juvenile delinquency" in the '50's and '60's to me.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-11-2011 @ 1:36am

Maybe not, but have you looked at what the conveners of those hearings are saying about those who are the "focus of their concern"? This looks a bit like the hearing on "juvenile delinquency" in the '50's and '60's to me.

by: David Moseman

03-11-2011 @ 3:29am

When we consider the radicalization of our youth, we need not stop with Islamic youths. Many of our youth from other traditions are willing to die for the common good. Fortunately most do not see the American society as the enemy. Most in fact join with our society in our common causes. Ask any soldier if they are willing to die for the good of our country? The protesters in the Middle East are also willing to die, either none violently or violently.
If we want to look into the religious backgrounds of terrorist then we ought to recall that Timothy McVeigh was raised in a Roman Catholic family. Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect. How many of the domestic militias claim to be Christians?
Would the King hearings better serve us by asking, "Why do some young people decide to Attack us instead of the enemies we have identified? And Second Why do they choose to resort to violent means, especially as we see how effective Non Violent means can be?"

by: David Moseman

03-11-2011 @ 3:29am

When we consider the radicalization of our youth, we need not stop with Islamic youths. Many of our youth from other traditions are willing to die for the common good. Fortunately most do not see the American society as the enemy. Most in fact join with our society in our common causes. Ask any soldier if they are willing to die for the good of our country? The protesters in the Middle East are also willing to die, either none violently or violently.
If we want to look into the religious backgrounds of terrorist then we ought to recall that Timothy McVeigh was raised in a Roman Catholic family. Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect. How many of the domestic militias claim to be Christians?
Would the King hearings better serve us by asking, "Why do some young people decide to Attack us instead of the enemies we have identified? And Second Why do they choose to resort to violent means, especially as we see how effective Non Violent means can be?"

by: dlowen

03-11-2011 @ 2:15pm

The anti-Islamic sentiment in this country and willingness of the Republicans to tap into that fear and hatred for political gains certainly parallels the mood of the country and the demagoguery of the red scare days. Time will tell if the name King will become equivalent to the name McCarthy. At this point, the only difference that I see is that Muslims are those dark-skinned others, easily targeted, while anyone could be a closet communist.

Is there a political and ideological reason that neo-Nazi, KKK, nativist, and other racially motivated and violent hate groups are not included in these hearings? I suppose we will all draw our on conclusions on this subject.

In any case, Christians would do well to remember we are called to a spiritual battle in heavenly place and not to destroy our brothers.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

by: dlowen

03-11-2011 @ 2:15pm

The anti-Islamic sentiment in this country and willingness of the Republicans to tap into that fear and hatred for political gains certainly parallels the mood of the country and the demagoguery of the red scare days. Time will tell if the name King will become equivalent to the name McCarthy. At this point, the only difference that I see is that Muslims are those dark-skinned others, easily targeted, while anyone could be a closet communist.

Is there a political and ideological reason that neo-Nazi, KKK, nativist, and other racially motivated and violent hate groups are not included in these hearings? I suppose we will all draw our on conclusions on this subject.

In any case, Christians would do well to remember we are called to a spiritual battle in heavenly place and not to destroy our brothers.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

by: Ankaboot

03-12-2011 @ 11:33am

Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect.

The terrorists at Waco were the government agencies, not the Branch Davidians with government licenses for every weapon they had ~ and had never used against anyone.

by: Ankaboot

03-12-2011 @ 11:33am

Those at Waco claimed to be a Christian sect.

The terrorists at Waco were the government agencies, not the Branch Davidians with government licenses for every weapon they had ~ and had never used against anyone.

by: JusticeBDone

03-20-2011 @ 7:41pm

While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

by: JusticeBDone

03-20-2011 @ 7:41pm

While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:43pm

And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

The truth is that muslims worldwide continually denounce those who are responsible for the terrorism. The truth is that muslims worldwide renounce and forsake those who are responsible, who are enabled not by "the muslims" but by a few, muslim and not muslim, who finance them and then look the other way when they pass through security checkpoints. The truth is that you don't hear about it in the mainstream media because it's "not news," it's the "usual" and not "newsworthy." The truth is that all that gets talked about in most public discussion (whether dialogue or monologue) is the "wrong" muslims and the wrong they do.

