Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States. A resolution by Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. [D-VA-8], 114th Congress (2015-2016).

Full text: Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it. More: congress.gov.

I support this resolution I oppose this resolution see voting resultssaving...
3 opinions, 23 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted I support this resolution.
1 vote
Jan 24, 2016

To anyone opposing this resolution, I was wondering: why do you oppose this resolution? Did it leave something out, or do you disagree with the intent? Or is it unclear what this condemnation entails? Just curious because the number of votes against is a bit surprising to me; is this resolution not a step closer towards condemning racism, and if yes, why would you oppose that?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Jan 24, 2016

If one says "Islam is not compatible with certain western values", would the person be condemned by this resolution?

Freedom of speech and hate speech can sometimes flirt with each other or even become one, depending on one's point of view. Sure, we can draw the line sometimes, but on other occasions, it simply can't be done without harming freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, should always prevail, unless there is a clear, direct intent to harm someone (ex: kill all muslims).

This resolution seems vague. We don't exactly know the definition of the words used here. There's a lot of grey zones. Don't you think?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted I support this resolution.
2 votes,
Jan 25, 2016

I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it. As a layperson, it is unclear to me how detailed a resolution should be, (compared to an act or a law) for it to take legal effect in the most effective way. Vague as this one may be (it seems straightforward to me), I can't dispute the intent though, as targeting anyone due to whatever their attire might indicate is their practiced beliefs should be illegal or at least be disapproved of.

Concerning definitions, the term/concept of "hate crime" (as a legal charge/felony) is generally something I have a difficulty with to grasp (aside of the "practical discomfort" of violence/bigotry/hateful rhetoric; in my mind it gives the legal offence a moral/emotional dimension, which might victimize instead of incriminate <- but I have very little knowledge of the existing spectrum of criminal activities, so maybe it is necessary to discern between offenses), although vandalizing mosques and depositing pig bodies (this recently happened in the States and in the Netherlands as well) at such places would qualify as such.

I think there has been a debate going on about the subject of free speech versus hate speech for at least four-/fifteen years now. The attacks in New York of 2001 sparked some overt populist commentary on some minorities within our multicultural society that took shape during the last decades of the 20th century (not exclusively in politics, but also among artists and writers - culminating in one columnist being murdered by a Muslim extremist, followed by accusations towards the religion itself that allegedly demanded this culprit to act accordingly - with some very uncivilised and hateful terms entering the rhetoric of this national debate, simply to put emphasis/weight on their viewpoint <- kind of like "come on, think this way because: look at 'em" *points at headscarfs*). Over here, we spoke (and still speak) about the "right of free speech" versus "the right to insult". The best answer to this question I could find (by proxy) so far came in the form of a quote by the Dutch humanistic philosopher Erasmus, whose resolution it was to "let everyone honor their own convictions without insulting those of others"[1][2].

Another famous (Golden) rule of thumb is to "do as you would be done by/ do unto others as you would have them do unto you/ do unto as you would to others/ do to others as you would have them do to you". This would cancel out inhospitability and animosity towards anyone seeking asylum from a warzone, simply based on their differring beliefs. The problem is that some people can't fathom this situation (either to flee from war or even to be religious) and therefore act according to their prejudice and fear of what is unknown (in the Netherlands, since a year now a tv-show has been broadcasted about 'those people', confronting them with their prejudices and checking whether they might nuance their opinion after having been physically taken to a refugee camp in the Middle-East - to their credit, they usually do, as these vocal people tend to be narrow-minded but honest; in their defence, it is a pretty big problem and not wanting to have any part in it because being in the position to avoid it is literally easier in the short term).

The statement that (the) "Islam is not compatible with certain western values" is a somewhat bigoted contention, or at least something that can be debated/founded on arguments/disproven. It sounds like a hollow frase to me, by someone who has not met an actual Muslim, but would rather speak from prejudice (as in: guilty until proven innocent). The possibility could even exist that such person *has* met an actual Muslim, but plays into the ignorance (or the existing fear) of those who haven't, therefore creating or attributing to a hateful rhetoric that is populistic (meaning that it plays into people's sentiment rather than challenges their rationality), simply not making life easier for the ones they speak of.

I suppose that this resolution aims to tackle multiple forms of harassment towards Muslims, who are (I would like to say 'currently' but this trend has lasted for a decade and a half) being called out/treated as a singular entity with a handful of leaders while in general (their) faith is their only common denominator, encompassing many nationalities.

I'm unsure what "condemn" would mean within a governmental framework, and I don't know how such a resolution translates itself into daily practice, but as a mindset I would support it, as it is the opposite of endorsing or ignoring racism/discrimination.

Could it be that people dislike this resolution because they find it patronizing and/or unnecessary or even unclear as they try to see more into it? In my opinion, to some extent, a government has an example function and the ability to take into account the welfare of their citizens, so maybe the question would be whether (the intent of) this resolution should fall under that function. I think it should, don't you?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted I oppose this resolution.
2 votes,
Jan 26, 2016

"I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it."

Really, you oppose the 1st amendment, you know the right to free speech, and the Fourteenth Amendment?

