We don't want to repeat the Jeffersonian model. We cannot say 'All humans are created equal,' and then we go back to sit down at our mansion and we have slaves working in the very house we are talking about.
What'd most disturbing is the context of these remarks, in a speech focused on how Muslims "are not just another community to bring into the mainstream." Is Omeid arguing that Muslim Americans are like the "slaves" in his Jefferson analogy? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't sound good to me at all.
Anyway, the question remains, how on earth was a guy with this background appointed to a state panel? I don't know, but in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, Secretary of the Commonwealth Kate Hanley "said her office did a Google search on Omeish and found nothing amiss." But in under 5 minutes on Google, I found this from April 2007 -- nearly 6 months ago. Yes, that's the speech where Omeish talks about "the jihad way." And yes, the story was on "Hannity's America" TV show last spring. So no, Secretary Hanley, you don't actually need to use Lexis-Nexis and other advanced research tools on something as obvious as this one, just 5 minutes on Google searching for the guy's name would do the trick.
By the way, I'm well aware that "jihad" can have spiritual, religious, and other connotations aside from violence. But in the context of Omeish's remarks about Israel, I have ZERO doubt in my mind exactly what he's talking about: the destruction of Israel and the liberation of "all of Filasteen."
P.S. According to the RTD article, Hanley "said she knew Omeish personally and also knew who recommended his appointment, but she did not feel at liberty to disclose who did." I think it's time to reveal that information to the public.
P.P.S. One more point -- there is NOTHING "progressive" about religious intolerance, advocating violence, etc.
Robert Kaplan pointed out in a 1992 Atlantic article, "The Coming Anarchy," that some 75% of all Arabs had been born after the last Arab Israeli war. Think what that figure would be today. Consider the context from which they are working.
Filistinean ideas have been shaped by those who use them and then cast them aside. The successful Palistinean diaspora worldwide contributes little to the cause. The fraternal Arab nations funnel money to gain influence and create a convenient distraction.
Jihad is all its meanings at once. They are inseparable concepts. At least until the eventual and inevitable reformation.
In this quote:
I see someone railing against the apparent hypocrisy of Jefferson who claimed "All men are created equal" and then went on to live comfortably as a wealthy landowner benefiting from his slaves' hard labor.
I'm no expert, and obviously there's a lot more to explore in Mr. Omeish' background. Still, the blind veneration of our leaders and forefathers can be a dangerous game, leading to all kinds of jingoistic, reactionary, and unreasoned attacks against truth.
I think it is precisely the conflict between his deist ideals and the economic and political realities he faced that make Jefferson the great man and powerful historical figure that he is. I do not believe, however, that he is entitled to deification any more than Franklin, Washington, Roosevelt or either Bush.
These are men who are all the more important because of their interior conflicts, and in this case I see no reason to question Mr. Omeish right to speak out and identify those conflicts.
This is still America, and we serve Jefferson's ideals, and heritage best when we remember that the most important role in this nation is that of "citizen", no one is beyond question, and none here are deified.
Robotic jingoism and hysteria levied against Dr. Omeish and against Muslims in general is something to avoid, not embrace and perpetuate.
Muslims in this country lack the political organization and clout of AIPAC and its allies, so they are particularly vulnerable to being demonized in the public square and MSM.
At the same time, AIPAC, according to several Capitol Hill sources, literally drafted the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment seeking to pave the way for attacking Iran. Yet one has to go to the www, not the U.S. MSM, to find such reporting.
However, there's a bit of hypocrisy, too, in judging Jefferson by totally modern standards. And most likely Jefferson or his family obtained their slaves from the Muslim Arabs who were the main slave traders in Africa at the time.
Many, many people were complicit in the slave trade. So let's ditch that canard.
I bristle at the idea that anyone is judging by "totally modern standards." We just didn't invent the idea of equality and social justice in this decade.
I think Jefferson's hypocrisy is fair game--he was hypocritical with respect to the slavery issue--but I can moderate my judgment given that his historical context is not ours.
As far as traders go, I could be wrong, but I believe most of the slave trading was carried about by Portuguese, Spanish, and American merchants. Some Rhode Island/Rogue's Island families got rich off trafficking in the mid to late 18th century.
I lived in West Africa for a while in Benin, formerly known as Dahomey, where many slaves originated. As a matter of fact, the Bight of Benin (the curve or armpit of West Africa) was known as the Slave Coast. The local Fon tribe was very active in conquering neighboring tribes and selling captives to the Portuguese and French in exchange for cannons and other goodies, and the Fon and Yoruba slaver kings were devastated when the English banned the practice. Of course, people are unaware that when the Brits started to enforce their ban, when they encountered slave ships and impounded them, they would bring the slave cargo to Jamaica and other British plantation colonies, NOT back to their homes in Africa.
So, in my long-winded way I guess what I'm saying here is that when it comes to slavery no one's hands are clean. Lots of shame to be shared here.
What I'm saying is that if Richmond missed this, they should have heard about it from DHS first. Why not?
If there are those here today who do not think the Christian Right doesn't have it's own "jihad", think again. I remember a few years back when the Richmond Times Disgrace...whoops I mean Dispatch criticised the Republicans in the Va. congress for worrying too much about how to slip prayer into schools and letting the Commonwealth's economy sink.
And a brief word on Jefferson, despite his "imperfections"...golly ghee that means he was human after all, he wrote a bill that the Virginia General Assembly was the first to pass anywhere in history that became a basis for an important part of the Constitution. That was the Statute For Religious Freedom. Something that many Virginians and Americans seem to have forgotten.
Frankly, I have gotten tired of those who seek to tear down men and women who had the minds and fortitude to put down such great ideas and ideals. Some unfortunatly failed to live them but they sure as hell beat who we look up to today (i.e. OJ, Barry Bonds, Mark Mcquire, P Ditty, Eminem, Paris Hylton, etc).
I'm one of those who think that most (I said most) organized religions have one thing in common: their undying desire to prove their religion is THE true religion and all others are wrong, evil, infidels and on and on and on. Ever noticed that?
But politically it was a really bad idea, again politically, for Governor Kaine's staff to have not completed enough research to learn that Dr. Omeish is President of the Muslim American Society, that acknowledges it's roots are Muslim Brotherhood. Ms. Hanley said she is a personal friend of Dr. Omeish but didn't know of his MAS association? I'll give her a pass on that for now.
Whether, MAS or Dr. Omeish represent a security problem (then would not the FBI be involved?), to me is not the issue at this point. The issue is that the APPEARANCE to Virginians is that this nomination was unwise politically and should have been avoided. What were they thinking?
Comments
We don't want to repeat the Jeffersonian model. We cannot say 'All humans are created equal,' and then we go back to sit down at our mansion and we have slaves working in the very house we are talking about.