The truth is that Catholics generally don't "speak out against" the sins of the priests. The truth is that when an American Jewish doctor slaughtered dozens of muslims praying in a mosque, one member of the Israeli cabinet "spoke out against" him for "making Jews look bad," and everyone else in the country was silent or praised the good doctor for his murders and called him a saint. The truth is that Americans "speak out against" America's oil wars and war crimes, and no one listens or does anything about it, but go on electing the usual suspects and paying taxes to continue it. The truth is that people mutter about crooked lawyers and judges, but those who go to court to stop "civil" corruption and wrongdoing are pilloried for "rocking the boat."

The truth is that in most Web discussion forums (Sojo is a notable exception), when a muslim starts writing as I have been doing, accurately, about Islam and about those "wrong" muslims, in most forums he's made the object of a false controversy and disruption continues until he's banished.

And the truth is that some people spend a lot of effort to paint all muslims with the black brush of a few "wrong" muslims, and readers are getting wise to it.

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:43pm

And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

The truth is that muslims worldwide continually denounce those who are responsible for the terrorism. The truth is that muslims worldwide renounce and forsake those who are responsible, who are enabled not by "the muslims" but by a few, muslim and not muslim, who finance them and then look the other way when they pass through security checkpoints. The truth is that you don't hear about it in the mainstream media because it's "not news," it's the "usual" and not "newsworthy." The truth is that all that gets talked about in most public discussion (whether dialogue or monologue) is the "wrong" muslims and the wrong they do.

The truth is that Catholics generally don't "speak out against" the sins of the priests. The truth is that when an American Jewish doctor slaughtered dozens of muslims praying in a mosque, one member of the Israeli cabinet "spoke out against" him for "making Jews look bad," and everyone else in the country was silent or praised the good doctor for his murders and called him a saint. The truth is that Americans "speak out against" America's oil wars and war crimes, and no one listens or does anything about it, but go on electing the usual suspects and paying taxes to continue it. The truth is that people mutter about crooked lawyers and judges, but those who go to court to stop "civil" corruption and wrongdoing are pilloried for "rocking the boat."

The truth is that in most Web discussion forums (Sojo is a notable exception), when a muslim starts writing as I have been doing, accurately, about Islam and about those "wrong" muslims, in most forums he's made the object of a false controversy and disruption continues until he's banished.

And the truth is that some people spend a lot of effort to paint all muslims with the black brush of a few "wrong" muslims, and readers are getting wise to it.

by: Ngchen

03-20-2011 @ 8:45pm

JusticeBDone wrote:
While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

I find the analogy inadequate. During WWII we fought against Germany as a whole because of the impossibility of fighting solely against the Nazis, since the Nazis had successfully taken over Germany. In terms of Muslims, would it be appropriate to criticize us by analogy for not speaking out (forcefully enough) against the Westboro heretics?

by: Ngchen

03-20-2011 @ 8:45pm

JusticeBDone wrote:
While we need to continue to be respectful and tolerant of muslims we must start speaking the truth. And the truth is that that while only a few muslims are directly responsible for terrorism all muslims that don't speak out against those few are also responsible. During WWII we fought against all of Germany, not just against the evil Nazi's, because all of Germany enabled the small evil minority to do what they did.

I find the analogy inadequate. During WWII we fought against Germany as a whole because of the impossibility of fighting solely against the Nazis, since the Nazis had successfully taken over Germany. In terms of Muslims, would it be appropriate to criticize us by analogy for not speaking out (forcefully enough) against the Westboro heretics?

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:49pm

Peace to you all:

I, a muslim, am being accused of lying about Jesus by two of Sojo's

Christian guests ~ "Greg Dill" and "WitheringHeights." In href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">this

discussion, they are saying that I have written in these forums

things about Jesus that are false according to Scripture (which they

apparently have not read).

I have asked that anyone bring forth anything I have

written about Jesus at Sojo that contradicts Scripture, several times,

and in the week or so since I made that request, no one has brought

forth anything of that character, let alone the two accusers. I am

posting this comment in every thread I can that contains something I

have written, to ask for anyone's help who cares to help in this

discordance.

God damns those who lie about Jesus. This is true according to both

Christianity and Islam. Lying about Jesus is Denial according to Islam,

or deliberate falsification of the truth (although usually translated

simply as "unbelief"), and is termed "blasphemy" or "infidelity" in

Christianity. Lying about the Messiah is a crime punishable by stoning

in the Torah. An accusation of lying about Jesus is a curse. I am

being cursed by two people in that conversation who say they are Christians.

