You don't have to hate Muslims to think that broadly speaking they are a bad fit to American society.

"People who know nothing of even the basics of the Islamic faith" includes most of the Muslims I have ever met. They spout endlessly about how Islam is better than anything else, etc, etc... but if you ask them: how do you practise your religion? What do you believe? The Koran urges you to respect the Law and the Prophets, does this mean that they form a part of your spirituality? What about the Psalms? - they continue to spout endlessly about how Islam is better than anything else, etc, etc... as if for them Islam was not a religion but a football team.
When you think of the contribution that Islamic scholars have made to philosophy, learning, mysticism... it makes you want to weep.

No offense (assuming you are a Christian), but I've found that to be the case with many Christians as well. But this is all anecdotal. (Well, maybe not entirely anecdotal.) I don't say this to attack Christianity, I would hope Christians would want their fellow Christians to know the Sermon on the Mount was not delivered by Billy Graham.

In any case, it doesn't improve the critics' understanding of Islam, does it? Or make it any more valid. When people make broad generalizations on a subject where they don't even know the basics, I tend to think they are not arguing from reason.

"For example, Dennis Prager. Swearing an oath on the Koran would be "doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11." Would we have had comparisons to 9-11 if it had been a Hindu Congressman requesting to swear on a Bhagavad Gita?"

Just to stick up for Mr. Prager here. I'm certain you don't listen to, or read him on anything like a regular basis (see: referencing him as a bigot). Mr. Prager is many things, but hateful, intolerant, and bigoted are not any of them. Throw darts at Coulter, Savage, and others, but you might want to spare yourself the embarassment of attacking a truly decent human being.

If you read his columns since that first one, or listened to his multiple radio segments (available online at townhall.com) on the subject and the controversy it has stirred, you'd discover that he would feel the same about the Bhagavad Gita - though you're correct that he probably wouldn't make a throwaway reference to 9/11. But then, it wasn't Buddhist extremists who blew up the WTC.

And who knows? After all, Mr. Prager views Mr. Ellison's symbolic gesture as an attack on the symbolism of the American system, with the very real possibility of undercutting all of that bedrock metaphor - and while 9/11 was unspeakably awful, one thing it didn't immediately threaten was the basis for our society.

Granted, the commenters are largely ignorant, mean-spirited, and (just maybe) frightened; but I, too, await the long-heralded moderate Muslim center's ascendency. There comes a point (and I'm not saying we're there yet) where patience must take stock of itself. Are we waiting for a real entity with a real will to reclaim its theological and philosophical property, or are we merely fooling ourselves, debating ridiculous tenents while the world audience laughs at our belief in a non-existent Islamic Godot?

I'm curious, what's the "it" that can't happen here? Are you suggesting the Holocaust and genocide? Ethnic cleansing in the form of mass-deportations? Internment camps ala the Japanese in WWII?

I would suggest that the first is not going to happen for the foreseeable future in America. We ain't like that. The Holocaust was merely the last in a long line of pogroms against the Jews in Europe. That's long been a sport among Europeans. Sure we killed our American Indians, but they were fighting back. We don't just round up people and kill them, at least not without a very long period, generations at least, where we are changed fundamentally. And I would like to think that there aren't enough Americans who would be willing to follow such orders. Of course there are people who would do it, but they would have to search and in the meantime the ones who wouldn't would be trying to stop it.

The second I can see people calling for but how to decide who? All Muslims? Just Arabs? How about naturalized Americans? How about the Nation of Islam? The details would be too much. The only thing I see along these lines are the expulsion of all people who are citizens from certain, terrorist-supporting countries like Iran. But even that gets difficult. Do we include Iraqis? Pakistanis? EUnuchs from terror-supporting countries? (immigrants from Syria to France to America for instance).

As for the last (camps), that, to me, is less likely than mass-deportations as, I am assuming, the people we would want in the camps would be Americans, otherwise we would just deport them. I just don't see Americans deciding to imprison Americans just for their religion.

I could see laws that include strong penalties against advocating terrorism, but you know many of the bluest of the blue (Berkely/Ann Arbor) would ignore those laws. That would actually be funny as they would become free-terrorist zones and would probably reap what they sow.

I'll ignore the first because it just ain't happening. For the last two, the biggest problem is who? All Muslims? All Arab-muslims? All brown- and black-skinned Muslims? Who?

Any type of catastrophic attack on America by people living here will most likely demand a response. I would suggest that the response could be the middle one as most likely and based more on country of origin than religion.

Veeshir -

I can't speak for dorkafork, but regarding this ...

I'm curious, what's the "it" that can't happen here? Are you suggesting the Holocaust and genocide? Ethnic cleansing in the form of mass-deportations? Internment camps ala the Japanese in WWII?

... I believe his post is explicit:

When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band

and

A Gallup poll this summer of more than 1,000 Americans showed that 39 percent were in favor of requiring Muslims in the United States, including American citizens, to carry special identification.

Granted, your interpretation of a broader implication was not unreasonable, but there are several steps prior to a holocaust that Americans would generally find unlikely.

For my part, I do not think a holocaust could ever happen here. The nature of our government and pluralistic citizenry prevents it.

dorkafork,
Im confused with your post for a number of reasons.

I assume you are reffering "IT" as a Holocaust. Though a few of the comments to Klein actually say "Kill them all" the internment camp actually has happend. Some people still support the internment of the Japanese and Germans during WWII (see Michelle Malkin). And while I do see the obvious problems with internment camps, I sometimes ask myself, while thinking about WWII (especially today), the conflicts of today, and that movie with Denzel Washington & Bruce Willis, At what time do internment camps become a viable option, if at all.

