Today's Letters: A needed voice for Muslim-Americans

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published September 29, 2007

Susan Taylor Martin's article about CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) was balanced and well-written. It would seem that most of the critics of CAIR are strongly pro-Israel and don't want any other opinions heard. The quote by Daniel Pipes was quite telling when he said that the enfranchisement of American Muslims would be dangerous for American Jews.

Of course, all Americans should be enfranchised and have an equal right to participate in our society. With these kinds of attitudes about Muslims, we certainly need someone speaking up for them. CAIR and Ahmed Bedier, the head of the group's Tampa chapter, have been that voice, and they have been a very moderate voice reaching out to all people, not only Muslims.

Although I am not Muslim, when Ahmed Bedier speaks up for my Muslim friends and neighbors, he is also speaking up for me. We are all part of the same community, and we are all in this together. And so I am very happy that CAIR is here.

Melva Underbakke, Temple Terrace

Florida test scores up, but why? Sept. 26, story

Test report seeks to accentuate the negative

Your article reporting the results of Florida scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress provides yet another example of the press' attempt to control the message.

The article clearly states the fact that the latest results from "The Nation's Report Card" show that during the Jeb Bush era Florida made the most dramatic gains in the country in reading and math.

Yet the St. Petersburg Times could not bring itself to report this good news in the main headline. Instead, the primary focus of the article was "why?" or "how could this happen?" You searched for and interviewed the very people and organizations that were against the Jeb Bush plan, people who tried their best to cast doubt on the results. I am certain that if test scores had declined, the article would have been a strong rebuke of the Bush policies.

Please just stick to reporting the facts and leave the editorial comments to the editorial page. If you cannot bring yourself to compliment Bush policies, then give the teachers all the credit. I am certain this is a group you are more comfortable complimenting. We should be celebrating progress and building on this momentum instead of attempting to drag us back to the way things were before.

Paul J. Plante, Tampa

Iranian president's speech at Columbia

Similar images

There is no doubt that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous and volatile leader, saying and doing outrageous things that make him look good in Iran but make the Middle East a more dangerous place. He is rightly viewed by the American public as irrational, impulsive, unstable and a threat to world peace.

I have traveled extensively in the Middle East and know many citizens living there. And in those travels it has become clear to me that many people view our president, George W. Bush, in exactly the same way as we view Ahmadinejad, even using the identical terms to describe him. They are just as passionate about how outrageous and dangerous he is.

One's point of view is critical in judging any issue, this one included. As Americans rightly condemn the Iranian president, we should also consider how we are viewed in the Middle East as a result of our own president's saber-rattling and his tragic war in Iraq.

The good news is that there is at least one difference where our democracy shines: It is unimaginable that George Bush would have ever been invited to speak on the campus of Tehran University and allowed to say whatever he likes.

Steven Radice, Palm Harbor

Brave words not noted

Monday evening's television news had a lot of coverage of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University. However, there were only brief clips of the courageous introductory speech by university president Lee Bollinger, and so I hastened to read your coverage in the Times on Tuesday.

I was dumbfounded to see that there was exactly one sentence from that introductory speech.

When an American stands tall and identifies the hatred of a brutal despot who denigrates the Jewish state and its people, inflicts terror on his own populace and supports weaponry that kills Americans, the press has a duty and responsibility to present it in more than one sentence.

You would have served us all, regardless of our attitudes on this tyrant's invitation to speak, if you had recognized the entire process. In your liberalistic agenda, is there no room in your newspaper for the remarks of the brave president of Columbia?

Robert B. Ryan, Bayonet Point

Iran reformist leader says attack unwise Sept. 27, story

Insulting and unnecessary

I agree with the Iranian reform politician who objected to the blistering speech made by the Columbia University president Lee Bollinger.

I found it distasteful that he would insult someone invited to speak at the university. It certainly goes against everything I have ever learned about courtesy and decorum.

But more than that, it was totally unnecessary. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did a pretty good job of making himself look bad during his speech and in answering the questions of the audience. As the old saying goes, "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves."

On top of that, the Iranian president apparently enhanced his reputation back home among his followers who considered him a victim.

Lucy Fuchs, Brandon

Congressional vote on MoveOn.org ad

Blunt talk is needed

Does anybody really believe the problem with the war in Iraq is too much questioning of those in authority, too much bluntness, and not enough deference to those who have been in charge of the war for the last four years?

That's apparently the feeling of all the neoconservative talk show hosts and GOP presidential candidates who came down with conniptions over the MoveOn.org ad that had the audacity to question Gen. David Petraeus.