So I'll ask again, of all who read this: please bring forth anything I

have written about Jesus that is not true according to Biblical

Scripture, and post it in href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">that

conversation. And should anyone wish to contradict the accusers, I

would certainly appreciate that as well.

I did not come here to become an object of controversy, although I knew

it was possible despite the "Comment Code of Conduct" by which

commenters agree to avoid slandering others. This, in my view, is false

slander of the worst sort possible in these forums. I'm not personally

offended or disturbed by it, and although the topic of the discussion ~

ironically ~ is "An Apology to My Muslim Friends, by Lynne Hybels," I

have no wish for any "apology" from anyone for anything that anyone may

do, Christian, Denier, or otherwise. But I don't think that these

accusations and curses are what the members of Sojo's on-line community

have in mind for these discussion threads.

Thank you, and may God return to you the best of what you do.

~~ Ankaboot,

Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad al-Amriki al-Qadiri

hajj@muslimamerica.net (509) 258-9031

Muslim America, Springdale, Washington

by: Ankaboot

03-20-2011 @ 8:49pm

Peace to you all:

I, a muslim, am being accused of lying about Jesus by two of Sojo's

Christian guests ~ "Greg Dill" and "WitheringHeights." In href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">this

discussion, they are saying that I have written in these forums

things about Jesus that are false according to Scripture (which they

apparently have not read).

I have asked that anyone bring forth anything I have

written about Jesus at Sojo that contradicts Scripture, several times,

and in the week or so since I made that request, no one has brought

forth anything of that character, let alone the two accusers. I am

posting this comment in every thread I can that contains something I

have written, to ask for anyone's help who cares to help in this

discordance.

God damns those who lie about Jesus. This is true according to both

Christianity and Islam. Lying about Jesus is Denial according to Islam,

or deliberate falsification of the truth (although usually translated

simply as "unbelief"), and is termed "blasphemy" or "infidelity" in

Christianity. Lying about the Messiah is a crime punishable by stoning

in the Torah. An accusation of lying about Jesus is a curse. I am

being cursed by two people in that conversation who say they are Christians.

So I'll ask again, of all who read this: please bring forth anything I

have written about Jesus that is not true according to Biblical

Scripture, and post it in href="http://blog.sojo.net/2011/03/09/an-apology-to-my-muslim-friends/#disqus_thread">that

conversation. And should anyone wish to contradict the accusers, I

would certainly appreciate that as well.

I did not come here to become an object of controversy, although I knew

it was possible despite the "Comment Code of Conduct" by which

commenters agree to avoid slandering others. This, in my view, is false

slander of the worst sort possible in these forums. I'm not personally

offended or disturbed by it, and although the topic of the discussion ~

ironically ~ is "An Apology to My Muslim Friends, by Lynne Hybels," I

have no wish for any "apology" from anyone for anything that anyone may

do, Christian, Denier, or otherwise. But I don't think that these

accusations and curses are what the members of Sojo's on-line community

have in mind for these discussion threads.

Thank you, and may God return to you the best of what you do.

~~ Ankaboot,

Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad al-Amriki al-Qadiri

hajj@muslimamerica.net (509) 258-9031

Muslim America, Springdale, Washington

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:44pm

Got a great book you should read. Helped me understand Emergent movement today. It's called,
"Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be"
Kevin DeYoung (Author), Ted Kluck (Author),

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:44pm

Got a great book you should read. Helped me understand Emergent movement today. It's called,
"Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be"
Kevin DeYoung (Author), Ted Kluck (Author),

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:59pm

Take the time to read a review of Rob's book by Kevin DeYoung called-- GOD IS STILL HOLY AND WHAT YOU LEARNED IN SUNDAY SCHOOL IS STILL TRUE: A review of Love Wins by Rob Bell.
Look him up. He is a young guy (30's) who has looked at the emergent church movement and how it stacks up to what God says in His Word about the same issues.
Pretty Cool and thought provoking.

by: passion_tofollowHim

03-20-2011 @ 10:59pm

Take the time to read a review of Rob's book by Kevin DeYoung called-- GOD IS STILL HOLY AND WHAT YOU LEARNED IN SUNDAY SCHOOL IS STILL TRUE: A review of Love Wins by Rob Bell.
Look him up. He is a young guy (30's) who has looked at the emergent church movement and how it stacks up to what God says in His Word about the same issues.
Pretty Cool and thought provoking.