And where does this leave American Muslims? Since the September 11 attacks, no group of Americans has had a more difficult time balancing the reality of their daily lives with the promised protection of the Bill of Rights. Regardless of whether they, or even their parents, were born in the U.S., American Muslims face fellow citizens who are afraid of the next mass murder, and believe that Islam is intent on destroying America.
Like nearly every religion reporter I know, I’ve written a lot about the Muslim American experience in recent years. It’s difficult to explain to other Americans the fear this community lives with. One Muslim described it to me as a tidal wave they see growing on the not-so-distant horizon. They hope the wave will dissipate, but instead it grows and gets closer to shore, especially during election years.
Just a few weeks ago, in late February, I got an e-mail from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This was not unusual. Like most beat reporters, I get hundreds of press releases a day. Some I look at, some I don’t. From CAIR alone, I typically receive from one to three e-mails every day, and I had never acted on one before. But this one was different. It involved a mosque I cover in south St. Louis. The CAIR press release said that the FBI had been asked to investigate several comments on two blogs, which threatened a minaret being built outside the mosque.
I had covered the groundbreaking of the minaret—the first to be built in St. Louis. The mayor had been there to praise pluralism and throw a little dirt around for the cameras. In Muslim countries, the minaret is the tower from which the muezzin chants the call to prayer. But as I noted in the original story, this particular 107-foot minaret was symbolic, not functional.
Now I wrote a second story, which was maybe twelve column-inches long and ran the next day on the bottom of B2. It was workmanlike—it did what it had to do for our readers—and nothing more. I wrote that the author of a local blog, Gateway Pundit: Observations of the World from the Heart of Jesusland, had posted some photos of the minaret covered in scaffolding. One of the photo captions read, “Those calls to prayers ought to go over really well with the people of this South St. Louis neighborhood.”
I quoted the imam, who confirmed what I’d already written—that the minaret had no sound system or speakers and would not be used to call Muslims to prayer. I also quoted an FBI spokesman as well as a CAIR spokesman, and then detailed some of the comments that had alarmed Muslims and caused them to inform the FBI.
For example, one visitor to Gateway Pundit had written: “It is really hard on us white, nonMuslims to have to live with these folks taking over our neighborhood and community. Our government helping these people relocate into America’s heartland is like inviting the enemy into your camp. It’s totally disgusting.” On another blog, Little Green Footballs, a visitor named “Amer1can” upped the ante: “Would be a shame if it were to be vandalized or destroyed. Just a shame I tell you .wink wink STL youth.” Another visitor to the same blog added: “I suppose dynamite would be considered an extreme response.”
That was it. Twelve inches. Bottom of B2.
But of course, B2 doesn’t really exist anymore. Not on the Internet. The next morning, the e-mails started coming in at around nine. Many of them complained that I had written a story “planted” by CAIR, which was, I was told over and over again, a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and a fundraising arm for other Islamist terrorist organizations. But it was only after my testy e-mail exchange with Charles Johnson, the proprietor of Little Green Footballs, that the real fun began—especially after Johnson posted our correspondence on the blog.

I am a user at LGF. I don't need to insult your mother, don't need to threaten violence, and don't need to use any harsh language. But I can quickly and easily determine that you chose any number of comments at one political blog and decided to paint Christians everywhere as racist troglodytes. You believe it, and that is ok. I don't go to church, and have no recognizable religious affiliation. However, I can read.
Lets just be clear about things. Clarity over consensus, Tim. It is always the the best way to exchange ideas.
Posted by mr.tunes
on Tue 13 May 2008 at 11:39 PM
Geez Townsend, can you whine witlessly with a little more style?
Grow up boy and get a grip on reality...
Posted by juandos
on Wed 14 May 2008 at 04:03 AM
you chose any number of comments at one political blog and decided to paint Christians everywhere as racist troglodytes.
I must have missed that part, even upon re-reading. How can Tim tell who's a Christian from their comments? Are all LGFers Christian? I thought the topic was religion, not racism.
What was that thing about clarity? I thought Tim's essay was pretty clear. And yeah, it's a shame that intolerance for religion leads to threats and insults and, sometimes, physical violence. Hate seems to be a religion unto itself and its adherents crop up in several religions as well as non-religious gatherings. With way too many saying 'amen'.
Posted by Kevin Hayden
on Wed 14 May 2008 at 04:08 AM
"...the janitor dragged the mural out to the school’s parking lot and set it on fire." Good for him.
The Quest for Right drags Darwinism out to the parking lot and sets it on fire.
A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!
The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.
The text begins simply enough, tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right. The matter may be summed up by the inclusion of Darwin’s sentiment regarding the Creator. In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake…. Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge. And the scientific illiterate upstart sought to entrap the innocents in the classroom in his web of deceit.
Once past the history of the Darwinist movement, the architecture of the quantum atom is explored in great detail. This is breathtakingly new!
The atom has been compared to a miniature sun-earth system with one or more electrons darting about everywhere at once weaving an electronic shell around the nucleus. In order for this to occur, “Bohr calculated that the electron must move at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second.” Ummmm, "numerous electrons darting about, dodging one another at breakneck speeds would necessarily require the supernatural. The Quest for Right will prove to your complete satisfaction that the electron is directly adhered to the perimeter of the nucleus. “How could it have been otherwise?” The exciting text is remarkably easy to follow even for a lay person. Read a review:
"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
The book is a virtual smorgasbord of good things to taste: a few of the entertaining subjects include: the earth was created from a watery nebula, the mechanism of gravity which was used to form the earth, the failed photoelectric effect, theory of antimatter, quantum creation (big bang theory), disappearing color, magical application of mathematics to explain certain rudimentary principles, Rayleigh scattering (sunsets), electricity, lightning, electrolyte, the browning of fruit, the mystery of fire, and the role of oxygen in the ignition of hydrocarbons. Then, there’s the desserts which are far too numerous to mention in this limited space; for example, the origin and dimise of the great dinosaurs. Moreover, you will marvel at the comprehensive law of fixed choice.
This is not your parent’s science book filled with distortions of the truth, called “quantum mysticism.” The comprehensive investigation--like none other you will read--quickly escapes into realism by underscoring the numerous experiments and errors responsible for the debasement of scientific theories based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.
The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians, and Christians in general, need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.
Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com
Posted by C. David Parsons
on Wed 14 May 2008 at 08:49 AM
Okay, I guess there was a point to this story... I have to admit, I can't really say what that point is? I'm not that smart though, so it's cool. I guess I would have to summarize it thusly; Christianity bad... Islam good...
And with that sentiment, I can't really agree because I'm pretty much against all religion (and the rather fatuous manner in which the writer frames Islam as on the run while it's the fastest growing religion on the planet, and Christianity as somehow unique in its backwardness... here's a kooky concept, ask the cuddly Imam from the minaret story what he thinks about evolution).
But what is really troubling is the rapid dismissal of the CAIR issue. Say what you want about blogs (Gasp! the comments aren't censored, the occasional mean person says something mean, I'm totally losing it!), and feel free to minimize Charles Johnson's role in the Dan Rather debacle ("fans credit Johnson..." that is a distortion. CBS credits Johnson. Everybody but the writer, in fact, credits Johnson. Bringers of truth indeed...) but the charges against CAIR are real and very serious. Where the hell does this writer get off completely (i'd say "glossing over," but it appears he has never even done that) ignoring the charges against CAIR. If they're not a Hamas and Muslim Bortherhood front group, it should be easy enough to prove. It's what we in the soft sciences call "research." Unfortunately the writer of this shallow puff piece has done the research. It's obvious he has, and it's obvious he discovered what Charles Johnson and the Christian minutemen (gasp! religious people! the life of a RELIGION BEAT writer can be so trying...) also discovered. CAIR is indeed a sham, it is indeed a front group for radical Islam, and not a Council on American Islamic Relations as it claims. My Muslim friends ARE Americans. They don't need some bulls&*t front group to do any relating for them. They don't see any "tidal wave" coming, and unfortunately for the writer of this article's pre-conceived scenarios, they've never heard of CAIR. The only people who have ever paid CAIR (who has such ridiculously low membership numbers, you have to wonder who's even manning their many locations) any attention, are the investigative teams, actually doing real journalistic investigation, that have discovered all of CAIR's many shady connections, and the shills, like this author, who get press releases and then report them as fact without doing the pesky thing in between: research.
You know all of this is true. It's obvious. And the reason it's so obvious is because instead of simply refuting the claims with fact, something he seems so clearly behind when it comes to evolution (and don't get me wrong, he should be, the people trying to teach Creationism in schools are idiots), he instead completely ignores the issue and gets into some weird thing where he lists the mean things people say about him in the comments section of a blog. And incidentally, what was the point of reprinting the Haiku? It's not particularly good poetry, but it;s not inappropriate, and quite the opposite, it kinda hits the nail on the head.
This article was kind of lame. And it read like high school journalism, but as I said, I'm no genius.
Posted by Tom
on Wed 14 May 2008 at 12:38 PM
Really, Tim? Does this mean we'll soon be seeing a report from you on surah 4:34? How about surah 9:5, or 9:29, or 9:123? Maybe surah 2:191?
Or maybe you'll be holding up for scrutiny your friends at cair- an organization currently listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, and who has had members with ties to other radical islamic terrorist groups?
I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of scrutiny, tim- I just highly doubt you can live up to your own words.
Posted by Sharmuta
on Wed 14 May 2008 at 01:01 PM
You just don't get it, do you? How is a 107 foot high minaret towering over an American city only "symbolic"? And symbolic of what, exactly?
Moreover, your argument regarding only biting at a few of the numerous CAIR emails you receive every day is specious and hardly a harbinger of level-headed reasoning. CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization that immediately condemns any ostensible whiff of "Islamaphobia" while miraculously never getting around to condemning, say, Islamic terrorism, repression of women, and murdering of gays and non-Muslims. The fact you are even on their mailing list is cause for alarm, and just because you usually don't reprint their propaganda verbatim is hardly cause for a Nobel Peace Prize. "Gee, Hezbollah sends me talking points 5 times a day and I usually only regurgitate a few of them." What a hero.
It's amazing the stump of what I can only assume to be your truncated brain stem can generate enough wattage to keep your lungs moving at the same time as your fingers as you type these ridiculous paeans to multiculturalism.
Posted by gregmcgreg
on Thu 15 May 2008 at 09:39 AM
It is absolutely appalling to me that anyone would take issue with this writer or his article without first condemning unconditionally the kind of threats and invective to which he has been subjected, and which even continue (on a milder level) in some of these posts. Failure to do this, in my opinion, severely undercuts the legitimacy of even rational arguments on the issues.
Comments like this are often received with towering indignation about failures to condemn similar behavior on the "other side"--i.e. from the Muslim community in this case. The response to that is (a) I haven't mentioned any "sides," because the sentiment is meant to apply universally, to Christians or Muslims or golfers or whomever, and (b) it's utterly irrelevant whether other people do it or not. The illegitimacy of threats and invective in civil discourse is unaffected by who is already doing it.
Posted by agroff1
on Tue 20 May 2008 at 10:14 AM
Well, these comments are a hoot. Nothing but irrelevent insults and ad homimen attacks from fools. Don't you people have anything better to do with your free time?
Posted by hardindr on Tue 2 Sep 2008 at 08:18 PM