Another confusing part is regarding Dennis Prager. Austin explained where Prager stands pretty well as not an attack on Islam, but trying to defend American Symbolism (and he actually says that he disagrees with the swearing in of a Hindu congressman on the Bhagavad Gita and the like as they all attack the american symbolism), and while I don't aggree with where Prager stands regarding the issue of swearing in on the Koran, I highly disagree that his comments are biggoted, as CAIR has complained. But, CAIR is another issue (a huge one in fact).

Final confusion stems from the link to Protein Wisdom in the words " people who know nothing of event he basics of the Islamic faith to ..." After reading the post I don''t see where the "evil qualities" of Islam are "spout[ed] off" (I didn't read all of the comments, though).

Im also confused that you acutally did a serious post...;)

I used "IT" as a sort of catch-all. I intended the reader to fill in the blanks themselves, and didn't want to get bogged down in specific policies/events. But I was generally thinking about the treatment of a specific minority within the US, and I get the sinking feeling "it" is going to get worse before it gets better. And I think the "IT" can be several magnitudes lesser than the Holocaust and still be despicable.

At what time do internment camps become a viable option, if at all.

I'm sure many would reject internment camps out of hand. But if we were to end up discussing camps as an option, I think we can all agree that the discussion would have to be kept to the highest standard. Carl Sagan would say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I think the same standard would apply to that sort of discussion, since putting people in camps is an extraordinary policy, to say the least. The discussion would have to be of the highest caliber of reason, logic, and rational thought.

Which is about as far from the current discussion of Islam as you can get. And that brings us to Prager. Now I don't want to go into this too much here, because I'm most likely going to make a post dedicated to him. I found his argument incoherent, inconsistent, and for lack of a better word, ludicrous. And it is an argument that has a specific minority rather conveniently pointed directly in its sight. If it looks like a duck, etc. This was my first real exposure to Prager. Maybe he makes sensible remarks the rest of the time, maybe this is an aberration. Maybe I should have described his views as bigoted instead of the man, but I think that's splitting hairs. With racism/xenophobia, it's like what I mentioned with the Holocaust, something low on the relative scale can still be pretty bad. You don't have to burn crosses to hate black people, and just because he claims to be acting on principle doesn't mean that's really the case. (I'm considering the title "I'm not Islamophobic! That's what's so insane about this!")

The PW post is similar. The phrase "evil qualities" may not have been the best description. It's still the same old crap. "Imagine that. A muslim lying to the infidels." "We have long since passed the point where we need to get serious with these assholes." The islamophobe's version of "IT", just be vague on who the enemy is, and act shocked that people could think you're referring to all Muslims. "Do I think all muslims are liars? In a word, no. However,..." Ack, it's the dreaded "but..." risen from the ashes like a phoenix. And that's just in the post. My favorite comment is by SDN at 4:04am: "And are all Muslims evil? No. Are all Muslims the enemy? If they subscribe to all the Koran, which divides the whole world into the House of Islam and the House of War, yes..." Yeah, "I don't hate Muslims, just those people who follow the Koran."

Im also confused that you acutally did a serious post...;)

You and me both. I'm thinkin' funny cat pictures while Bill's gone. Funny cat central.

Keith Ellison's oath on the Koran is meaningless. And since he is an elected official, that should worry you and anyone else that believes that the American government is of the, by the, and for the people.

While it is true that the Koran is a sacred book to Muslims, an oath taken by a Muslim on the Koran to an infidel can be broken without consequence because an infidel is not worthy of the protection of the Koran.

America is an infidel nation (as well as being a nation of infidels). We do not follow sharia. We allow the construction and repair of churches, synagogues, and temples. We do not limit our elected officials to members of the Muslim religious caste, or to descendants of the prophet.

And as such, an oath taken by a Muslim to America, even if it is on the Koran is ... meaningless.

This provision of oath breaking comes from Islam itself.

--- Muhammad b. Maslamah went to them and said, "The Messenger of God orders you to depart from his country." They said, "Muhammad, we never thought that a man of al-Aws would come to us with such a message." "Hearts have changed," he replied, "and Islam has wiped out the old covenants." ---

Keith Ellison will betray his country as routinely as the Muslim members of Knesset do and he will do so with the complete agreement of his conscious. In betraying America to the Ummah, he is doing his religious duty. How can you tell a person they have the right to practice their religion and then be aghast when they actually practice it?

If I don't take my kids to the Little Sister of Baal and Moloch nursery school if they offered free daycare, am I a racist Pagenphobe? No, I am a good parent.

I certainly favor registering all aliens in the country, especially students.

When I was a student at Texas A&M, my buddy was driving when he got hit by a car failing to stop at a stop sign. Call for a cop, the cop comes, and says "Gee, I'd like to give you his information, but he doesn't have a driver's license, car registration, or insurance information." The cop actually let the immigrant drive off, after causing an accident and knowing that he didn't have any of his papers, because them's the rules. My friend had to actually go down to the station to meet with the Chief of Police, just to get a police report filed so that he could submit it to his insurance.

Just an example. But I'd prefer that the US government protect my rights first, and my safety first, and then worry about the illegals.

dusty, the problem is that the poll wasn't about immigrants or aliens, it was about "Muslims in the United States, including American citizens."

No, scratch that. The problem is people who seem to believe that after Keith Ellison swears in on the Koran, he'll holding his pinky up to his face like Dr. Evil and mutter something about how "Phase One is complete."