Congressional Hearings on Islamic Extremism Will Be Counterproductive
By Randall Holcombe • Wednesday March 9, 2011 9:13 AM PDT • 12 Comments
Representative Peter King, Chair of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, has scheduled hearings on Islamic extremism to begin March 10. There is no benefit to holding these hearings, which will in some ways be counterproductive.
1. Everybody already knows the world-wide problems caused by Islamic extremism. The hearings will not reveal anything new. It will just make it appear that we are picking on the vast majority of Muslims who are not violent extremists.
2. This is a public relations opportunity for Muslims, if reasonable Muslims testify they are just trying to peacefully coexist and live the American dream, like most American Christians, Jews, and atheists. It is unfair and discriminatory to pick on a whole class of people because of the actions of a few. This public relations opportunity is there for them even if (which I don’t believe) 90 percent of them would blow up airliners if they had the chance.
3. In a society based on the principle of individual liberty, we treat people as individuals, not members of a group. These principles support individuals’ responsibility for their own actions, and do not hold some responsible for the behavior of others who are members of their group. The whole idea behind these hearings is collectivist and anti-libertarian.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Constitution, Criminal Justice, Culture, Defense, Law, Liberalism, Liberty, Peace, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, Politics, Propaganda, Racism, Terrorism, The State 
Why doesn’t this Peter T. King investigate the “Home Grown” radicalization of Irish Americans, who support the tradition wing of the IRA (Irish Republican Army), or Noraid (The Irish Northern Aid Committee), and being recruited by “Enemy Overseas” or worse “Enemy Overseas” the “Catholic Church”, where their priests have raped our young American boys, what about that?
Montana | Mar 9, 2011 | Reply
I cannot get it out of my mind that the Islamic faith has no separation of church and state. This is why a Muslim-American is an oxymoron. You ask any Muslim if they believe in separation of church and state, a fundamental principle on which this country was founded, and they will say no, they are one and the same.
Hal Cook | Mar 9, 2011 | Reply
Montana, if your question wasn’t rhetorical, this may be your answer:
From Terrorist Bagman to Homeland Security Overlord: The Curious Career of Peter King
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/01/from-terrorist-bagman-to-homeland.html
Hal Cook, many Americans say they believe in separation of church, but individually they don’t practice what they preach.
clark | Mar 9, 2011 | Reply
Oops, that last line should be:
Many Americans say they believe in separation of church and state, but individually they don’t practice what they preach. They’re just like Muslim-Americans, so it’s not an oxymoron at all.
clark | Mar 9, 2011 | Reply
This is all very odd. Some small number of Muslims do turn radical while living in developed countries, and it does not seem, notionally, a bad idea to investigate why that is, and what, if anything, we can do to minimize this.
In principle, this isn’t (or shouldn’t be, tho with politicians and activists on all sides involved, you never know) about tarring Muslims with the brush of radicalism. To the contrary: it’s saying that most Muslims are peaceful, why do some turn radical?
I’d think this would be an interesting, important, and if we can figure out any answers, useful question to ask.
Of course, it can easily turn into an ad hominem firestorm of bigotry and PC-correctness idiocy—oh wait, it already has!
Mac McCarthy | Mar 10, 2011 | Reply
...and I should also say that, properly handled, it should be a question peaceful Muslims would want to know the answers to, since the radicals make them look so bad; in fact, it’s the violent radicals who feed the paranoia and bigotry innocent Muslims face.
Or is it better to ignore the problem, pretend that because most Muslims have no interest in bombing anybody that we can’t talk about the handful who do, and hope the problem—which we can’t admit is a problem—will go away by itself?
Mac McCarthy | Mar 10, 2011 | Reply
Muslim Americans don’t have to prove anything to anyone. No Muslim should testify in these obscene hearings period.
Do you think Congress held hearings on why the Plains Indians didn’t like our “way of life?”
You don’t get it. U.S. policy in the ME is indefensible and the natural outrage that American Muslims feel towards American policies in their former countries and against their coreligionists isn’t criminal—and that is what these pathetic hearings are for—to get Muslims to line up and mouth Soviet like expressions of fealty to the big lies we tell ourselves.
It’s a disgrace. Shame.
Chris Dowd | Mar 11, 2011 | Reply
This is really bad.
bob | Mar 11, 2011 | Reply
I don’t think King’s effort is meant to improve the relationship between the two cultures because he doesn’t offer any possible solutions. He only wants to gain more support among those who are in favor of more radical policies toward the minority groups.
Heather | Mar 12, 2011 | Reply
You imply that this is a topic that cannot be discussed by Congress. Are you from Berkeley?
Harold Helbock | Mar 15, 2011 | Reply
I am all for these hearings. It is at least as important as dragging in pro-football players to talk about their situation.
Nothing wrong with having open discussions on all kinds of stuff. Toughen up people.
steve | Mar 21, 2011 | Reply
islam is dangerous no matter how it is packaged. muslims do not assimilate into western society because islam is a theocracy and demands supremacy.
the twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.
see the links in the pdf version below for more accurate info about islam
==========
islam is a horrible ideology for human rights
5 key things about islam
1. mythical beliefs – all religions have these (faith) because its part of being a religion: having beliefs without proof until after the believer dies. the problem is people will believe almost anything.
2. totalitarianism – islam has no seperation of church and state: sharia law governs all. there is no free will in islam: only submission to the will of allah as conveniently determined by the imams who spew vapors to feather their own nests. there are no moderate muslims: they all support sharia law.
3. violence – islam leads the pack of all religions in violent tenets for their ideology & history: having eternal canonical imperatives for supremacy at all costs and calling for violence & intimidation as basic tools to achieve these goals.
4. dishonesty – only islam has dishonesty as a fundamental tenet: this stems from allah speaking to mohamhead & abrogation in the koran which is used to explain how mo’s peaceful early life was superseded by his warlord role later.
5. misogyny – present day islam is still rooted in 8th century social ethics: treating females as property of men good only for children, severely limiting their activities, dressing them in shower curtains and worse.
conclusions ??
there really are NO redeeming qualities for this muddled pile of propaganda.
islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.
graphics version
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5792/dangero.jpg
1 page pdf version – do file/download 6kb viewer doesn’t show fonts well, has better fonts header footer links, great for emailing printing etc
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_UyNP-72AVKYWNiNTFlYTEtMTA1ZC00YjhiLTljMDUtMDhhNDE0NDMzNmYz
ecks why | Jun 9, 2011 | Reply