Not to mention it’s the height of stupidity to think that anyone in Muslim garb would do anything threatening on a plane, especially considering the current exceedingly broad powers of the executive branch to declare someone a terrorist (strangely enough all Muslims) on a whim. See, e.g., “Maher Arar” for further information.

Juan Williams is saying that Muslims are bad people. That will kill you on a plane. Straight up.

It seems to me that he was implying that Muslims in conservative religious garb have a statistically higher probability of being terrorists than other random passengers, and this increased likelihood (however trivial) makes him nervous.

That is quite a different claim than “Muslims are bad people who will kill you on a plane”. It is rather committing the sin of statistical profiling with regard to the unfortunate frequency of terrorist incidents inspired by Muslim extremism relative to comparable incidents inspired by other all other motivations in recent years.

It is also committing the sin of innumeracy, because it is ridiculous to worry about the tiny probability that anyone of any religious persuasion on the plane with you is going to turn out to be an actual terrorist.

Of course his most serious offense was being uncharitable, in the sense of not giving the individuals concerned the benefit of the doubt.

I was going to try to replace “Muslims” with “Mormons” in Juan Williams’ piece above to make some point but all I could come up with was “when I see Mormons on a plane I get nervous because they’ll be all polite and stuff and have well-behaved children. Sometimes, they sit next to me and order milk; and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Mormons, I get worried. I get nervous.” It just doesn’t work. Sigh.

Djinn, your use of the word Mormons as a replacement word for Muslims just doesn’t make sense because there aren’t Mormon extremists who routinely blow themselves up. We read in the papers about Islamic radical suicide bombings on a routine basis – it’s just a part of what happens in this world now and everyone knows it. The U.S. is a high-priority target for Islamic radicals and the violent association with Islam is there for a real and practical reason.

Being associated first and foremost as a religious group isn’t the issue.

Being associated first and foremost with a religious group that has violent extremists in their midst is the issue.

And lots of those Wahabis are our most bestest friends, what with pegging the Riyadh to the dollar and all.

I don’t have a problem with him admitting his reaction to Muslims, but I do have a problem with him stating “I’m not a bigot” and then explaining that he is, in all reality, a bigot.

And I’m finding myself quite grateful for Bush’s actions towards the U.S. Muslim community following 9/11. If only other conservatives followed suit…

I recently got an attack ad in the mail that attacked a politician for shady dealings with American Muslims. When the purpose of the attack ad is to promote fearmongering against a religious and cultural minority, you know the person putting out the ad is slimy. Unfortunately, the anti-Muslim mindset is taking over parts of the Republican party, and even mainstream candidates are taking advantage of it.

“Your reading of his remarks is probably a bit overly charitable”

The world could probably do with a little more charity and a bit less retaliation when it comes to relationships and discourse. I’m reminded of a couple scriptures… let thy bowels be full of charity toward all men coupled with blessed be the peacemakers.

Or we can condemn and argue. Repeat.

Djinn, I misunderstood what point you were trying to make. My mistake!

c: You are misunderstanding, I think. The word “charitable” doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in the scriptures in that context. It means that there was a misreading of what was actually said. A misinterpretation.

I listen to NPR fairly regularly. In my view NPR is totally a liberal network. I listen with my own conservative bias so I can really hear the lib bias. Most commentaries on NPR are from Libs. The hard news section also contains a lib bias IMHO. The last 10 years have seen the rise of a more openly partisan media environment. Kind of like the UK. Juan got done in by a bunch of intolerant PC libs. Like the kind that dominate most college campuses. Its interesting to see who is intolerant these days

I think Juan spoke truth to power. If a bunch of young muslim men got on a plane and you were on that plane you would get nervous. Most likely they would be totally harmless but there is that chance.

This PC nonsense needs to stop. Things are what they are. It is not people from Belize or Norway who are committing most terrorist acts

Let me reiterate me point. I think there is a world of difference between the following two statements:

I think we should fear Muslims on airplanes.