There is no right to be free from insult, and most hate crime legislation is probably in violation of the fourteenth amendment.

Once you start down that path, you have to protect all groups from bigotry, and hateful rhetoric, how many Liberals have said things that are hateful about Conservative and Conservative about Liberals? Are you willing to toss them into jail? How about when Muslims say things about other religious groups, going to toss them in jail too? No this is a bad resolution by someone trying to be PC, and personally I hope it comes back to bite them when they are up for elections. I can see the questions now, Rep. Beyer why do you oppose free speech? Why do you want special protection for one religion and not others?

Of course there would be a lot of non-answers answers and double speak.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted I support this resolution.
1 vote,
Jan 27, 2016

What makes you think that I oppose the right to free speech?

I wrote that in my country, the right of free speech has been taken to extremes (actually undermining constitutional liberties on grounds of which faith you practice <- one of the tags for this opinion item actually says "religious tolerance", so there's a clue), and that we've adressed this problem numerous times (which is the least you can do, since to be silent is to consent). Some expressions and actions are simply in poor taste, and when tricentennial laws fall short because constitutional forefathers couldn't fathom at the time that in the far future people would communicate their disapproval with a couple of scattered pork-corpses to send a message, public opinion usually takes over.

"Once you start down that path, you have to protect all groups from bigotry, and hateful rhetoric." <- Good idea.

"How many Liberals have said things that are hateful about Conservative and Conservative about Liberals?" <- I know, right?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted I oppose this resolution.
0 votes,
Jan 27, 2016

"What makes you think that I oppose the right to free speech?"

This statement

"I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it."

"Once you start down that path, you have to protect all groups from bigotry, and hateful rhetoric." <- Good idea.

Really? and you think you support free speech? Think about that statement, and think what would happen if someone would say, "I won't vote for Catholics, because their're Catholics, (or Jewish or Muslim)" that statement would make them guilty of bigotry. Basically you could NEVER say anything bad about any group, even if it's true.

" constitutional forefathers couldn't fathom " Ah yes they did, did you forget about the Boston Tea party, the burning of the Peggy Stewart, the burning of the Gaspee, they would think scattered pork-corpses mild in comparison. Don't forget the forefathers were getting ready to take on one of the greatest power of their time, and were ready and did die for the cause.

You are much better oft letting bigots vent, say their "hateful rhetoric" than squashing it, it won't stop bigots, it won't stop hateful rhetoric, but it will make bigots heroes who are standing up for free speech, because the government won't let them speak. How may time have you heard, the government won't let us tell you, if the government stops free speech then that statement is true, and once a few people go to jail, then it's so and so is in jail for trying to speak out. Even if you disagree with them, the issue become if it's not true then why is the government trying to stop it. Maybe it's true that X groups really does X. But nobody could even debate it, because if someone do say X group does this, they would go to jail.

No we are much better of making fun of the bigot and pointing out why they are wrong then trying to stop them from speaking.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted I support this resolution.
0 votes,
Jan 27, 2016

"I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it."

I don't understand how you link that sentence with my stance on freedom of speech in general. What I literally meant, reading the resolution: although the outline of the resolution is clear, I wonder how they will put it in practice, because I don't see that anywhere in the text. End of sentence.

I don't think saying "something bad" about a group is the exact same thing as to discriminate against a group. Prejudice, discrimination and racism are three different things. It's nearly impossible to make sure prejudice doesn't exist in this world (although it is part of human condition, it's probably better to challenge whatever assumptions you have from time to time, if someone else didn't already defended themselves against whatever ignorant accusation that had their name on it), but I do think that systematic practices (i.e. by corporations, political parties, government-funded instances) against certain minorities or groups based on religion, gender, faith, sexual persuasion, etc. (it seems like they invent a new trend every few decades, but it's still the same basic tune of a song) should be condemned.

This resolution doesn't even mention jailtime. Or making fun of bigots (I think that's a voluntary option; not mandatory - even with this resolution on the table). How do you conclude from my words that "protecting" people means "to throw bigots in jail"?

Still though: you are saying that the bigot who makes fun of a vulnerable individual belonging to a group based on X, should not be made fun of because (s)he is actually the victim, like the ones they victimize?

And why do you presume I know of Peggy Stewart.

subscribe
load further replies (17)
100
1 vote
Jan 31, 2016

Regretfully, those people who form opinions and views from the depth of their ignorance always recognise one of their own.

In Trump they have hit the mother load.

Although the Syrian conflict is often presented as being Muslim or Islamic motivated it is not. It is both tribal and is, as with all wars, being conducted by the few over the bodies and lives of millions.

No sin is so great that it cannot be committed in all the variations of Gods names.

subscribe
100
User voted I oppose this resolution.
1 vote
Jun 7, 2016

I am not even american but this resolution made no sense, because at least in my country violence and incitation to it are always condemned.

And even if it pain me to admit it, (i'm italian, so very close to the Vatican state) bigotry is not a crime, you can't punish someone based on his ideas or ideology if he does not commit a crime

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: