That sounds actionable.

Posted by Alice Marshall on 15 November 02006 @ 9pm

Dems yelling Allah Akbar at a political rally is to be defended…

I bet Pubs openly praying at a rally would find some ridicule.. by quite few “left of center” folks.

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 15 November 02006 @ 9pm

I’m not really sure who you’re talking about here, Chris. I’ve never heard of anybody shouting “Allah Akbar” at a political rally in the U.S., though I’m not sure why we’d get upset about it, and I’ve certainly never heard discussion of the concept. And I can’t figure what any of that has to do with Rep. Ellison or Glenn Beck.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 November 02006 @ 10pm

I watched the clip. Ellison didn’t seem offended or disturbed by the question. In fact he gave a big grin. It didn’t seem as bad as it reads in print. I’ve seen that interview technique used often enough, when the interviewer begins with the most “crackpot” questions that might be asked- just to get them out of the way upfront so the rest of the interview they can move onto more serious subjects and issues, because you know- with the atmosphere Bush has fostered- someone somewhere is thinking exactly what Glen Beck said.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 15 November 02006 @ 11pm

Well, let’s try that here and see if it works. Before you say anything else, TrvInMn, prove to us that you’re not a traitor.

Posted by Joanna on 16 November 02006 @ 8am

It’s shocking to think that some people consider CNN to be a liberal mouth piece when they give air time to such outlandish behavior.

Posted by Duane Gran on 16 November 02006 @ 8am

Thing is, Glenn Beck’s questioning generally consists of nonstop crackpot questions. He’s not getting them out of the way — he’s just a crackpot.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 9am

Spank,

Every Democratic Party convention (local, district and state) I’ve ever been to was opened with a group prayer.

Posted by Jack on 16 November 02006 @ 9am

Spanky,

Allahu Akbar means “God is great.” While I personally don’t like religion and politics mixing, I can’t think of any reasons that a conservative would consider it bad to hear “God is great” at a political rally, unless they didn’t like the person saying it, or they didn’t like the God being referred to.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 November 02006 @ 9am

Perhaps some conservatives think it’s bad to worship in a language other than English? Maybe “un dieu est grand,” “Gott ist groß,” or “el dios es grande” would also be offensive? I wonder if it’s offensive when in France, Germany, or Spain? Or if it’s only offensive when spoken in the U.S.?

What a strange thing.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 9am

While I concede that proving a negative is impossible and thus the question asinine, the “Allahu Akbar” thing is another kettle of fish altogether. It is not at all analogous to a Christian saying “Amen” or something similar. It is in fact the rallying cry of our enemies. “Allahu Akbar” were the last words heard by Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, and the people on United 93 along with thousands of other victims of Islamic terrorism. To pretend that it’s just a run-of-the-mill phrase in Arabic with no pregnant meaning is disingenuous.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 10am

Um.

I hardly know where to start.

There are 1,200,000,000 Muslims in the world, give or take a hundred million. When they say “God is great” you believe that they are, in fact, issuing a “rallying cry” against the United States in support of terrorism?

Or is it possible that the fact that it was spoken by bad people doing bad things does not, in fact, change the definition of “God is great”?

Was “Amen” verboten after the Oklahoma City bombings? After Christian terrorists killed 44 Hindus in India in 2004? After Eric Rudolph went on his bombing spree? During 30+ years of those killed by Christian terrorists during The Troubles in Ireland? After James Kipp killed Dr. Barnett Slepien? Or is it possible that these incidents are not representative of Christians or, indeed, Christianity, and that there’s no need to modify the meaning of or interpretation of a centuries-old phrase central to the religion?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 10am

Gentleman:
It’s the last thing a lot of people hear before a muslim extremist tries or takes a life of an infidel.

The one disturbing thing about Left of Center folks to be kind and not use the “L” word is that you carry the water for all Democrats no matter what.

You can bet the context of the Allah Akbar in this guys victory party, was it’s a win for Muslims…. Might I add that if a pro German candidate were to win back (i.e some one who would rather make peace with and not fight Germany) in WW2, and you heard “heil Hiltler” at a victory rally…

There isn’t any difference here.. except this guy is a Democrat, and no matter what they do, there will be silence or excuses from the left…

Evidence the representative from WV, who I can not even remember his name because the MSM ignores it, and Rep, William Jefferson… just to name two caught in corruption. But no denunciations from the left or a quick exit from office, like GOPers caught doing the same.

In other words, it is getting old dealing with hypocracy. Supposedly Dems want to clean up govt, but never clean up their own messes in their own party…

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 16 November 02006 @ 10am

This is Democrat politics. Before the election WaPo actually “breathes wind” of it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101376.html

Wins reelection with 64% of the vote http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2006/WV

This is why it is pretty much useless to discuss politics and ethics with Democratic supporters… and especially the MSM.

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 16 November 02006 @ 10am

Might I add that if a pro German candidate were to win back (i.e some one who would rather make peace with and not fight Germany) in WW2, and you heard “heil Hiltler” at a victory rally…

Chris, that’s an absolutely shameful comparison. Hitler? “Pro-German in WW2″? You’ve invented a war here that does not exist. You’ve equated a fifth of the global population to Nazi-era Germany. You’ve equated Rep. Ellison with “a pro German candidate…in WW2.” And, the coup de grace, you’ve equated God to Hitler.

The proper comparison is that if a candidate of German descent were to win and you heard “Gott ist groß” at a victory rally. I can’t see anything wrong with that.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 10am

The world may have 1.2 billion Muslims most of whom are peace-loving, moderate folk, but there were surely a lot of moderate Germans in 1935. Didn’t do us much good.

The fact remains that Islamic extremism is the enemy of the West, just as German and Japanese militarism was for our grandparents. If you want to bury your head in the sand as to what “Allahu Akbar” means, make excuses for Islam, and berate your own country, well go ahead.

This country won the Cold War with one hand tied behind its back. We’ll win this one, too.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

The fact remains that Islamic extremism is the enemy of the West, just as German and Japanese militarism was for our grandparents.

Fine, let’s pretend that’s so. Was the solution to crack down on people speaking German or Japanese? Were internment camps the right solution? Or was it possible that opposing all things German and Japanese was useless, and that it was best to oppose German and Japanese people who were aiming guns at us?

If you want to bury your head in the sand as to what “Allahu Akbar” means, make excuses for Islam, and berate your own country, well go ahead.

Chris, Allah Akbar means “God is great.” There is no head-burying on my part. To take a standard religious phrase, in use for centuries, and freight it with meaning used by a tiny minority of that religious is just silly. And berate my own country? You’ve completely invented that; I did no such thing. Should I go ahead and accuse you of berating Christianity and perhaps eating babies?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

“The world may have 1.2 billion Muslims most of whom are peace-loving, moderate folk, but there were surely a lot of moderate Germans in 1935. Didn’t do us much good.”

So, are you also offended by Christians praising God? I mean, there sure are a lot of “peace-loving, moderate folk,” but what with those abortion clinic bombers, you shouldn’t bury your head in the sand about what “Praise the Lord” really means.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

Why is it that liberals always bring up Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and various clinic-bombing wackjobs when confronted with the dangers of Islamic terrorism? Why is that? It seems like an effort at effort at mitigating the heinous crimes committed daily on a vast and unprecedented scale by political Islam, or at the very least an effort at establishing a moral equivalency. I’m not buyin’ it.

I am sick and tired of hearing about the Crusades or some other imagined crime of my ancestors as justification for the wanton murder of Americans yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What’s the statute of limitations on something that happened 700 years before the Boston Tea Party anyway?

You go on believing that “Allahu Akbar” simply means “God is great,” and doesn’t carry with it any baggage. I’m sure the great linguist Noam Chomsky agrees.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

So when the Imperial Klansmen of America hoist a burning
Christian cross in pursuit of their agenda of hate and intimidation and chant; “Christ is the light of the world” can I just go ahead and assume that Christianity is a religion of ignorant, hateful racists?

Posted by Bubby on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

Yeah, b/c the Klan is such a potent force in modern Christianity, isn’t it? They’re the ones makin’ all the news.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

I think us liberals bring up clinc-bombing wackjobs because it’s an example of fringe religeous elements perpetrating acts of terrorism.

I’m certainly not personally trying to equate the two, but there’s an obvious comparison to be made nonetheless. You’re making the argument (and correct me if I’m wrong) that although the majority of the Muslim community are not terrorists, that because Islamic terrorists use a phrase praising God, that that phrase should not be used in public places. My point is that the same could be said for Christian terrorists, but that it’s wrong to do so in both cases.