Tens of thousands of dead civilians, nearly 4,000 dead American soldiers, half a trillion dollars spent, and the squandering of America's moral authority and "good guy" image in the world- none of that seems to have ruffled their feathers very much. But the ad? Now that has got them royally steamed.

Using what clearly appears to be feel-good, cherry-picked information, Gen. Petraeus is helping to prop up President Bush's determined goal of establishing a beachhead in the middle of a bitter and hostile land, a goal that has proven to be a fool's mission. And they are doing it with the support of flag-waving neocon fools in the media.

Any true American should stand up and tell all of them no!

Allan Horn, Redington Shores

Back the Burmese people

I am deeply concerned by the unfolding situation in Burma. The military junta ordered police to fire on thousands of peaceful demonstrators, many of them Buddhist monks. Reports Friday of the death toll in the country ranged from 10 into the hundreds. If this is going to be a repeat of what happened in 1988 when similar protests led to the deaths of more than 3,000 people, these deaths could portend the beginning of a very grim situation.

The world cannot look on passively as a brutal military dictatorship continues to show impunity toward the Burmese people's yearning for democracy. The Bush administration needs to be lauded for its call to impose economic sanctions on Burma, but it also needs to exert diplomatic pressure on China, the military junta's chief backer, to stop supplying weapons and to urge the dictatorship to engage in peaceful dialogue with pro-democracy groups.

In January, China voted against a resolution in the U.N. Security Council empowering the secretary-general to negotiate with the regime. It undermined three Asian efforts to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy leader. China, in short, is the junta's best insurance policy.

The world needs to stand with the brave monks and citizens of Burma and ensure that another Tiananmen Square-style massacre does not unfold there. We need to let them know that their struggle for a free and democratic society is our struggle and that they are not on their own.

The Rev. Abhi Janamanchi, Unitarian Universalists of Clearwater

State Children's Health Insurance Program

Another presidential failing

President Bush once again shows Americans that he is out of touch with the real world by threatening to veto health care for children whose parents cannot afford to buy health insurance.

SCHIP is a health care program that exists as a partnership between state and federal governments and provides health care for millions of poor, uninsured children. Although we have advanced technology in medicine, the United States ranks low among developed countries in infant survival because many children do not have adequate access to health care.

President Bush has already failed to "support our troops" by not providing adequate care to veterans hospitals and, less tangibly, by not helping those with posttraumatic stress disorder. Why should we be surprised that he is unwilling to help children in need?

Theresa Cody, St. Petersburg

Bush's objections are sound

For days, I have been reading "news" items regarding the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill that President Bush has threatened to veto. Never once, in all the "news stories" or the columns on the editorial page, have I seen the main reason why President Bush objects to this bill as written.

His main objection is the fact that children of families earning up to $83,000 will be covered. Since when are families earning that much considered to be in poverty? This provision defeats the main reason for this bill - to provide health care coverage for children in low-income families. Frankly, I admire the president for sticking to his guns and I back those in Congress who have the guts to agree with him and vote against such an abomination.

Had this "welfare" provision for middle-income families not been incorporated in this bill, I am confident there would have been no trouble in getting it enacted. The press, once again, has sided with the liberals to make President Bush appear not to care about poor children and their families.

Muriel Freeman, Hudson

Overlooked points

Congratulations to Susan Taylor Martin for writing a fair-minded and comprehensive article on CAIR.

I think however that she may have overlooked two key points. The first is the documented reports of the arrest and conviction of former CAIR employees on terrorist-related activities. The second is the concern expressed by Sens. Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer and others in our government that this group may have terrorist ties.

Vincent Probst, Tampa

A welcome advocate

CAIR's work is undeniably a necessity. Countless organizations are actively representing the rights of the black, Jewish, Hispanic, Mormon, gay/lesbian, Asian and other minorities in America.

As an American and a Muslim, I feel comfort knowing I have a community advocacy group that is working in my best interests. This country was founded upon freedom: freedom of religion, freedom to speak, freedom to bear arms.

Why can't we be free of bigotry, prejudice and stereotypes? Our differences make us American; accepting that American identity makes us strong. It is important for every group to be represented by a popular voice, despite how "un-mainstream" they may be.

Jamila Amer, Tampa

Links to terrorism

Please permit me to point out why the Council on American Islamic Relations is not simply an organization that represents the Muslim community in the United States on human rights or civil rights issues. CAIR is also on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. A few examples of many:

- In October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard depicting Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," claiming this depiction was "offensive to Muslims."

- CAIR deemed the conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing "a travesty of justice."

- CAIR called the conviction of Omar Abdel- Rahman, the blind sheik who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, a "hate crime."

