A CNN article title states: Fort Hood suspect's religion was an issue, family says. Who would have expected that? An article in the Christian Science Monitor asks did we miss any warning signs? I'm afraid that the nation is beyond help in this matter.
Washington - As Army officials pick up the pieces after the tragedy that unfolded Thursday, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly walked into a soldier readiness center at Fort Hood, Texas and shot 13 people and injured as many as 30 more, the biggest question they may be asking is: Did we miss the warning signs?
What warning signs? Where You see any warning signs?
His anger was noted by a classmate, who said Hasan ''viewed the war against terror'' as a ''war against Islam.''
Finnell described Hasan as a ''vociferous opponent'' of the terror war. Finnell said Hasan told classmates he was ''a Muslim first and an American second.''
We have religious freedom in America, the freedom to put one's religion ahead of one's country. So this can't be a warning sign. This is just someone expressing a totally legitimate opinion according to our multicultural leaders. Diversity is strength. War is peace.
Born to Palestinian immigrants, Hasan's medical education was paid by the US government. The US military didn't want to let him leave the military even though he saw the US military as waging a war against Islam. Can we learn any lessons here?
His aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had endured name-calling and harassment about his Muslim faith for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and had sought for several years to be discharged from the military.
"I know what that is like; I have experienced it myself while working as a bank executive," she said. "Some people can take it, and some cannot. He had listened to all of that, and he wanted out of the military and they would not let him leave even after he offered to repay" for his medical training.
In a strong assertion of continued faith Barack Obama says diversity is strength.
"They are Americans of every race, faith and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers," Obama said in his radio and Internet address, airing the weekend before Veterans Day.
"They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other."
Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun Times says we should not change our views of Muslims as a group based on behavior of individual Muslims.
"We should seal the borders!" said a friend of mine, someone I generally respect when he isn't saying stuff like that.
"Tell me," I challenged him "how the actions of this Muslim American indicts all Muslim Americans?"
He sputtered, and I went on.
"If a lady murders her kids and says that Jesus told her to do it, does that indict all Christians? All ladies?"
What about group average differences in behavior and beliefs?
A useful mental exercise for Mr. Steinberg: Imagine that a group became the majority of the US population. What would that group do to the rest of us? The idea that religious beliefs are totally a private matter is absurd. As I've pointed out previously, what Muslims believe would translate into bad news for the rest of us if they became a majority. They do not even have to become a majority in order for their beliefs to become a big problem for the rest of us. The idea that religions are all compatible with our values is absurd.
A 2004 poll of Muslims in Britain shows substantial support for very unBritish Sharia law courts. Doesn't sound personal to me.
A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".
Many civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.
In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.
Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
We should not let people into our countries who will resent us and seek to impose a repressive religion on us.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2009 November 07 08:04 AM Immigration Culture Clash|