So no, I’m not trying to “mitigate the heinous crimes committed daily on a vast and unprecedented scale by political Islam,” though the comparison to the crusades or the Spanish inquisition certainly serves to question the “unprecedented scale” part — not to justify the murder of Americans. To belive that this is a completely unique sitation is to not learn from history.

Of course, in this specific case, I brought up clinic-bombers as a direct comparison where you’re treating the use of language differently for reasons I’ve yet to hear adequately justified beyond “well, what the Islamic fundementalists are doing is worse,” but your earlier argument, “The world may have 1.2 billion Muslims most of whom are peace-loving, moderate folk, but there were surely a lot of moderate Germans in 1935. Didn’t do us much good” directly refutes the idea that the majority or minority of the people innocently using the phrase in religious worship matters.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

How potent and contemporary a problem you want: Posse Comitatus
“If, as a Christian Republic, we want to put an end to so-called terrorism on the soil of this nation we must expel ALL jews and non-whites from OUR Promised Land, this New JerUSAlem, call all of our armed forces from around the world back home, END our support of the TERRORIST State of Israeli, CLOSE our borders, all Praise to our Father and mind no one else’s business other than that of our own nation.” (in response to the 9/11 attacks)

“Violence Solves Everything”

Posse Comitatus

Posted by Bubby on 16 November 02006 @ 11am

“sic semper tyrannus”

When I hear that phrase, the first thought that comes to my mind is that those are the words uttered by John Wilkes Booth, after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln.

And, yet, it remains the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Somehow, even my feeble mind is able to compartmentalize the distinction between the use of this phrase in the context of our historical and contemporary lives as Virginians and that of the terrorist assassin, Booth.

Surely, we can manage to permit some public utterance of faith on the part of our fellow citizens and understand that they mean no offense? Surely, we can refrain from attacking the patriotism of other Children of Abraham for no reason other than their public piety?

There’s no need to try to make this a partisan issue. How would any of us want to be treated, in similar circumstances?

Posted by Harry Landers on 16 November 02006 @ 12pm

First of all, asking any Muslim, US Congressman or otherwise, to prove that he’s not affiliated with Al-Queda, is a shamefully ignorant and racist thing to do. It’s like asking a Black Congressman to prove he’s not affiliated with the Crips. It’s not funny, it’s not an “edgy” ice-breaker, it’s just unacceptable and if CNN had any dignity or integrity they’d fire this guy.

Secondly, I would weigh in on the “Allah Akbar” discussion, but after Donkey has equated praising God with praising Hitler, I don’t really see the point. The argument made by Donkey and Smails is yet another one founded on ignorant racism and all of the nitpicking and ridiculous attempts to justify it aren’t really going to help. At this point I don’t think any amount of factual evidence could really dissuade either of you from the jingoistic “Muslims = Terrorists” assumption that your entire argument is based on.

Posted by james on 16 November 02006 @ 12pm

To Bubby: I’m not sure who you’re quoting, but I can say there’s certainly been no mainstream embrace of that quote’s sentiments. Indeed, after significant terrorist attacks in NYC and London both Bush and Blair made for the nearest mosque and issued some pap about the “religion of peace.” The restraint the citizens of this country have shown, in the main, from harming the co-religionists of those who bomb us has become fodder for jokes, eg, “Muslim leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow’s bombing.” Try being a Christian in Mecca after we took Baghdad, er, I forgot, Christians aren’t allowed in Mecca.

To Ben: You make some good points. My response is that like the word “Ayatolah,” the phrase “Allahu Akbar” has a loaded meaning in this country. We know it’s what suicide terrorists scream as they’re killing our fellow citizens. I, for one, am uncomfortable with its use.

I can forgive non-English speakers in foreign countries its ubiquitous use, for I’m sure they have no idea how it sounds to the American ear. But this campaign rally in Minnesota is different. Those guys know exactly what they’re doing, and I can’t help but feel like them yelling “Allahu Akbar” is something of a taunt – and a frightening one at that. Maybe I’m wrong. I mean, I know the word “ayatolah” has nothing intrinsically wrong with it – it’s a term of great respect in the Muslim world, but most Americans would be alarmed at its use after our dealings with that “ayatolah assaholah” 26 years ago, right?

Didn’t we change the name of some campaign from Infinite Justice to something more palatable to the Arab ear? Just sayin.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 12pm

Good point Harry. What say we ALL discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

From my favorite Disciple, Matthew (Chap.7)

“Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”

Amen.

Posted by Bubby on 16 November 02006 @ 12pm

I’m with James. I find this line of thought terrifying.

The idea that Muslim == Bad has its closest roots in 1930s Germany, in which Jew == Bad. Tarring an entire group as terrorists (or class thieves) of people based on their religious beliefs has never, ever worked out well. I object to it at the most fundamental level. It evokes the same emotional response in me as images of blacks being beaten by police for peacefully protesting Jim Crow laws.

I can no more easily comprehend the line of thought that Islam is bad than that blacks should be bludgeoned for being uppity. It provokes a response of bewilderment and anger in me that nothing else can.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 12pm

Jeez, Waldo, you can’t see the forest for the trees. You’re so consumed with looking for Bull Connor that you don’t see the evil right in front of you.

I’m talking about a religion in which the most influential and certainly the most vocal parts revel in murder and martyrdom, treat women as chattel, and openly advocate our destruction.

Look, I know it’s not all Muslims who are bad anymore that it was all Germans. But it’s certainly a significant portion, and I’m not gonna apologize for being wary.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 1pm

Look, I know it’s not all Muslims who are bad anymore that it was all Germans. But it’s certainly a significant portion, and I’m not gonna apologize for being wary.

Define “significant portion.” Are 50% of Muslims terrorists? 80%? 10%? And if they are terrorists, what, specifically, does that entail? And how do you know these things?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 1pm

I can’t define with any precision what percentage of adherents to Islam are terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. What percentage of Mississipians are racist?

Let’s take a look at the conflicts going on around the world and see if we can find any patterns.

There’s the Russians vs. the Chechens. The Indians vs. Pakistanis in Kashmir. The Israelis vs. Palestinians. The (Shia v Sunni) v US in Iraq. US v. the Taliban/al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Ethnic cleansing in Sudan. And the police vs. North African immigrants in Parisian suburbs.

Now, if you’ve discerned a pattern, then you are not undiscerning. In almost every conflict I can think of currently underway, one of the beligerents adheres to Islam. This is not a coincidence, but, I believe, evidence of some pretty frightening pathologies.

I understand it’s more comforting to call me a racist than it is to take a hard, objective look at the facts, but they will remain facts. They’re stubborn like that.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 1pm

Joanna wrote:

Before you say anything else, TrvInMn, prove to us that you’re not a traitor.

Grow up. Number one- I’m not a public figure. Number two- I’m not doing an interview.

Waldo wrote:

Thing is, Glenn Beck’s questioning generally consists of nonstop crackpot questions. He’s not getting them out of the way — he’s just a crackpot.

I honestly don’t watch his show. Except for that clip I’ve never seen it. But I’ve listen to Larry King get the obvious and dumb question out of the way, and then go on to the softball questions.

My biggest gripe with the “so called” moderate Muslims who claim extremists have hijacked their religion, is the fact that their community leaders aren’t more visible in their opposition to the extremists actions. Especially when you compare how much of a snit they get themselves into over an few irreverent cartoons mocking Muslim extremists. That’s too one sided. If they want to be taken seriously they need to stand up and denounce the extremists as equally as they denounce offensive cartoons. But they don’t. And until they do I’m not going to worry about being P.C. about Islam.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

Would this be a good time to inquire as to exactly what the “Allah Akbar” opponents would suggest be done to those who have the temerity to utter those words in public?

My point being, if you’re suggesting some sort of action to prevent them from using such speech, or imposing some sanctions upon them, after the fact, I’ve got a beef with that.

But, if all you want to do is jawbone and criticize them, well, I suppose you’ve got just as much right to do that as they do to praise their God.

Isn’t this a great country?

Posted by Harry Landers on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

This is funny!
Disagree with the almighty, supposedely unbiased Waldo and you begin to see posts like this!

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2006/11/va-blog-decline/

and for the record you are not stupid, you are totally biased, and when that gets pointed out, all of a sudden, people are not playing fair!

Everything is OK, as long as we agree with all the premises of Liberalism… I know you are at least libertarian on gun control…

I am not equating God and Hitler. I am saying that this Democrat Representative is going to say make peace with all Muslims, including the extremists who want to exterminate Israel, just as a German sympathizer such as Charles Lindberg in the 1930’s would have let Hitler over run all of Europe…. Heil Hitler!

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

The 1st Amendment obviously protects such speech, as it should. I just don’t dig what they’re sayin’ in the context of an electoral victory.

To me, it’s kind of like yahoos flying the Confederate flag – I don’t like it, but I like even less the notion of prohibiting it.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

Disagree with the almighty, supposedely unbiased Waldo and you begin to see posts like this!

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2006/11/va-blog-decline/

and for the record you are not stupid, you are totally biased, and when that gets pointed out, all of a sudden, people are not playing fair!

Chris, that is totally, totally unfair. That blog entry has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. This is, in fact, a discussion — precisely the sort of thing that I lament is in short supply and the opposite of what is happening that I don’t like. Also, I am neither “almighty” nor does anybody “suppose” me to be “unbiased.” I cannot imagine why anybody would ever make such claims about me, nor has anybody ever done so, to my knowledge.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

I can’t define with any precision what percentage of adherents to Islam are terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

But, Will, you just said that “certainly a significant portion” of Muslims are “bad.” So you seem to have some knowledge of what percentage, at least within 10-20 percent of the real number.

Nobody’s claiming that “they don’t exist.” September 11th is all the evidence that is necessary to demonstrate that they exist, just as surely as Christian terrorists exist. But I’d never dare claim that “certainly a significant portion” of Christians are “bad” on the basis of the 2004 slaughter of women and children by Christian terrorists in India.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

But, Spank That Donkey, if you follow the link (to One Man’s Trash) that Waldo included in his posting, you might find his comment on that site:

“So rather than bristle at your conclusion and reject it out of hand, I’m forced to actually consider it and, in all likelihood, you will influence my beliefs about the man.”

That would lead this reader to believe that, although Waldo has has views, he is open to influence and logic, rather than being trapped in his biases, as you seem to indicate. But, his views, and those of others who see life as an opportunity for learning and growth, are more likely to be influenced with reason that they are with personal attacks (“the almighty, supposedely unbiased Waldo”) or kooky phrases (“Heil Hitler!”).

Posted by Harry Landers on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

I stand by what I said vis-a-vis “certainly a significant portion” of Muslims are terrorists or at the very least sympathetic to terrorism. I just can’t say how many. Nobody can.

If you’re unwilling or unable to acknowledge Islamic terrorism is not vastly more widespread and more of a threat than “Christian terrorism” (or Hindu terrorism for that matter) than I’m afraid we’re at an impasse.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 November 02006 @ 2pm

Oh, you’re clearly right that it presents a more serious threat — a body count from the past few years is enough to demonstrate that. But I don’t think you want to blame a religion for the crazy assholes who kill people in the name of that religion, or tar its adherents as being collectively as bad as the worst among them. That’s not a path that anybody of faith wants to walk down.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 3pm

Harry:
I like Waldo, but I’d sure like to see him take Mollohan, and “Hard cold Cash” Jefferson to task one time…. and maybe even the latest on Murtha?

I gladly attack Pubs over at STD… As a matter of fact, a few more shots at the Aristocrats sucking up to another Washington insider to run RPV are a formulating now….

not to mention trying to carry water for Allah Akbar shouters…. who mean, “down with the USA, and their Military”.

OK, Context… George Allen wins the Senate race, and the crowd starts chanting anti-homosexual chants after he mentions in his speech, the marriage amendment…

Uhh, that’s more than inappropriate…. Can’t say that is an equivilent, but We know what those individuals meant…. Allen scenario “Kill the queers”
This Minnesota Reps actual victory party “Up with Muslims, Kill the crusaders”! (our military)

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 16 November 02006 @ 6pm

I like Waldo, but I’d sure like to see him take Mollohan, and “Hard cold Cash” Jefferson to task one time….

Ask and ye shall receive. :)

C’mon, the dude’s got cash in his freezer? Guilty. Case closed. Toss the bum out. There’s really not a debate to be had.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 November 02006 @ 6pm