When I see someone who I recognize as Muslim get on an airplane I experience a moment of apprehension.

The first statement is bigotry. Is the second statement a bigoted statement? Or is it a statement revealing one’s subconscious fears? Should we have a national discussion of such irrational fears and can admitting to them be part of such a discussion?

We can have a rational discussion admitting to such fears as long as we recognize that these fears are irrational and are born of stereotypes that should be discouraged and eliminated. Someone whom you “recognize as Muslim” getting on a plane is no more likely to be a terrorist than anyone else. First of all, anyone of any race can be Muslim. What you are really saying is that the person is wearing Muslim garb (which a terrorist would most likely not do) or he is simply of Middle Eastern appearance. In the second instance, it would be flat racism to be in fear of that person, since a Middle Eastern appearance could reflect any religious background, including Jewish or Christian. But to believe that anyone who is Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist has no rational basis in fact, any more than Hitler’s hatred of the Jews had a rational basis. It’s prejudicial and wrong. As long as we start with that in mind, we can talk about any fears you want.

This Rick Lowery piece nicely sums up the Juan Wiliams situation and addresses MCQ’s black comments above

Juan is now going to be a liberal conservative hero.

MCQ,

I just disagree with you. That’s all. Its one thing to disagree its another to cast aspersions about ones ability to grasp somebody elses argument. I get your arguement and simply disagree and regard it as an example of PC groupthink. The same type of PC groupthink that holds sway at NPR

bbell,

Someone should tell that Rich Lowry fool that NPR gets 2% of its funding from the government. They could get cut off tomorrow and it wouldn’t be a huge deal.

Can we all just agree that “speaking truth to power” is a stupid turn of phrase used to defend people saying stupid things? If for no other reason than we never apply it to people we disagree with.

I don’t care about Juan Williams even a little. I do care about NPR and I think it would be a shame to see it losing federal funding.

bbell brought it up, ask him.

The truth is, NPR fired Juan Williams for breaking of it’s 2 cardinal rules: (1) He is interesting, and (2) he’s intelligent. NPR is radio for retards anyway, and my initial reaction to hearing that Juan Williams works for NPR was, “How the hell did they get someone like Juan Williams? That’s kind of a big deal.”

What’s more important than what Juan Williams said is this: NPR behaved the way that it did because it felt that by doing so, it was promoting tolerance. This is the vision of America’s left today: You talk about things on their terms, or they fight like hell to shut down the discussion and shut up the discussers under the pretense of being tolerant.

As a white man in the US, in the name of tolerance I’ve got to listen to all kinds of nitwits and victim mongers complaining about how my culture marginalizes them. As an American, I have to listen to all kinds of morons offer justifications for why Muslims in Middle Eastern countries hate America. As a Mormon, I’ve got to listen to gays talk about how the behavior of my church (behavior I happen to vehemently disagree with) impacts how they feel about Mormons. But if I open my mouth about how Islamic terrorism or how the Islamic celebration of terrorism makes me feel about Islam, I get shouted down as a bigot. That’s crap.

The world will be a better place the day that NPR stops broadcasting. Don’t boycott. They’re not worth it. Just stop listening. If you’re stupid enough to actually miss it, don’t worry. you’ll eventually find some other way to get topics for mindless smalltalk at cocktail parties.

“PC Groupthink” Another ingenious turn of phrase. Could you please explain what that one means bbell? Alternatively, just speak english.

In comment #24, MCQ wrote: But to believe that anyone who is Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist has no rational basis in fact, any more than Hitler’s hatred of the Jews had a rational basis.

I think it is unlikely that a Muslim sitting next to a person on a plane would be a terrorist – but there is certainly more basis in concern about that question than there is in Hitler’s hatred of the Jews.

MCQ, I don’t agree that O’Reilly’s words were inflammatory and extreme. In fact, I think that it’s inflammatory and extreme to call them that.

It is an out-and-out lie to say that only a small minority of Muslims are extremists. Conservative estimates place it at 10% globally. 1 in 10. When 1 in 10 people come down with a disease, it’s called an epidemic.

FACT 1: The 9/11 terrorists were devout, practicing Muslims
FACT 2: The 9/11 terrorists’ religion was central to their motivation for carrying out their attacks
FACT 3: Muslims all over the world celebrated the 9/11 attacks.

The unqualified statement “Muslims attacked us on 9/11″ is true both referentially and connotatively. In fact, it is more close to the truth than the statement “Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11.” Because if 1-in-10 pro-lifers approved of abortion clinic bombings, then it wouldn’t due to say they were carried out by pro-life extremists.

So, MCQ, you can keep spreading your lies and pretend to be talking reasonably, but it’s all nonsense, and you’re going to lose any argument that tries to say otherwise.

I listen to a lot of NPR. Over and over again the commentary is that the president of NPR made a mistake in the firing. It is also interesting that NPR types are inviting her to give interviews and she is declining.

I keep meaning to call in and ask if the firing of Juan Williams means NPR will be firing people who say the same things about Mormons or the Tea Party or similar bete noirs of the left.

MCQ, it is simply a question of how you approach discourse with others.

It’s not that I think they are children at all – you just come across as arrogant when you write like that. You’re doing it all over again in #45.

DKL #42. Everything you say could be true, but you’d still be wrong. It’s not ok to judge all Muslims as terrorists, even if it were proved that fully half of them are committed to hijacking planes whenever the opportunity arises.

But obviously that’s not the case. You can say that 1 in 10 are extremists (I have no idea how something like that would be proved–how do you define “extremist”?) but only a tiny percentage of extremists would actually ever engage in violence.

The problem is in prejudging people based on appearance or religion. It’s always wrong. Common sense should tell you that, but if your common sense is impaired, just try to put yourself in their place and see if you can imagine what it’s like to constantly be treated as a violent criminal just because of the way you look or because you share a common religious bckground with a few people who were.

FACT 1: The MMM terrorists were devout, practicing Mormons
FACT 2: The MMM terrorists’ religion was central to their motivation for carrying out their attacks
FACT 3: Mormons all over the world celebrated the MMM attacks.

Therefore, the entire world is justified in treating all Mormons as terrorists, right?

Come on, DKL. The fact that “Muslims attacked us on 9/11″ means nothing in and of itself. You and O’Reilly are trying to use that fact to justify treating all Muslims differently. It’s the only reason to keep bringing up the fact that “Muslims attacked us on 9/11.”

Here’s what O’Reilly said on The View:

“The mosque down here, on 9/11, that’s inappropriate. Sure, they have a right to do it, and in the constitution, but it’s inappropriate because a lot of the 9/11 families who I know say ‘We don’t want that.’ And there’s the president, saying, ‘Well, they have a right to do it!’”

When asked why the mosque was inappropriate, he said, “Because Muslims killed us on 9/11.”

It’s not that fact that’s the problem, DKL. It’s the way that fact is being used. Muslims killed us on 9/11, so Muslims in New York can’t build a mosque. Muslims killed us on 9/11, so I’m justified in being afraid of muslims on my plane. Muslims killed us on 9/11, so I’m justified in treating all muslims as criminals. It’s being used as justification for treating all Muslims the same, when we all know that all Muslims are not the same.

It’s the equivalent of saying “Japanese killed us at Pearl Harbor.” That true statement alone means nothing. But it was used as the justification for the illegal internment of thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII who were robbed of their homes and belongings and imprisoned for no reason except their ancestry.

“Mormons killed us at Mountain Meadows.” True statement, right? Should that truth be used to sterotype all Mormons as killers? If not, why make the statement?

First of all, nobody is saying that Muslims cannot build a mosque. People are saying that Muslims should not build a mosque. Cut it with the straw men.