- Since Sept. 11, 2001, no fewer than three CAIR officials - Randall Todd Royer, Ghassan Elashi and Bassem Khafagi - have been found guilty on charges resulting from major counterterrorism investigations.

- Nihad Awad, one of CAIR's founders, has stated, "I am in support of the Hamas movement." Hamas is the largest Palestinian terrorist group.

The sad reality is that CAIR and other Islamic groups speaking as representatives of mainstream Muslims in the United States and trying to influence U.S. antiterrorism policy are clearly linked to the very terrorist networks that U.S. officials are trying to thwart.

Laurence M. Christman, lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army (retired), South Pasadena

Bedier is a peacemaker

I have known Ahmed Bedier for four years as we have worked together on several interfaith events. No one in our area has done more for interfaith understanding than Bedier. I know him to be a person of complete honesty and integrity, who sincerely desires greater understanding and respect between persons of all faiths for a more peaceful world for everyone.

Susan Martin's article unfortunately was most unfair and laden with innuendo, hearsay and fearmongering - the very things promulgated by those who brought us this catastrophic war.

Given this tragic war that has spawned so much enmity in the world, much of it now directed toward the United States, Ahmed Bedier should be commended for being a bridge-builder and peacemaker to whom we are all indebted.

The Rev. Robert L. White, Valrico

A balanced assessment

Once again senior Times correspondent Susan Taylor Martin has been the first to address objectively the role of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in our war on terror. Her article was most comprehensive and balanced.

The media watch group PRIMER (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting) certainly looks askance at CAIR's manipulations both in Tampa and the United States. It is our position that CAIR is funded by the Saudis to spread Wahhabism in the United States.

The eminent scholar Daniel Pipes has co-authored an article in the prestigious Middle East Quarterly supporting our position. We urge people to read this article, which adds to Susan Taylor Martin's report.

Norman N. Gross, Ph.D., president, PRIMER, Palm Harbor

An objective scholar?

Susan Taylor Martin's front page article on CAIR, although overall balanced, was unfortunate in her use of quotes from known Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes.

To try to create suspicion about one of the most reputable, open and grass-roots American Muslim organizations is quite regrettable. Pipes, who was one of the main sources in this article, was quoted as saying that "the affluence and enfranchisement of American Muslims is a danger to American Jews." In other words, American Jews would be better off if Muslims in this country are poor and disenfranchised. Is this a point of view that promotes dialogue and understanding? Is this the mind-set of an objective scholar who has something positive to contribute to the discourse?

The fact is that CAIR has consistently and unequivocally rejected terrorism and has had many nationwide campaigns to educate people about Muslims and Islam. Its work has been acknowledged and applauded by the FBI as well as members of Congress.

Farrukh Zaidi, New Port Richey

Be grateful for CAIR

The headline says, With CAIR, compromise complicated. Who is compromising? Who is making it complicated? A compromise means a concession on both sides. It looks to me that there are certain individuals and organizations who make it their mission to sow hatred and discord among humanity by targeting high-profile Muslims and Muslim civil rights organizations, such as CAIR. It's these individuals who make it complicated, and they would love for CAIR to compromise or concede or to simply be whisked away into the Department of Homeland Security's limbo of terrorist-supporting organizations.

This article clearly shows that CAIR is not a front for terror. Just because an organization acknowledges the existence of Palestine and the rights of Palestinian people doesn't mean it supports terrorism. We should all be thankful for an organization like CAIR that protects minority rights and tries to promote our understanding of each other.

Joan Mulrennan Zaki, Lithia

A tradition of civil rights

I am an American Muslim and I have trusted CAIR to represent my community. Many Muslims have been victims of religious discrimination and/or profiling and we are tired of it. Fortunately, we have an organization that helps us pursue the civil rights we are entitled to as Americans.

Other groups in the past have had to represent their communities in the same fashion, for example the NAACP for African-Americans and the Anti-Defamation League for our cousins, the Jewish community. It is now our turn to do the same.

I find that those who criticize CAIR are extremists who put Israeli interests before American interests. They know that CAIR is actually making a difference, working within the system, the system we cherish as Americans.

Mehmet Altin, Tampa

World in a snap Sept. 24

A sweet photo sparks memories

Thank you so very much for the very sweet picture of the little Bavarian boy taking a nap during the Oktoberfest in Munich. It reminded me of pictures I have of one of my grandsons, Johann, in his lederhosen - the complete outfit sent to him by my father's family in Bavaria.

Again, thank you for "making my day." I'm saving the picture and getting extras.

Dorothy E. Karkheck, Dunedin

[Last modified September 28, 2007, 21:37:46]