And yes, it’s a bad idea for Muslims to build a mosque on ground zero, because Islam has been used and continues to be used as the central, primary motivating factor in acts or war and acts of terror against the United States and its allies. Muslims in the USA that want to join the fight against other Muslims and assume their rightful place as Americans are welcome. But Muslims who want to lecture us about tolerance can go to hell. Descendants of slaves can lecture us about tolerance. Descendants of Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps in WWII can lecture us about tolerance. Right now, Muslims cannot.

Even Muslims feel this way, MCQ, like former US Navy lieutenant commander M. Zuhdi Jasser, the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and “our good side” and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies.

Regarding the comparison to Japanese or Mormons with Pearl Harbor and Mountain Meadows, all that was several decades ago. If you’re interested in digging up ancient history, it’s the Muslims who are still sore over the Christian crusades. Regarding the place of Muslim centers of worship at ground zero — lets wait several decades, or even more than a century, and then we can reconsider how we feel.

You keep returning to your straw man, “All Muslims are terrorists.” That’s the most shallow straw man I’ve seen in months. Seriously, that wouldn’t even be true if 99.99999% percent of Muslims were terrorists. It’s sub-mental, and it makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Once again:

I conclude that your effort at argumentation here has been altogether futile, and it has nothing whatever to do with what I’ve said; namely, “The unqualified statement ‘Muslims attacked us on 9/11′ is true both referentially and connotatively.”

As much as you’d like to rant and moralize about extremism, you’re utterly and completely mistaken — blinded by lies and feel-good euphoria of the false morality of fake tolerance. As I said earlier, “you’re going to lose any argument that tries to say otherwise.”

You cannot win an argument by insulting people, MCQ.

I don’t think I’ve ever listened to NPR radio. I don’t even know what channel it’s on. We don’t get that many channels here. I’ve seen that guy Williams TV somewhere, but haven’t paid attention.

The thing I think is that guy on CNN–that Hispanic guy who got fired? I didn’t think what he said was all that bad. It kind of made sense to me. But he acted kind of pathetic after the whole deal. I mean, he was right about not many Hispanics being represented and Jews probably not having anything to complain about. Because how do you know who are Jews in the first place and in the second place, is Jon Stewart Jewish? So the whole thing didn’t make that much sense to me all. (Smacking gum) “like, who cares, anyway?”

The deal with Muslims on a plane–I heard an Arab comedian–a woman, really funny say something about a woman who wouldn’t sit by her on a plane ask “if I’m going to blow up the plane, is she really safer because I’m sitting 4 seats away?”

I’ll have to read more about Mr. Williams.

Doesn’t anybody find it ironic that minority reporters have been fired for criticising other minorities? And all us white people who’ve kept our mouths shut can talk about it?

You know when he said it’s crazy to say “we got a problem with Christians in this country”? I don’t think it crazy. I think we do have a problem. With Christians. With crazy Christians.

That was insulting, DKL?

MCQ – you’re going way off the map.

I’m not trying to defend the defenseless or stick up for others who cannot stick up for themselves. Never claimed as much.

I’m pointing out a pattern where you demonstrate arrogance in your dealings with others in the blogs, using epithets rather than reason to make your arguments.

The way you have interacted with me here hasn’t really been any better. You have a bad habit of insulting or demeaning people if you don’t like what they are saying. That’s all there really is to it.

If he’d said the exact same thing on Rachel Maddow, no one would bat an eye. It’s not what he said, but where he said it…

I’ve gotten almost all of my coverage of this incident from NPR talk shows (I listen to a lot of NPR). They invariably conclude that the firing was a mistake.

Been interesting.

So you would have ignored the underwear bomber. I feel safer knowing that SB is on duty. What is your name supposed to mean anyhow?

So it is as obvious as it is lovely.

“Besides Islam is the biggest religion in Africa.”

And that means…?

Sunn, you “watching” people is going to do exactly jack squat, except get you arrested when you attack the muslim college student when he reaches for his iPod.

Except that it isn’t going to happen. How often do you fly anyhow? How many times have you attacked your fellow passengers?